U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 9

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 29, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





November 29, 2016











TRANSCRIPT:

2:43 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hi everybody.

QUESTION: Hi.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Sorry I’m a couple minutes late. A couple things here at the top, if you’ll just bear with me. First on the plane crash today with Brazil’s athletes. We are obviously deeply saddened by the news of this crash outside Medellin which claimed dozens of lives, including many members of the Brazilian Chapecoense soccer team. We are in communication, of course, with Colombian authorities and will provide assistance as requested, as I’m given to understand the NTSB has been asked for some assistance, and we’ll be mobilizing to provide whatever’s required.

Obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims, and with all the people of Brazil today as they deal with this very difficult news.

On the Secretary’s call list, I want to point out – I think you saw I put out a statement, but I would like to reiterate today that the Secretary spoke with Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama of the ruling National Democratic Congress Party and New Patriotic Party presidential candidate Nana Akufo-Addo in advance of Ghana’s elections on the 7th of December. The Secretary underscored to both candidates the need to ensure a peaceful and fair electoral process and post-election period, including by publicly pledging to reject violence and address any issues through the judicial system and calling on all of their supporters to do exactly the same. He also urged both candidates to attend the December 1st peace summit in Accra. The Secretary cited Ghana’s position as a leading democracy in Africa and recognized the long history of close relations between the United States and Ghana. He stressed our desire to continue to advance our shared priorities with whoever prevails in Ghana’s election.

Finally, a travel note. The Secretary will be traveling to Rome and Vatican City on the 2nd and 3rd of December – that’s later on this week – for bilateral meetings and to participate in the Rome Mediterranean Dialogues. In Rome, the Secretary will meet with Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni to discuss cooperation on a range of regional and global issues, including Libya, Syria, Iraq, and, of course, the enduring strength of the transatlantic alliance.

At the Rome Mediterranean Dialogues, the Secretary will work with other senior leaders to deepen cooperation on a range of challenges and opportunities across the Mediterranean region, including advancing the dialogues’ vision of a positive agenda in areas such as entrepreneurship, innovation, and people-to-people exchanges. In Vatican City, the Secretary will meet with Holy See Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin to discuss international issues and peace efforts, including the humanitarian situation in Syria, violence in Ukraine, and the ongoing dialogue in Venezuela.

So a busy end of the week for the Secretary. With that, Brad.

QUESTION: Can we start with Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s been more attacks in eastern Aleppo, reports of at least 20 people killed. On the other hand, the Syrian Government says it’s trying to step up vetting of those fleeing to make sure the people – civilians can pass and extremists can’t. What is your take on the situation?

MR KIRBY: Well, broadly speaking, obviously, we continue to decry the violence and the bloodshed in Aleppo and the continued efforts by the Syrian regime to take – to reduce the city to rubble in an effort to retake it. Still no humanitarian aid has gotten in. Still so many civilians are afraid to leave, and afraid to stay – afraid to leave because they could be taken on the road out. And you talked about vetting; I can’t speak for the quality of their vetting, but clearly past actions by the regime of civilians trying to leave and the bloodshed that they have suffered, the attacks that they have come under, make them scared to leave; they’re scared to stay, because the bombs continue to drop.

So we’ve seen this – the – these kind of calls before for being able to leave and safe passage that have never – that have not turned out. And yet what we haven’t seen is a reduction in the bombing and the violence and any delivery of humanitarian aid – food, water, medicine – to the still thousands and thousands of people that are still desperate for help.

QUESTION: Has there been any progress in either of the tracks of the Geneva talks, either on the aid front, or two, on the Aleppo cessation of hostilities?

MR KIRBY: Sadly, I’m not able to report any tangible progress in those talks. They do continue, and as I said yesterday, we wouldn’t still be at the table in this multilateral format if we didn’t think it was worth it. But I don’t have any progress specifically to report out today.

QUESTION: And then any further interaction or telephone calls between the Secretary and the Russian foreign minister?

MR KIRBY: No, nothing additional. Hasn’t spoken to him since Tuesday.

QUESTION: There’s been some reports suggesting they might meet soon, perhaps even on this trip to Rome that you spoke about. Is that a possibility?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything additional on the Secretary’s schedule to read out for you when he’s in Rome. That’s why I kind of detailed as much as I could, that that – those are the things we know about. But I can’t rule a potential sideline meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov out. It’s certainly possible, but we’ll let you know as soon as that firms up – if it firms up.

QUESTION: And then just the last one from me on Syria/Russia. The Pentagon has come out with its report or part of the report on the September 17th incident.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Given that it’s pretty self-critical – well, it’s very self-critical; you guys --

MR KIRBY: Indeed. Indeed it is.

QUESTION: -- made a series of mistakes – has there been any conversation between anyone in this building or in the State Department writ large with someone from Russia or anybody else to indirectly convey anything to Syria?

MR KIRBY: No, not that I’m aware of, Brad. I think you saw this. The Pentagon just really released their findings today. I’m not aware of any contact or communication from the State Department with respect to this particular incident.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: A couple Syria questions. The Turkish military said that they have lost contact with two of their soldiers in northern Syria. Do you all have any information on that?

MR KIRBY: I’m afraid I don’t.

QUESTION: Okay. And then on the issue of just contacts with Russia, aside from Secretary Kerry, have there been any other kind of bilateral contacts, either face to face or otherwise, between U.S. and Russian officials?

MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of. Nothing that I’m aware of. And as I said, when it comes to Syria, the suspension of U.S.-Russia bilateral communications specifically with regard to the cessation of hostilities in Syria is still in place. So there wouldn’t normally be any such bilateral engagement. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t – isn’t possible to have conversations, and the Secretary continues to do that, but I’m not aware of anything beneath his level bilaterally with Russia with respect to what’s going on in Syria.

QUESTION: Can I just follow --

QUESTION: You’ve expressed concern in the past about uncoordinated Turkish activity in this area. As you understand at the moment, is the Turkish operation in northern Syria in coordination with the coalition against ISIL, or is there – are there still operations going on by your Turkish partners that are not coordinated with your activities?

MR KIRBY: Well, caveating this with the – a very frank admission that I am not privy to Turkish military operations on a day-to-day basis, we continue to be concerned about uncoordinated military activity in that part of Syria. We want activity against Daesh to be coordinated and part of coalition efforts. I’m not aware that any recent activity by Turkish forces fit that mold, but I would strongly urge you to consult with my Defense Department colleagues and with Turkish military officials. I’m just – I’m a bit at a loss because I don’t follow their tactical operations day to day.

QUESTION: Yes, just on the Syria situation. So in the absence of direct contact with the Russians, what are you doing? I mean, are you just waiting for eastern Aleppo to come totally under the control of the Syrian regime before you --

MR KIRBY: Said, I mean, I think you know we’ve talked about this a lot. I --

QUESTION: I mean, I understand your position on Syria, but I’m saying in this period over the next, let’s say, week or couple weeks, as most analysts expect that eastern Aleppo will fall completely under the control of Syrian – the Syrian army. What are you doing in the interim, in the – during this period?

MR KIRBY: We continue to engage multilaterally in Geneva to try to get a framework for a cessation of hostilities that can be enforced and sustained, particularly in Aleppo. That is the effort that we continue to pursue, and every day I get up here and I continue to talk about our deep concerns about the actions of the Assad regime and of the support they get from Moscow to do exactly what they’re doing. We’ve said – and I think this is what you’re getting at, but let me just restate it for the sake of restating it – that our firm belief is that there has to be a political solution to the civil war in Syria, not a military one. And so if you’re asking what additionally we’re doing, we’re putting as much energy and effort as we can into trying to reach that political solution, trying to get a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian aid so that you can create the conditions for political talks to resume, because that’s the right way forward.

And, obviously, the Syrian regime has other ideas and they continue to bomb and to gas and to starve their own people. And what we’ve said from the very beginning is that all that’s going to do, that strategy – a strategy, by the way, which is – which finds – obviously, it finds purchase in Moscow, because they are continuing to back and support the Assad regime – but all it’s going to do is attract more extremists to Syria. All it’s going to do is prolong – not hasten the end, but prolong the civil conflict in Syria. And therefore, all it’s going to do is prolong the bloodshed and the depredations that the Syrian people continue to endure.

QUESTION: If and when the Syrian forces take over eastern Aleppo, most analysts believe that all urban areas will have come under the control of the regime, where you will have massive or huge needs of humanitarian aid and so on. Will you be willing – the United States will be willing to infuse these urban areas, the big areas – Damascus, Homs, Hama, Halab, even Idlib to the north – would you be able to send in direct aid to these cities?

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: Even if they are under the control of the regime?

MR KIRBY: -- the continued focus on getting aid to the people of Syria, wherever they are – and I know we’re focused on Aleppo – is going to be through the UN because that’s the right way to do it. The UN’s equipped to handle this and they have done it successfully in the past, not often enough, but they have been able to do that. Obviously, you need cooperation from the regime and from their Russian backers to be able to get that aid delivered safely and securely and into the hands of the people that need it. And even when aid has made it to some of these cities and towns, some of the ones you mentioned, we’ve seen Syrian soldiers at the very last step ripping out medicine and not letting it go forward. So we continue to believe that the UN’s the right approach here, that they’re the right vehicle to do this, and we’re going to continue to support their efforts to try to make that happen.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria. France and Britain has called the UN Security Council to meet to discuss Syria and the situation in Aleppo. Have you joined their efforts in the UN?

MR KIRBY: I think we would certainly support, as the Secretary has said many a time, we support good ideas from every corner when it comes to trying to solve the conflict in Syria. So I’m not here and I’m not able to announce any specific U.S. participation in this effort, but we’re mindful of the proposal made. We are supportive of the UN taking that up as a matter of discussion, and we’ll see where it goes.

QUESTION: Is the Security Council able to do anything, do you think, at this time? Security --

MR KIRBY: I think the Security Council remains focused on this, Michel. I mean --

QUESTION: But with the Russian veto every time --

MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak for the – Russia’s vote here. We’re not unmindful of the fact that they sit on the Security Council and that they have a different view of how to move Syria forward – certainly a different view of late, anyway. But that doesn’t mean that discussions inside the UN are a bad idea or that we shouldn’t still try to consider working through the Security Council to achieve better outcomes. I just don’t have anything specific to report out in terms of future.

QUESTION: And one more question for me. France has called for a meeting for Friends of Syria in Paris. Would the U.S. attend this meeting?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to announce or to speak to at this point. I’ve only seen some press reporting of this idea. If that changes, we’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: More?

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Are we done on Syria? Are you on Syria?

QUESTION: No. I’m on Yemen.

MR KIRBY: Yemen. Go ahead.

QUESTION: All right. Very quickly, have you seen the op-ed written by former President Jimmy Carter?

MR KIRBY: I have.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on his call that you – the steps that must be taken before January 20th is to grant the American diplomatic recognition to the state of Palestine, as 137 countries have already done, and help it to achieve full United Nations membership?

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we have great respect for former President Carter and for his tireless efforts to achieve peace while he was in office and certainly in the years following his presidency. He’s a great American. Our view hasn’t changed that we believe that the preferred path for the Palestinians to achieve statehood is through direct negotiations that will lead to a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution.

QUESTION: And how would your recognition contradict negotiations? I mean, couldn’t you just say at the primaries, we say we recognize this cause. Because you’re always calling for a two-state solution, and pretty much you negotiated for months on end. Basically things are pretty outlined, so to speak, pretty delineated, right?

MR KIRBY: I’m not sure I understand the question.

QUESTION: Okay. The question is that in the U.S. vision there is a concept of what this state should look like, correct, the Palestinian state that you are calling for? It has --

MR KIRBY: We want a two-state solution.

QUESTION: You want a two-state solution. But there is a geography that you have in mind for this – for this Palestinian – the state (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: We have made clear our concern about settlements.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So – all right. So why not then pursue whatever – what he’s suggesting, that you – the principle, you recognize the principle of the Palestinian state and you join the 137 other countries?

MR KIRBY: Again, our position is that recognizing the Palestinian state before negotiated settlements – excuse me – would be premature.

QUESTION: So do you expect negotiations to sort of be – to start up again any time soon?

MR KIRBY: We would – I think, obviously, we would welcome a resumption of the negotiations. We’ve long said that. But in order to get there, you have to see tangible leadership on both sides to ratchet down the rhetoric and to reduce the violence and to show a willingness to sit down and have discussions about a two-state solution. That hasn’t been the case.

QUESTION: It’s not expected to happen in the next six weeks, is it?

MR KIRBY: I’m not a fortuneteller.

QUESTION: Okay. I have one last question. I was struck by what the Secretary of State said today in his remarks. He said – I mean, he concluded this four-year effort by saying, quote: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Is that the conclusion of the Secretary of State that this has – we give up?

MR KIRBY: I think --

QUESTION: We give up; we are at the end of this process?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I saw your tweet, Said. I think slapping a bumper sticker solution onto what he said grossly overstates what he meant. What he meant was exactly what I just said to you: That we need to see the leadership on both sides take the kinds of actions to realize a two-state solution; to commit to a willingness to sit down and have those kinds of discussions and to effect those kinds of negotiations. And his point was exactly and succinctly right: You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. You have to – ultimately – and we’ve said this time and time again – you have to see leadership exuded and demonstrated there in the region. They have to be willing to get to this two-state solution or it’s not going to be sustainable. And I think if you go back and look at the transcript of his remarks, you’ll see that he expounded on that thought in exactly – almost exactly those words. Okay.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we talk about Georgia?

MR KIRBY: Wait a minute. I’ve got to – I’m going to stay in the Middle East, if that’s okay.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Yemen. Secretary of State Kerry said during the Women’s Foreign Policy Group that in the days ahead there’ll be more progress to announce regarding the solution to the conflicts in Yemen. I wonder, do you have any update on that or any readout from calls between Secretary Kerry and his counterparts in that region? And also, given the UN envoy just came out and said that the formation of a new Houthis government is a new and concerning obstacle to the government. How do we square up?

MR KIRBY: Well, I said the same thing in my statement last night. And obviously, we don’t find that action conducive at all to trying to get to the kind of political – negotiated political solution that can matter for the Yemeni people.

Look, I’m not going to get ahead of discussions that are ongoing. The Secretary has been nothing but forthright, privately and publicly, about his desire to get a better future for the Yemeni people – to get the conflict to stop, to reach a political solution, a negotiated political solution, that can bring aid to the Yemeni people, can stop the violence, the bloodshed, and try to move a political process forward there. And he’s working it very, very hard, as he is in Libya.

Now in Libya, we have a Government of National Accord that is internationally recognized, but they are still challenged by extremists in Libyan territory, and there’s a lot of work to be done there as well to solidify this sitting government. And again, he will, for the – for every day that he remains Secretary of State, continue to work this very hard. I just don’t have anything to readout to you or to announce or to speak to specifically with respect to that.

QUESTION: Are you --

QUESTION: Did you – go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, are you concerned about actually Yemen breaking up into two? I mean, after all, it was south Yemen and north Yemen and pretty much the lines of demarcation --

MR KIRBY: I think --

QUESTION: -- or fighting are really along these lines.

MR KIRBY: I think what we’re concerned about is seeing – getting to a point where the violence can stop, that the aid can get to the – to people in need, and that we can get a political solution found to the conflict that’s going on in Yemen. I wouldn’t speculate one way or another about potential outcomes there. Obviously, we want to see the nation – the country of Yemen preserved and, more critically, governing institutions that are responsible for and responsive to the Yemeni people established and sustained in a way that the international community can continue to support, obviously, but more critically, they can continue to support or can support the needs of the Yemeni people.

QUESTION: Can I – I mean, since you raised Libya – do you have any information about – there’s an area just outside Benghazi called Ganfouda that’s been essentially under siege for the last couple months. People can’t get out; they can’t get any food in, lots of women and children supposedly almost on the brink of starvation.

MR KIRBY: I mean, we’re aware of this situation there and elsewhere in Libya. I don’t have anything specific with respect to the situation on the ground right now.

QUESTION: Well, the reason I ask is not so much that you control the forces of Mr. Haftar or even anyone else in Libya, but some of the people who are talking about trying to get aid into this area say they can’t get in because there are NATO ships also blocking the seaport in the Benghazi area, because of extremism concerns, but that they also can’t get any aid in and that would be some --

MR KIRBY: Because NATO ships are off the coast?

QUESTION: Yeah. So they said --

MR KIRBY: You know what, let me take that question, Brad.

QUESTION: So they said --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any blockage by NATO of aid getting in.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I would find that highly difficult to believe, but --

QUESTION: Or a NATO country perhaps.

MR KIRBY: But I’ll check on that. I --

QUESTION: That’d be helpful. Thanks.

MR KIRBY: That’s the first – yeah, I just don’t have anything on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: And I don’t want to speculate.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Libya too, General Khalifa Haftar was in Russia today asking for arms to fight extremists in Libya. Do you have any reaction?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I mean, I’ve seen press reports on his travel. I’d let him speak to his travel. I’m not going to comment on who he’s meeting with or what he’s doing, what they’re saying. What I can tell you is that the United States remains fully committed to working with Prime Minister al-Sarraj, the Government of National Accord, and the UN special representative. And we’re going to continue to work with all of them to strengthen security in Libya and improve the capacity of national military forces to secure the country and to confront Daesh, which continues to have a presence in Libya.

The GNA is Libya’s sole legitimate recipient of international security assistance, as the international community made clear in the May 16th Vienna communique on Libya. And all Libyan forces, including General Haftar and the Libyan National Army, should unite under the GNA’s civilian command. Now is the time, as we’ve said many times, for Libya to build a national military force that’s capable of securing and defending their citizens and their country.

QUESTION: Based on this, that means you oppose any delivery of arms from Russia to --

MR KIRBY: As I said, the GNA is Libya’s sole legitimate recipient of international security assistance.

Okay.

QUESTION: So would it be a breach, in your understanding of current sanctions, if weapons were to be sent to General Haftar?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ll leave it where I said it, that they are the sole legitimate international recipient of international security assistance, and I don’t think it’s useful to speculate beyond that right now.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And do you not consider Haftar as a part of the GNA?

MR KIRBY: The question is: Does – what does General Haftar consider himself to be? We want everybody to be supportive of the GNA. I’ve said that time and time again, and we continue to make that case.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Let me go – this gentleman’s been waiting.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: After the October elections, the ruling party in Georgia gained a supermajority in legislature. According to the civil society organizations and watchdog groups, now the Georgian Government has overall control of political institutions, judiciary, and the media. And there is a serious imminent danger that the only nationwide independent television station, Rustavi 2, can be taken over by the government proxy. I wonder if you raised this question with Georgian Government officials and if you’re concerned on this.

MR KIRBY: Well, what I would say is our understanding is the supreme court is still considering an appeal of the rulings of the appellate and lower courts with respect to transferred ownership of Rustavi 2. We’re obviously concerned about the decision’s implication for pluralism in Georgia’s media space. As we’ve said in the past, freedom of media, political pluralism, and independence of the judiciary are essential foundations of any democracy and they – and we believe they remain critical to Georgia’s successful Euro-Atlantic integration.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? There were concerns about selective justice and politically motivated prosecutions in Georgia voiced by a number of international organizations. And the U.S. Government itself made several times statement on that, in particular about the arrest of former Tbilisi mayor Gigi Ugulava. I was wondering if you still are concerned on this issue and if you’re continuing raising those issues with the Georgian Government.

MR KIRBY: We obviously continue to follow these sorts of events very, very closely. They do remain of concern. And without getting into specifics of diplomatic conversations, we continue to voice and raise those concerns through diplomatic channels as appropriate.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey. In France, investigators have found that Turkey was probably involved in the murder of three Kurdish activists in Paris. Are you worried that a NATO member might be involved in assassinations in other NATO capitals?

MR KIRBY: I just haven’t seen that report. And I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it just hearing it for the first time, so I think I’m going to defer answering until we have some more information about that.

Okay? Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali with ARY News TV. Sir, last month on October 7th, United States released a travel advisory about Pakistan in which the Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all non-essential travel to Pakistan. Sir, what --

MR KIRBY: You don’t need to read it to me. I remember. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So what is the latest situation there? What is your advice to the American citizens right now for the Pakistani, because --

MR KIRBY: Well, my advice would be to get on our website and read our Travel Warnings. They are not indicative of bilateral relations with any country. They’re simply a part of our commitment to provide up-to-date – as up-to-date as possible information to U.S. citizens that are traveling or residing abroad. We want them to be able to make informed travel decisions, and that’s what this Travel Warning did. I would point out that the warning you’re reading from was October 7th, and that was a routine update. And as you well know, we update these things routinely, roughly on a – roughly – six-month basis. It doesn’t always come right down to six months, but this was a routine update.

QUESTION: Sir, one of the reason the State Department cited: The sectarian violence remains a serious threat throughout Pakistan, like the religious minorities have been victim of targeted killings and accusations of blasphemy. Sir, do you really think that Pakistan is making any progress in the protection of religious minorities?

MR KIRBY: Look, I think this is a topic of discussion that we routinely have with Pakistani officials. I think, without getting into specifics – and I’ve said this before – Pakistani leaders know all too well the threats of extremism and terrorism inside their own borders because they’ve lost too many soldiers, they’ve lost too many citizens. So of course, we continue to have conversations with them about the extremist threat that resides inside of their own borders.

QUESTION: Pakistani authorities in Islamabad met with the U.S. ambassador and asked him – in fact requested him – for the change in the travel advisory because Pakistan is seeking more American investor in the two big projects – CPEC, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and Gwadar port. Sir, do you really think Americans go to Pakistan for investment in these two big projects?

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, you’re right; they did raise their concerns about the Travel Warning with us. Here’s a newsflash: That’s not uncommon when these things get issued. And we welcome discussion on that, but we have an obligation to keep Americans informed. And again, I would remind you this was a Travel Warning. It wasn’t based on some specific credible threat. It was a routine update to a warning. And it wasn’t meant nor is any Travel Warning meant to discourage people from actually traveling or doing legitimate business. That’s not the purpose of it at all.

And now, your second question in terms of what it’s going to do to American business men and women, I can’t possibly predict that. Those are decisions they have to make. But we have an obligation to our own citizens to keep them up to date, and we’ve done that. But again, I think it’s really important for you and for people in Pakistan to understand what a Travel Warning is. It is simply providing, in this case, a routine update of general information so that they can make informed decisions about traveling – not not to go, just to be informed as they go. And Pakistan is not the only country in the world for which we have existing Travel Warnings.

QUESTION: Sir, one last question about Pakistan and India. Sir, during the last couple of months, a dozen of soldiers and civilians killed on both side of the border, then – you know the tensions are there. Sir, is there any kind of recent contact with the Pakistani or Indian authorities about what really is happening and (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I’m not going to – I’m not going to talk with any detail about the attacks you’re speaking of. We’re certainly aware of them. As I understand it, one of them may, in fact, be ongoing as you and I speak, so completely inappropriate for me to comment one way or the other as local authorities are dealing with these threats. And in at least one case, investigations are just now beginning. We want to respect that process. And look, we’ve talked about the threat of extremism there in the region. It affects everybody on both sides. And we continue to want to see dialogue and discussion between India and Pakistan to improve cooperation, to improve communication, and improve shared efforts against a common threat.

Okay?

QUESTION: Can I ask you about Cuba?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: It seemed that the ambassador-designate, or the acting ambassador --

MR KIRBY: The charge, yeah.

QUESTION: -- charge will go to the funeral along with Deputy National Security Advisor Rhodes. It was described as an unofficial or a not-formal delegation. Can you explain what that means?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t want to tread too much on White House equities. They get to determine – they make those decisions. But as I understand it, it’s based on the fact that Fidel Castro was not head of state. His brother Raul was head of state. And I think it was really based on that and it was also based on, obviously --

QUESTION: Well, what does it mean that it’s not an official delegation? Not – not – I mean, you had an official delegation for Peres’ funeral. He wasn’t head of state.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’d refer you to White House protocol for their --

QUESTION: I just – I don’t --

MR KIRBY: They made this decision.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But --

QUESTION: But I just don’t know what it means.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’m not a protocol expert. I just --

QUESTION: Me either.

MR KIRBY: So I’d have to point you back to --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I mean, I’m not a Turkish military expert. I’m not a protocol expert.

QUESTION: Yeah. I thought that was a diplomacy thing because it’s U.S. vis-a-vis a foreign government.

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I suppose there’s a diplomatic component to it. I’m just not smart enough to know the difference between an official and an unofficial. I just would point you back to what the White House said, but obviously, look, it’s – he wasn’t a head of state and there’s a history there in terms of his conduct and character as a leader that obviously factors into these kinds of decisions.

QUESTION: I understand that can – well, I’m not going to belabor it, but I understand that’s why you would say it’s not official. I just don’t know what in practical terms it means. Did they not – I mean, they’re not going at their own expense, they’re still taking taxpayer money to get there,

MR KIRBY: Well, the charge doesn’t --

QUESTION: They still represent the United --

MR KIRBY: The charge – he’s already there, so --

QUESTION: They still represent the United States while they’re there.

MR KIRBY: Oh, yes.

QUESTION: They’re not wearing Hawaiian shorts and t-shirts, so they’re dressed appropriately.

MR KIRBY: I can call Jeff --

QUESTION: So I don’t know what it means.

MR KIRBY: I’ll call Jeff and ask what he’s wearing --

QUESTION: That’s the problem.

MR KIRBY: But I --

QUESTION: It sounds like a way of saying we’re there, but we’re not really there --

MR KIRBY: Let me --

QUESTION: -- because you’re scared of being criticized for being there.

MR KIRBY: Let me see if we can’t get you a more specific answer on the terminology.

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: I’m just not an expert on delegation protocol and I wouldn’t begin to try to guess here.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Have a great day.

QUESTION: Do you have one on South Korea to start --

MR KIRBY: Why don’t we just take it in – take it when you come up? Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:16 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 28, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC




November 28, 2016




TRANSCRIPT:

1:12 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hello everybody. Everybody have a good Thanksgiving? Yeah?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: All right. I just got something at the top here, and then we’ll go – this morning I think you may have seen our note on Washington-based ambassadors and senior diplomatic representatives from the 68-member Global Coalition to Counter ISIL gathered at the Department of State to review the status of our global campaign to defeat this terrorist organization and to discuss next steps.

Coalition members noted the close coordination between our military, intelligence, law enforcement communities, which has resulted in a significant degradation to Daesh’s global network. They also reviewed operations underway to liberate Mosul in Iraq and to isolate Raqqa in Syria, and we’re encouraged by the progress that has been made to date while also maximizing the effort to protect civilian life. Coalition partners reviewed several key indicators that have been useful for measuring our progress in defeating Daesh’s network, to include territory gained and lost, access to foreign terrorist fighters, access to revenue, access to borders, leadership attrition, media and propaganda output, and global cohesion.

Thanks to the efforts from our global coalition, all of these indicators are now trending in a positive direction. And I would refer to the Media Note, again, that we released, for further details on each of these.

We are, as we’ve said many times, making significant progress against this terrorist group, but we also acknowledge that this is going to be a long-term fight. It’s going to require constant international cooperation and pressure and the application of maximum pressure indeed to sustain the momentum achieved to date.

At today’s meeting, coalition members underscored our shared commitment to remain resolute and on the offense across all lines of effort until our mission is complete. And to remind, not all those lines of effort are military. Those are the ones that get the headlines, but that’s not the sum total of everything we’re doing against Daesh.

So with that, we’ll let you start, Dave.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Parallel to that, the other crisis in Syria – can you give us an update on the status of talks in Geneva with your multilateral partners on the Syrian civil war?

MR KIRBY: They still are ongoing. The multilateral effort, the teams, are still discussing ways to get at a framework for cessation of – a cessation of hostilities, pardon me. I don’t have a specific readout to give you as we’ve sort of avoided doing that day by day. But the talks are ongoing, and again, we wouldn’t be there and we wouldn’t be participating in them if we didn’t think there was a reason to do so.

QUESTION: As they continue, a good chunk of formerly rebel-held eastern Aleppo --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- has fallen to regime forces. Is that something that you’ve brought up with your Russian partners in these talks?

MR KIRBY: We haven’t missed an opportunity to continue to raise our deep concerns – indeed outrage – at the continued bombing and siege of Aleppo, and we’ll continue to do that in every forum and every – through every venue that we have available to us.

QUESTION: And is it your understanding that Russia is an active participant in the assault on eastern Aleppo --

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m not going to get into --

QUESTION: -- specifically in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: -- I’m not going to get into an order of battle here, as I’ve said. The – what I will say, and we’ve said before, is that Russia has considerable influence over Assad; and when they have shown in the past that they’re willing to use that influence for a positive outcome, it makes a difference. And what we’ve continued to assert is that Russia bears the ultimate responsibility here for what the Syria regime is doing – and being permitted to do – in terms of the devastating civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, to include hospitals in and around Aleppo. And we’ve made that clear time and time again.

But in terms of whose aircraft is flying and all that, I don’t have that kind of information and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to deliver it from this podium in any event. But clearly, tactical aircraft continue to bomb neighborhoods in Aleppo. Clearly, there still is shelling. Hospitals now are all but shut down. I saw a statistic this morning that for the roughly 120,000 children that we estimate, the UN – excuse me – estimates is in Aleppo, there’s two pediatricians. Now, unfortunately, many of the casualties that are being suffered by children don’t necessarily need pediatric care, but it just goes to the point that medical professionals are increasingly at a loss to take care of just basic health necessities there in Aleppo. And I saw a quote from a resident of Aleppo that their concerns are now beyond just food and water; it’s the slaughter. And slaughter was the word that this individual used.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t have any more on Syria, so --

QUESTION: Could I? Please? Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Okay. Could we stay on Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Now, you’re saying “the slaughter,” right?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that. I said --

QUESTION: No, you said --

MR KIRBY: I said a resident of Aleppo --

QUESTION: You said that a resident --

MR KIRBY: -- referred to the fact that --

QUESTION: Well, do you believe statements that speak of slaughter now --

MR KIRBY: Look, we have – we’ve talked about atrocities. We’ve talked about the utter disregard for civilian life. And yes, I think by any stretch if you just look at what’s been happening on there, innocent people are being slaughtered in Aleppo.

QUESTION: Is there any way to have some sort of figures on what’s going on, the death ratio or the slaughter ratio that is ongoing in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: Said, you can go online and look at these reputable aid organizations that are keeping track as best they can, and they’ll tell you that literally thousands of people in Aleppo are being affected – killed, wounded, and affected on any given day.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, considering the fact that – in the portions of Aleppo which are the larger portions of Aleppo that are under government control, what, about a million and a half people where life goes on semi-normally and so on, wouldn’t it be better once the government or government forces regain control over eastern Aleppo that they can provide those kind of services that have been denied them in the past?

MR KIRBY: Government forces?

QUESTION: Yes. Syrian Government forces.

MR KIRBY: Syrian Government forces providing services to the people of Aleppo?

QUESTION: Are they not doing that in western Aleppo, which is the larger portion of Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: The only thing that I’ve seen the Syrian Government prove willing to do in Aleppo is kill innocent people, destroy infrastructure, and try to reduce the city to rubble. I’m not aware – and look, I’m not on the ground, but I’m not aware that they’re bringing in baskets of food and water and restoring electricity and trying to bring life back to normal in Aleppo. I’ve seen absolutely zero evidence, and I don’t think you have either.

QUESTION: Have you gathered or have you been able to gather any kind of information on how things are going or what is the situation in western Aleppo under government control in terms of --

MR KIRBY: I don’t --

QUESTION: -- schools and hospitals and things like --

MR KIRBY: I’m not capable of breaking it down by neighborhood here. Again, every bit of information we get – and we get it from a lot of different places – continues to tell a story of a city under siege, a dwindling population that is increasingly being killed by its own government with the support of backers of that government to include Russia. And again, you don’t have to look any further than going online or looking at television coverage to see what’s going on there, and it’s been going on steadily now day after day after day.

QUESTION: I have a couple more. Now, there were – there was all kinds of analyses and so on saying that Secretary Kerry is doing a – running against the clock to bring about some sort of an end to the siege. Could you share with us some of that or could you tell us or enlighten us on this issue?

MR KIRBY: Well, what I can tell you is that the Secretary continues to try to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria, which has to begin with a cessation of hostilities and has to be accompanied by humanitarian aid, and he’s doing that with the same sense of urgency that he has been doing that now for – since he’s been in office.

And yes, of course, Said, he’s mindful of the calendar and he’s mindful of the fact that a new administration will be coming into office here at the end of January. But to suggest that he’s running out the clock or that for – that there’s some sort of frantic or frenetic, last-ditch efforts here in the remaining weeks that he has in office just simply doesn’t comport with the facts. The Secretary has always had a sense of urgency about trying to solve the conflict in Syria through a political solution, and since Aleppo has come under siege now for the last several months, it has always been something on his mind. It has always been something that he has raised with Foreign Minister Lavrov and with other foreign ministers of involved nations and with the ISSG. I mean, this is – I can assure you that the pressure he’s applying, that the effort that he’s expending, is at the same level as it has always been, and that is pretty much full tilt.

QUESTION: On this subject?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: They’re having quite a few phone calls between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in the past few weeks, and we know very little about – the public knows very little about what they were about. And I – my understanding is that Secretary Kerry has been trying to stop the operations to retake eastern Aleppo. How does he offer to do that? Have they discussed any possible deal?

MR KIRBY: So a couple things on your question. First of all, this reporting out of Moscow that there’s been some sort of flurry of phone activity is just not true. The last conversation that he had with Foreign Minister Lavrov was on Tuesday and we pretty much – and the Russians read them out almost immediately after they’re done and then we confirm them. And I think if you go back – and you can look – that there’s been a consistent level of communication, but this idea that the – that it’s unprecedented levels or however it was characterized by some spokesman over in Moscow is just false, okay?

Number two – number two --

QUESTION: There was the same level – the same level of communication?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, same level. Number two, I don’t know that I agree with your assertion that the public has little idea about what the conversations include because the Russian side reads them out almost instantaneously as soon as the conversations are over, and then we come and we background you with – or actually provide the context from our perspective. So I think, to both the foreign minister’s credit and Secretary Kerry’s credit, we’ve been pretty open about when they speak and what in general they speak about. So I don’t think it’s been – I know there’s been no effort to sort of hide that conversation.

The third point that I’d make to your question is that they had – before we went to a multilateral format, certainly there were bilateral discussions of a very serious, concerted nature with the Russians to try to get to a cessation of hostilities. That failed because the Russians didn’t prove willing to meet their commitments, so we went to a multilateral format, which includes Russia. So of course the Secretary’s going to continue to have conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov in the context of those multilateral discussions and that will continue.

So to more specifically answer your question about what the Secretary has proposed, I’m not going to get into the specifics. Those talks in Geneva are ongoing and I haven’t yet and I’m not going to start sort of reading out the eaches of every day. But I can tell you that we wouldn’t still be involved in this effort – we the United States – if we didn’t think it was worth it and if we didn’t think that we could potentially get to a meaningful cessation of hostilities that could be sustained. The details of how that would be implemented, again, I think we need to let the discussions continue before we can lay that out.

QUESTION: Just (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you from our – from the U.S. team’s side, we’re going to continue to try to establish a framework by which a cessation of hostilities could actually be put in place, maintained, and enforced so that --

QUESTION: A long-term framework?

MR KIRBY: Well, what we – obviously, what we really want, we want one that is enduring across the country. Right now, the focus is very specifically on Aleppo, I think, for good reason. But eventually, we’d like to get one that’s nationwide.

QUESTION: So the talks are focused on what’s happening right now rather than a long-term planning (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: The multilateral efforts that are being – that are – the multilateral discussions in Geneva are more specifically focused on Aleppo right now.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) right now.

MR KIRBY: Right now in Aleppo, yes, but – but they’re done in the context of an effort – an honest effort to try to get something that is around the country and is more enduring. But right now, of course everybody’s focused on Aleppo.

QUESTION: Is Secretary Kerry’s focus on the humanitarian situation there – or is he also focusing on how to secure the Syrian opposition’s hold on eastern Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: His focus is on getting a cessation of hostilities in place, specifically in Aleppo, so that humanitarian aid can get in – none of it has – and so that we can restore the kind of conditions that are conducive to a resumption of political talks between the opposition and the regime, and that’s what he’s focused on.

QUESTION: So is it only on humanitarian --

MR KIRBY: No, I just said his focus is on getting a cessation of hostilities, to get the violence to stop. And without question, the vast majority of violence is being perpetrated by the regime with its support from backers like Russia. And we want to get that violence to stop, we want to get aid in so that we can get a resumption of political talks.

Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So has Secretary Kerry discussed --

MR KIRBY: No, go ahead.

QUESTION: There was a report – unconfirmed report in The Washington Post – I would like to ask it, so --

MR KIRBY: I’ll give you one more.

QUESTION: -- Washington Post, yeah, cited an un-named officials who said that there – an arrangement – some kind of an arrangement is being discussed for the opposition to separate from al-Nusrah and for the fighters to leave eastern Aleppo. Can you confirm those reports?

MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to speak to the claims of anonymous officials. I will tell you that the Russian side has made very clear their concerns about separation of al-Nusrah from other opposition groups, and frankly, we have talked a lot about the need to do that as well. That is a difficult thing. We’ve talked about that for many months, this marbleization, if you will, of – the marbling of opposition groups with al-Nusrah. We’ve been very clear with the opposition groups that we have been in communication with and some of our partners are in communication with about the importance of not being collocated with al-Nusrah, not participating in al-Nusrah operations because they are outside the cessation of hostilities. But I’m not going to get into a readout of the details of the kinds of things that are being discussed.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, the Iraqi parliament passed a law making the Hashd al-Shaabi part of the official Iraqi Armed Forces. What’s your view on this? Are you concerned it will influence – it will increase Iranian influence in Baghdad?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, let me just talk about a couple of things in here. We think that the passage of this law, like all internal legislation, is an internal Iraqi matter. So I’m going to refer you to the Government of Iraq for details on that. That said, the United States continues to support a sovereign, inclusive, unified, and democratic Iraq that serves the aspirations of all Iraqis, and we continue to support Prime Minister Abadi as he controls, commands, and organizes the campaign to go after Daesh inside the country.

QUESTION: Well, there’s concern that’s been expressed by both Kurdish and Sunni Arab politicians that the Hashd al-Shaabi will be used as a military force outside of Iraq. Do you have any concerns about that?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think, as I said, we’ve been clear that we want all forces fighting Daesh in Iraq, all indigenous forces to be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government and Prime Minister Abadi, and we support his efforts to do that. This proposed legislation is certainly in keeping with what Prime Minister Abadi has said is important to him, which is having command and control over all the forces that are fighting Daesh inside the country. So I think – again, I’m not going to speculate about hypothetical outcomes here except to say that we continue to support a sovereign Iraq that has the resources, the organizational capabilities, and the support of the international community to do so in a sovereign way.

Now, I didn’t answer your question about Iran. And what I would tell you, though, is that we agree with Prime Minister Abadi’s statements on the importance of ensuring that all participants in the fight against Daesh in Iraq are regulated under the control of the Iraqi Government and held to the same accountability standards. We’re concerned, for our part, with helping Iraq rid the country of Daesh, and who, as you know, just last week murdered scores of innocent civilians at a rest stop.

So the only other thing I’d say is – and we’ve said this before – that to the degree anybody is going to assist in the efforts to go after Daesh inside Iraq – now I’m talking about outside Iraqis – we want that to be done in a way that doesn’t further inflame sectarian tensions. Okay?

QUESTION: Are you – would you be satisfied that bringing al-Hashd al-Shaabi under the Government of Iraq and under the authority of the Government of Iraq is a safety valve or enough safety valve against interference and the influence of Iran?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know if I could possibly answer that question, Said.

QUESTION: Right, but I mean, from past efforts – I mean, if we look at Tikrit where they – basically, they have played a big role in liberating Tikrit and they had – they were a part, let’s say, to some excesses or even – maybe even massacres, some say, against the Sunni population, so they were not exactly, at the time – at the time of the liberation of Tikrit, a quite – quite disciplined.

MR KIRBY: So, look, a couple of points on that. I mean, we obviously take any allegations or reports of human rights violations very, very seriously, as does Prime Minister Abadi. And he has said – and he has started investigations on various such reports. And we think that’s important to let those investigations go through. And it doesn’t matter to us who is reported to have done it. It – those kinds of reports need to be taken seriously and need to be investigated. And if found that individuals or units are guilty of that, then they need to be held accountable for it. But again, I don’t want to get too far down the road on this legislation. It’s internal Iraqi legislation that they should speak to. But in general, we continue to support all forces in the – of the Iraqi Government that are arrayed against Daesh to be under Iraqi command and control. Okay?

QUESTION: Do you not have concerns that including groups accused of human rights abuses under the control of the Iraqi Government would alienate the Sunni population and sort of leads of the same --

MR KIRBY: No, of course we do. Like I said, we don’t want anything – we don’t want anybody participating in this fight in a manner that would inflame sectarian tensions any more than they already are a problem. So yes, of course we have concerns about that.

QUESTION: If – and if this law were to be finalized and passed, would – or when it goes into effect, if it goes into effect, does this then affect the kind of assistance that the U.S. can give the Iraqi military?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t want to speculate here about an outcome we don’t know is going to be the case. But we have very strict regulations, very strict laws that we have to obey when it comes to aid and assistance to foreign units – the Leahy law, which I think you’re familiar with – and we follow that law scrupulously. And U.S. aid and assistance cannot and will not go to units that have been proven to have participated in human rights violations. We take that very, very seriously. So if you’re asking me could that be the case – could units in the future, if they’re found to be guilty of human rights violations – Iraqi units, could they be – could be held – aid and assistance suspended due to the Leahy law – the answer is yes, of course. But I’m in no position right now to speculate that this law would lead to that outcome, okay?

QUESTION: I have --

MR KIRBY: We’re just going to take it – we’ll take – I mean, we’re going to take this one step at a time.

QUESTION: I have a Philippines question, so I can --

QUESTION: Wait, a follow-up to that one. At present, the United States does not support militarily – say, with air power – the Hashd al-Shaabi. If they become part – an official part of the Iraqi Armed Forces, would that change?

MR KIRBY: I’m simply not able to speculate about tactical military operations. That’s a better question for my colleagues at the Defense Department.

QUESTION: I have a Philippines question. Philippines President Duterte said in a speech today that the United States had threatened to jail him in the International Criminal Court because of his drug war. Is there – has the U.S. made that threat to him or --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such threat being made, no.

QUESTION: A follow-up to that, then.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: BuzzFeed today reported that the police units in Manila and other parts of the Philippines that are still receiving training and funding from the State Department are engaged in this drug war, including the extrajudicial killing – killings associated with that.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Let me --

QUESTION: As you mentioned the Leahy law, Senator Leahy has expressed concern as --

MR KIRBY: Yes, of course. So a couple things on that, and I think you’ve heard us state it before: We remain deeply concerned by reports of extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities in the Philippines. Historically, State Department-funded training has aimed to transfer the Philippine National Police into a modern, sustainable, democratic police force capable of effectively providing internal security in difficult conditions while, of course, demonstrating respect for democratic principles and human rights.

Since the start of the drug campaign, our law enforcement assistance has been refocused away from narcotics control to supporting maritime security efforts and to providing human rights training to the Philippine National Police. Our assistance programs expand Philippine capacity to conduct effective, lawful investigations and professionalizes the criminal justice system so that it is more accountable, transparent, effective, and just. And just to remind, the United States vigorously vets all units and individuals before providing assistance to the security forces of the Philippines, as we do elsewhere around the world. Okay?

QUESTION: And that change was specifically in response to concerns you have over the way the drug war is being --

MR KIRBY: I would say you’ve heard us several times from this podium express our concerns about reports of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. And as I said, since the beginning of this counternarcotics campaign, we decided the prudent thing to do was to refocus the way that assistance was being spent.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Yemen, can you give us an update as to what is the status there after all this talk about a ceasefire and a peace deal? There are reports that the Saudi-led coalition have carried out airstrikes again, killing a number of civilians in Hodeidah. What do you have on that?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would tell you that obviously we continue to support efforts to get a cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We certainly have seen reports in just the last several days of continued strikes and violence. We continue to call upon all sides to cooperate with the UN special envoy and to renew their commitment to a cessation of hostilities as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary been in contact again with the principals he was talking to --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any follow-on conversations that he has had with the principals. But he continues to have discussions with regional partners about the situation in Yemen and about how to get a cessation of hostilities in place. Yeah.

QUESTION: South Korea?

QUESTION: Cuba?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What does State make of obviously these five weeks in continued massive protests, calls for President Park to resign? Obviously, they’re a major ally. Are there any concerns in this building about stability either as it relates to our relationship with Seoul or just in the peninsula in general?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean – so a couple of things here. Obviously, the Republic of Korea remains a steadfast ally, friend, and partner. Nothing is going to change about our commitments to that alliance and to our commitment to the security of the peninsula. Certainly, we have seen the press reporting of the political protests, and I would let the protestors and the Government of Korea speak to that. You know where we stand on the right of peaceful protest and assembly and we continue to support that around the world. People should have the ability to go out and voice their concerns about government. But it doesn’t change one iota – our commitment to South Korea, to the government, to the people there, and to making sure that we continue to meet all our alliance commitments.

QUESTION: John? Follow-up. Follow-up on Korea.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Has the State Department spoken to anybody within the South Korean Government about the protests or concerns at all?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any discussions to read out to you. I’m sure our embassy out there is in constant – as they are daily – contact with their counterparts there. But again, the – it’s a democracy and that’s how democracies work. And people have that right and that ability and they’re exercising that right. And I think that’s important.

QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to the election of a new parliament in Kuwait on Saturday?

MR KIRBY: In Kuwait. You guys are jumping me all over the place here, man. You got to give me a few seconds to find the right tab. (Laughter.) Jeez wiz. Going from one part of the book to the next.

QUESTION: We can stay on Korea.

MR KIRBY: You want to stay on Korea?

We congratulate Kuwait and its people on a successful holding of a national parliamentary election. Sorry, national parliamentary elections – plural. Kuwait has long been a regional leader with respect to constitutional governance as reflected by Saturday’s free and competitive legislative elections.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Stay --

QUESTION: Who’s going to represent the United States at Fidel Castro’s funeral and/or memorial ceremony?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I would refer you to my White House colleagues. As I understand it – as I came out here to the podium – that no decisions had been made yet. Yeah.

QUESTION: Stay close to Kuwait in Bahrain?

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Okay. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights is citing numerous violations of human rights in the last 10 days, including the forced – the enforced disappearance and targeting of women and human rights activists, the delay of the Nabeel Rajab trial, arbitrary arrest and so on. All week long, I mean, a whole number of things. So first of all, are you aware – are you calling on the Bahraini Government, your ally, to refrain from these violations?

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I would say, Said, that we’re aware of these reports. I think we’ve certainly made clear consistently our concerns over human rights in Bahrain to Bahraini leaders. That is a concern we routinely make clear. You can go on our website, look at the human rights report, and see where the department sits with respect to Bahrain on this. But it – I don’t have anything additional or more specific with respect to these reports. We are aware of them. We routinely make clear our concerns.

QUESTION: Has the Bahraini Government been responsive to your concern?

MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn’t get into sharing details of diplomatic conversations. I would just say that for our part we’ve been consistent about those concerns and we will continue to do so, as you can with a close friend and partner like Bahrain. And they do remain a close friend and partner. And it is in the spirit of that partnership and friendship and our genuine concern about Bahrain and Bahrain – and the future for the people of Bahrain that we routinely express those concerns. Yeah.

QUESTION: On Russia?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Last week, EU parliament passed a resolution to counter Russian media, and specifically they called out Sputnik and RT. Are you concerned by this revolution – resolution?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that resolution, so I’d have to take that question.

QUESTION: Do you think – it says they’re engaging in information warfare, and they even discussed that EU and NATO should develop a strategic communications plan to counter Russian media, including Sputnik and RT. Do you think the United States needs to develop a strategy – first of all, do you think RT --

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, I haven’t seen this report and I haven’t seen – so I’m at a bit of a loss to comment specifically about it. The concerns about Russian activities in the information environment, their use of propaganda – those are not new concerns, and we share concerns with many other nations about the way Russia tries to use the information environment to its own ends, be they political, social, cultural, or economic. And that is something that we’re going to continue to talk about with our allies and with our friends and partners throughout the world, but I don’t have a specific reaction to this resolution, because I just haven’t seen it.

QUESTION: Do you share concerns about Sputnik and RT?

MR KIRBY: Look, I have made clear time and time again here about our concerns about Russian efforts to manipulate the information environment in a way that serves their narrative and isn’t necessarily hewed to the truth and to facts. And I think it doesn’t – you can look on my Twitter account and you can see how many times Gayane and I have had disputes here about my perfect willingness to express concerns about the non-editorially independent nature of Russia Today. But I don’t have a specific concern with respect to this resolution and what you’re saying in terms of the – it calling out specific media outlets.

QUESTION: But not specifically to – in the --

MR KIRBY: And the other thing – let me just – if I could just add, you’re here and you’re here. We credential you. We allow you to come into the State Department and into this briefing room even though, as I’ve said, I have some concerns about the editorial independence of some Russian outlets. But you’re allowed in here and you will continue to be allowed in here to pose whatever questions you want at me, including ones today like – that I can’t answer, because I just don’t know about. But I think that’s important. I mean, and if you don’t mind, I’m just – let me just hit this point again.

QUESTION: Oh, sure.

MR KIRBY: I think it’s – that here at the United States State Department, we don’t parcel people out like that and we allow you to come in here and ask whatever you want and we do the best we can to provide the information that we can. And there’s not too many other places – certainly no other government that I know of – that allows media, no matter where their editorial processes land, to do that. And I’m pretty proud of it.

QUESTION: But you --

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. I’ve offered you guys to subscribe to the news wire. (Laughter.) But John, John, one other thing: They parallel us --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: No, no, he – let him finish.

QUESTION: They parallel us with Islamic State propaganda within this resolution. I mean, do you think – are you threatened by our propaganda as much as you are --

MR KIRBY: I’m not threatened by Sputnik. And frankly, we’re not threatened by Islamic State propaganda. In fact, one of the things that we’ve talked about --

QUESTION: Would you put them on the same parallel?

MR KIRBY: Would I put --

QUESTION: Would you put them on the same plane?

MR KIRBY: -- Sputnik on the same level with Islamic State? No --

QUESTION: Propaganda.

MR KIRBY: No, I would not.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But – and as I said in my opening statement, they talked a lot about Islamic State propaganda efforts in today’s meeting with the ambassadors from the members – the coalition members today and the fact that we know empirically that their – I know I’m getting off the topic here a little bit, but Islamic State’s – Daesh’s efforts to exploit social media are waning and failing and they’re struggling. And it’s hurting their narrative; it’s hurting their morale. We know that for a fact. Okay?

All right. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day. Hope everybody had a good Thanksgiving.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:47 p.m.)

DPB #201

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 18, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





November 18, 2016











TRANSCRIPT:

2:09 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hello everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Happy Friday to you. Just a quick topper on Haiti elections. The United States looks forward to transparent, credible, and peaceful elections in Haiti on the 20th of this month. Only through elected leadership can the country make full strides in strengthening its democratic institutions and addressing the many issues in need of urgent attention. We recognize the commendable effort that the Government of Haiti and the Provisional Electoral Council undertook to organize elections despite the challenges that Hurricane Matthew left in its wake. We urge all Haitian actors to ensure that the election is peaceful and fair to allow citizens to cast a vote for their future and for that of the country.

Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks. Do I even have to ask the question, or can you anticipate it and give me the answer?

MR KIRBY: I can confirm that members of the president-elect’s transition team, the team that will be working here at the State Department, have arrived today. They’re here.

QUESTION: All of them?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know that. I know several are here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an exact number and I couldn’t tell you whether that would be a complete team. As I said yesterday, sometimes you’ll see an initial batch and then additionals come later. I just don’t know what their plans are.

QUESTION: Do you know what they – who they have met with from the --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. They’ve only, honestly – as far as I know, only been in the building for about an hour or so. So I don’t know who, if anyone, that they’ve met with. Obviously, we – staff from Counselor Kenney’s office have been responsible for ushering them in. But I suspect at least some of the time has been spent in the logistics of getting into the building and that kind of thing. But I just don’t know.

QUESTION: That would mean – and forgive me for being – this getting really into the weeds, I know, but does that mean, like, getting --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a pass or a badge?

MR KIRBY: Getting a badge, getting a pass, that kind of thing. I mean – but I honestly don’t know what’s transpired over the last hour. I just know that they’ve only recently arrived.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can --

QUESTION: So no indication of where they’re going to begin? Like, is there any kind of – has Counselor Kenney come up with a plan on kind of how this is all going to work?

MR KIRBY: It’s really up to them, Lesley, how they’re going to manage their time here at the State Department and how they’re going to manage the information flow that they require. It’s not really up to us to do that. Counselor Kenney’s been responsible for making sure that the spaces were available, that they had a place to work, and that everything was in order. And today mainly just focused on getting them into the building and getting them – getting their physical access to their office spaces facilitated. But as far as their agenda and what they want to focus on, what meetings they want to have, what briefings they want, what material they need, that will all be determined by them, and I wouldn’t speak to that.

QUESTION: I was going to say – and would you speak for them, or they would speak for themselves to members of the press?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know – well, it – I won’t be speaking for the transition team. So that’s one. Number two, in terms of whether and how they communicate with members of the media, that’s really, again, for them to decide. And I wouldn’t know the answer to that. Okay?

QUESTION: John, I want to ask you about the vetting process. Is that something that is exclusively the domain of the incoming administration, or is it something that the current structure has something to do with it?

MR KIRBY: The vetting process for whom?

QUESTION: Those who are --

MR KIRBY: The vetting process for whom?

QUESTION: I’m sorry?

MR KIRBY: The vetting process for whom, Said?

QUESTION: Vetting process for those who are joining the department, those who are coming to join the department to fill in all these positions and so on. Are they – is that in the exclusive domain of those who are coming, the vetting process, or is it something that you are involved in in any way, shape, or form?

MR KIRBY: Do you mean the vetting process for the transition team?

QUESTION: For – no, not for the transition team; for those who are coming to fill in all these positions that we talked about yesterday. You have, like, 3-, 400 – we don’t how many. But how are they vetted? Is it exclusively their thing, or do you have something to do with it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: Do you look at all these potential employees and say, okay, well, we have – you know this about this? You know what I mean.

MR KIRBY: The responsibility for filling staff positions in the new administration --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- however many they are, will be up to the president-elect and his transition team. And then post-inauguration, it won’t be a transition team anymore; it’ll be the administration, the new administration. They’ll be responsible for deciding and determining, interviewing people for whatever various positions they want to fill. But that’s – that’ll be – obviously, those decisions will be theirs to make.

QUESTION: John, could you tell us exactly how you are going to work with them? Are you going to talk about any issue? Are you going to work on each issue, each policy, each country, each regional issue? How does it work?

MR KIRBY: Well, we are certainly prepared to be that thorough if that’s what the transition team desires. But really, the information flow both in terms of quantity and content will be up to them to determine. So as I’ve said several times this week, we are prepared, ready, willing, and able to offer them whatever context and information, whatever briefing materials, whether they’re in paper form or in meetings, that they require. I mean, we really want to serve them and to serve their needs. And so we’ve – we are ready to go. The bureaus have been preparing for weeks now to have material ready for them to look at if they want it, but it really will be determined by their appetite for information in terms – what they really want.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: On – sorry. On one specific issue, on the Iran nuclear deal, we talk about it earlier this week or last week. Are you more concerned than you were with the nomination which occurred this morning at the NSC and at the head of the CIA? Are you worried about the possibility that the incoming administration would change its policy regarding the nuclear deal?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I’ve said many times, Nick, we’re focused on pursuing the foreign policy agenda and priorities of this Administration. We only have one president at a time, and our focus is on continuing the foreign policy agenda of President Obama. That’s what Secretary Kerry is committed to, and a part of that is obviously continuing to meet our obligations under the JCPOA. We still believe in the soundness and the importance of and the criticality of the Iran deal and the security that it provides not just to the region but to the world. So we’re going to stay committed to that.

I cannot speak for the foreign policy agenda or priorities of the incoming administration. That is for them to speak to and only them to speak to, as well as to whatever personnel decisions – kind of gets back to Said – whatever personnel decisions they make, that – those are their decisions and for them to speak to. Okay?

QUESTION: Can you just tell us: Who greeted them? I saw them coming in, but I don’t know the gentleman who greeted them from the State Department – the transition team.

MR KIRBY: You’re asking me who the gentleman was that greeted them at the door?

QUESTION: Yeah. Who greeted them at the door?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I can --

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MR KIRBY: I can try to find out. I think it was probably somebody on Counselor Kenney’s staff, but I don’t know that for sure. Since I wasn’t in the lobby like you, I just don’t know who was there.

QUESTION: I just happened to be there. So – and who did they meet – who are they going to meet with first? The counselor or --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. As I said, I don’t know what their agenda is for the afternoon, and again, that’s for them to determine. And I’m just assuming – that’s a dangerous thing to do from this podium, but --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- my guess is that --

QUESTION: Anywhere, really. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Well, not if you’re Matt Lee. (Laughter.) I think in general – I mean, it’s only been an hour or so, so I suspect that the initial time that they’ve spent here is just really getting security passes and badges and getting familiar with the office space and that kind of thing. But I just don’t know.

QUESTION: And when is the Secretary expected back? And you expect them, obviously, to meet with him, right?

MR KIRBY: The Secretary will be back in town this evening. He’s already wheels-up from Lima and heading back, so he’ll be back early this evening. I do not know what plans – what his schedule looks like in terms of meeting with the transition team. And I want to stress again that the – we are driven and he has made it clear that he wants us all driven to making them feel welcome and meeting their needs, and so I will not be from this podium making it a habit to read out what they’re doing and who they’re meeting with. That’s really not for us to speak to. So I just want to lay that out right at the outset that I’m not going to be providing a daily tick-tock of their activities.

More critically, their agenda, their time is really for them to fill the way they see – deem fit. And we are – we’re going to, again, make them feel welcome. We’re going to handle this transition in a professional, seamless, effective way, and that means that – that means we need to be dedicated to fulfilling their needs. And again, that’s where the Secretary wants everybody’s head – heads to be and that’s where they are.

QUESTION: Can I just – it’s somewhat related to this. I’m wondering if you know if – whether or not you have heard from the Japanese Government about the meeting between the president-elect and the prime minister that --

MR KIRBY: To my knowledge, there has been no such contact with the Japanese Government after the meeting.

QUESTION: And is – is that something that you would have expected or would have wanted or appreciated?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t think there was any expectation --

QUESTION: No? Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- here that we would have heard from them.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. First of all, could you update us on the phone call between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov?

QUESTION: It wasn’t a phone call.

QUESTION: Was it a meeting? I’m sorry, I take it back – a meeting.

MR KIRBY: They met briefly --

QUESTION: They met briefly.

MR KIRBY: -- yesterday, and we issued a – well, we didn’t issue, but they did a little communication with reporters after the meeting. The transcript that we released talked about what they spoke about, which was obviously largely Syria. And both of them indicated that Aleppo was on the topic – on the agenda list of topics discussed and how we can continue to try to still work towards a cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Let me follow up on the issue of the hospitals. A spokesman for the Russian ministry of defense said that these hospitals – to quote him – “were only in your imagination.” Do you have a response to that? He said three days later, “We don’t know where these hospitals are. We don’t know what their location is.” And so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I’ve seen the comments, and they don’t – they – they don’t even merit a response by me. As we’ve talked about the last couple of days, it isn’t John Kirby saying that hospitals are being hit.

QUESTION: No, I understand that.

MR KIRBY: It is respectable aid agencies that are reporting this on their own, not – proactively. And so, as I said yesterday, I can’t speak for the Syrian military or the Russian military. I don’t know whose airplanes are hitting these hospitals. What I can say is we’ve got credible claims from legitimate, well-established agencies that are reporting this. And they are hospitals, and they are patients – people that are trying to get well are in fact being bombed. And frankly, it doesn’t really matter whose airplane is dropping the bomb – it’s either the Syrians or the Russians or both – the fact is it’s got to stop. It needs to stop.

And that in addition to this violence – against, again, health care facilities mind you – no aid – none, zero – has gotten in in recent months to the people of Aleppo. And I talked about it yesterday and I – or not yesterday, I think a week ago – but we continue to see residents of Aleppo tying – picture this in your mind, tying ropes around their abdomens to stave off the hunger pains. These health care facilities, the same ones that are being bombed, doctors in there are reporting using unsanitary equipment and gear because they can’t get supplies in to operate and to work on people – unsanitary. People are going to unsanitary sources of water. They’re eating weeds and seed stock as well as their own livestock to try to survive. Eighty percent of households in Syria, according to information I saw this morning, about 80 percent of them – they’re also having to sell off their assets, whether it’s furniture or dishware, just to try to find some kind of resources with which to feed themselves.

And I do want to read a quote now. This is a quote from an Associated Press story. So I’m quoting from a press report. I understand that. But an AP story that talked about hospital workers being forced in Aleppo to rush to evacuate infants from a hospital that was being bombed. And this doctor is quoted – now he’s texting, apparently, this correspondent, and this is the doctor’s text: “Now it is being bombed” – the hospital. “I am sorry, I have to go transfer the children.” He’s the head of the pediatric hospital. This is a text and a message to the AP. “And as we drove out with the ambulance war planes were firing and artillery was shelling, but thank God we were not hurt.” Infants in incubators having to be taken out of a hospital because it’s being bombed --

QUESTION: My last one --

MR KIRBY: So it’s completely reprehensible and without any justification whatsoever.

QUESTION: My last one is on the aid. The UN is saying that all sides – the Russians, the Syrians, the opposition – they are all preventing aid from going in. So everybody is party to this kind of thing. Do you concur? Do you agree? Do you dispute that?

MR KIRBY: The information that we have is that by far, the vast majority of obstacles that are being put in place to aid getting in by the Syrian regime and their Russian backers. Now, I talked about this a few days ago. It’s not that we haven’t seen reports that certain opposition groups have also caused a problem. We’ve seen those reports and they’re deeply concerning to us, as I said the other day, and we have communicated that concern to opposition groups and to other nations who have influence on other opposition groups. So I’m not saying that it’s not in the realm of possibility, that there are other obstacles being put in place. But by far, without question, every bit of information we’re getting is that the obstruction of aid getting in is being caused by the regime and their backers.

QUESTION: Just one small point here. The Russian foreign ministry says that the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov did speak by phone today. Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: Yes. Yes, but I thought you were referring to yesterday.

QUESTION: That’s what I was referring to.

QUESTION: So --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, they did have a brief conversation today.

QUESTION: So after meeting in person yesterday, is there anything new after this phone call?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a full readout of the conversation with the foreign minister. It apparently happened pretty recently. I suspect that the topic was again Syria, but I just don’t have a full readout of it. But yeah, they talked today. Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkey’s main opposition party, the CHP, has announced that it’s so opposed to Erdogan’s proposed constitutional amendment that would establish a presidential system that the CHP will begin a series of rallies against it. And of course, the second largest opposition party, the pro-Kurdish HTP – HDP, whose leadership Erdogan has imprisoned, opposes it too. What is your view of this proposed change in Turkey to a presidential system? Do you see it as anti-democratic?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen reports on this as well. I’m not going to speculate at this point, and this is really a matter for Turkish officials to speak to. It’s a matter for them to clarify and discuss. I just don’t have enough information right now to speculate one way or the other.

QUESTION: About the constitutional amendment that Erdogan is --

MR KIRBY: That’s right. I don’t have enough information and – on it to speculate at this point. This is an issue for Turkish officials to speak to.

QUESTION: Do you see that’s – any inconsistency between your readiness to talk about Haitian elections and not really talking about what’s going on internally in Turkey?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR KIRBY: I mean look, I’m not trying to be glib, but there’s a big difference for me welcoming Haitian elections which have been long delayed and obviously were set back by a hurricane than it is to get me to speculate on some proposed constitutional amendments in Turkey that I don’t have full visibility on and information on. And so I’m just – it’s – one is an election that we know we have a date on the calendar. The second issue is a completely different one. It’s a proposed amendment to the constitution that, as you rightly noted, is only just today been announced and spoken to. I just don’t have enough information to speculate.

That doesn’t mean that Turkey’s democracy doesn’t still matter to us, and we’ve said that time and time again, or that we want to see Turkey’s democratic institutions survive and thrive and succeed. All that is the same, but I’m just not in a position right now to speculate for you on it.

QUESTION: I remember that Deputy Secretary Blinken did emphasize the importance of the rule of law in Turkey and spoke against some of the measures that the Turkish Government had taken – 36,000 imprisoned people now, 100,000 people having lost their jobs. And for some of us analysts and journalists, it seems that there is a relationship between this proposed amendment and the human rights abuses that we’re seeing in Turkey now.

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’ve gone about as far as I can on this today. Okay?

QUESTION: Iraq? A few questions on conflicting statements coming from Iraq. Masoud Barzani, the President of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region says, that he has an agreement with the U.S. and the Iraqi Government that Kurdish forces would not withdraw from the lands that they reclaimed from ISIL before the beginning of the Mosul operation the U.S. ambassador to Iraq says he is confident that they will withdraw. Iraqi officials say the Peshmerga will have to leave. Earlier this week, Ambassador Silliman had a meeting with Masoud Barzani, and you now have these really conflicting statements coming out. Did they or did they not have the agreement that Masoud Barzani is talking about?

MR KIRBY: So we’ve talked about this a couple of times this week. I don’t have anything further to add than what we’ve said before about this.

QUESTION: Which is?

MR KIRBY: Both in terms of the ambassador’s visit and the comments by President Barzani. The only thing I would add, and I know I said this before, but – is that the Mosul campaign is an Iraqi-led campaign. It has been Iraqi-planned and it is being executed by Iraqi forces. Yes, the coalition is supporting and obviously we train, advise, assist, and with air power, but it is an Iraqi campaign. And the order of battle, to use a military term, and the organization and the way it’s going to be prosecuted – those are Iraqi decisions. And so I’m going to defer to the Iraqi Government to speak to that.

QUESTION: Do you know if they, at the meeting, they spoke English? Could this be something that was lost in translation?

MR KIRBY: I do not know – I honestly don’t know the answer to that. And – but I don’t want to – by saying I don’t know it doesn’t mean that I’m agreeing with the premise that there was some sort of translation issues here. We can check to see if there were translation facilities provided in the meeting. But again, we’ve already spoken to the ambassador’s visit, we’ve spoken to the meeting itself, and I would just stress again that this is an Iraqi-led campaign and therefore these have to be Iraqi decisions.

QUESTION: And related to that – I have one more. So I would like to quote Barzani at the – he sounds really adamant about it. So he said, “These areas were liberated by the blood of eleven hundred, five hundred – 11,500 mortars and wounded from the Peshmerga. It is not possible, after all these sacrifices, to return them to direct federal control.” And I want to ask: Does it even matter for the U.S. whether there is an agreement with the Iraqi Kurds? And a related question: Can the coalition afford to ignore the Iraqi Kurds’ plans and ambitions?

MR KIRBY: What matters to us is that Mosul gets liberated, Daesh gets kicked out. What matters to us is that that campaign is under the chain of command of the Iraqi Government in Baghdad under Prime Minister Abadi. What matters to us is that Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government make the final decisions about not only how they’re going to execute this campaign, but how their forces are going to be organized. And we know that Baghdad and Erbil have been in close communication in the months leading up to Mosul and certainly as it’s now being prosecuted. And we would encourage that dialogue to continue, but these are decisions that they have to make and they have to speak to.

For the United States, our role, our part, is in supporting Prime Minister Abadi’s efforts. We do that militarily, primarily through training, advising, and assisting Iraqi Security Forces. And we have done that and we’ll continue to do that, because there’s going to be more work to be done when Mosul falls. And of course, we’ve been supporting not just the United States, but certainly we’ve been a leader in terms of the air support that is provided to Iraqi Security Forces on the ground.

QUESTION: So do you --

MR KIRBY: That’s what our focus is.

QUESTION: I understood. Among the things that you said what matters to us, there was no agreement with the Iraqi Kurds that – does that matter to the U.S. to have such an agreement?

MR KIRBY: An agreement?

QUESTION: To be in agreement with the Iraqi Kurds on this specific issue, because they seemed really adamant about this.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’ve already spoken to the ambassador’s visit. I’ve already spoken to these comments here. What matters to us is, again, that this is – that this campaign is led by Iraqi Security Forces, that it’s all under Prime Minister Abadi’s chain of command. That’s what matters most to us. There is no doubt that the Peshmerga have been and continue to fight bravely against Daesh – no question – as have the Iraqi Security Forces in the south. And what matters, we believe, not just to us but to the entire coalition, including Iraqi leaders, is that Daesh gets defeated, that Daesh gets thrown out of Mosul. And that campaign is progressing. And we don’t talk about it much, and you know I don’t like getting into battlefield updates, but we’re hearing that it’s still progressing, that they’re making progress. And so that’s what we’re going to be focused on. Okay?

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: There’s a --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Is the implication of what you’re saying that if Baghdad and Erbil reach an agreement that would change the boundaries between the Kurdistan Region and the rest of Iraq from what they were before – if that’s an agreed – agreement reached between Baghdad and Erbil, that would be acceptable to you?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to hypothesize or speculate about boundary changes here. That – I’m not going to go there. What we have seen is Baghdad and Erbil communicate and have dialogue about what’s going on particularly there in Mosul. We want to see that dialogue continue and we want the issues between them to be worked out between them. Our role – the United States – in leading this coalition is to support them from the air and to make sure that we continue to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces as they press the fight against Daesh.

QUESTION: But you know that President-elect Trump is very positive about the Kurds. He said they’ve been – they’re proven the best fighters, they’re the most loyal to us, they have a great heart, and he says we should be working with them much more than we are. So what I take from his appreciation of the Kurds is that by the time these issues come to a resolution – which is going to be some months from now because this is an ongoing military campaign – it will be President Trump. And perhaps the new – and likely the new administration would be more favorably inclined than maybe the current one to some sort of changes in these borders that Baghdad and Erbil might reach together. Do you think that’s a reasonable way to look at things?

QUESTION: You might have the luxury of being able to predict and speculate about what’s going to happen under President-elect Trump’s administration. I don’t. I can tell you that we continue to be focused on supporting Prime Minister Abadi and his efforts to prosecute this campaign. That won’t change.

And as I’ve said – I just said it a few minutes ago and I’ve said it many times – there’s no question that Peshmerga forces have fought bravely, courageously, and continue to do so. And we respect that. Likewise, Iraqi Security Forces have also fought bravely and effectively and continue to do so. As I have, I think, articulated many times, the focus is we want to defeat Daesh. The whole coalition is designed to defeat Daesh. And to the degree that everybody’s efforts are aligned with that and focused on that, we’ll have success and we’ll have it – it will come faster and it will be more sustainable. And so that’s, again, where U.S. leadership is really aimed at. Okay?

QUESTION: APEC?

MR KIRBY: Huh?

QUESTION: APEC?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout about the meeting between the Secretary and the Taiwanese representative, Jim Soong?

MR KIRBY: I do not.

Yep.

QUESTION: South Asia. Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, India has now a new ambassador Mr. Navtej Sarna in Washington, and he was in the building presenting his – whatever the required papers to the State Department before presenting his credentials to the President. He comes at the time when we will have here a new government and new president in Washington. I mean, of course, President-elect Donald Trump. Mr. Sarna has been known for the last over almost 20 years in Washington at the embassy for press spokesman and also spokesperson for the conflict between India and Delhi. And before coming here, he was the high commissioner to UK where he fostered the UK-India relations. And his mission here, also same thing, to foster the U.S.-India relations.

My question here: How do we deal here with a new ambassador, with a new president, with new government in Washington? So – because Mr. Trump has been saying that under his administration India-U.S. relations will be greater than ever we have seen.

MR KIRBY: Again, I can appreciate everybody’s interest in speculating about what the new administration will do foreign policy-wise. I cannot speak to that, Goyal. I just don’t know. All I can tell you is that we greatly value and respect the relationship we have with India today and the one that we have worked very, very hard at improving and strengthening. And we’re going to stay completely focused on that for the remainder of this Administration. We welcome the new ambassador and we look forward to working closely with him as he settles into his new duties, but I can tell you that nothing’s going to change for the remainder of Secretary Kerry’s tenure about the very keen focus that we’re going to continue to place on our bilateral relationship with India. What happens after the inauguration of our new president is really for the new administration to speak to. But there’s no question that India remains and will remain a key partner in that part of the world and that strong bilateral relations will need to continue. But how that – what it looks like, the form and content and shape, that’s – I couldn’t possibly predict what that is.

QUESTION: And second, as far as fighting against terrorism --

MR KIRBY: Are you okay?

QUESTION: -- in the region, President-elect Trump was very much against the terrorism or fighting against terrorism, root out terrorism from around the globe, and including from South Asia. But also, at the same time, do you see any policy change as far as fighting under his administration against terrorism --

MR KIRBY: Goyal, I --

QUESTION: -- especially for U.S.-Pakistan relations? Because where this problem is existing still today and chaos is going on in the region.

MR KIRBY: Goyal, I cannot speak for the incoming administration. I can’t. I’ve seen some comments that they’ve made about a counterterrorism focus. That’s for them to address. Nothing changes about our focus on the importance of regional, collaborative, and effective counterterrorism operations and to our interest in seeing all the countries in the region likewise expend a great deal of energy and effort and leadership on that. I just can’t speculate about the future and I wouldn’t do that, okay?

QUESTION: Well, can I just quickly ask you in the same thing: Do you --

MR KIRBY: If it’s the same thing about the new administration --

QUESTION: No, no.

MR KIRBY: -- my answer is going to be very much similar to what I just gave you.

QUESTION: No, no, not the new administration, currently going on. Does this Administration or this building or Secretary favors Pakistan to name as the state sponsor of terrorism? Because a bill going on and online signatures have reached to the White House and State Department, and there was a bill in the Congress that it’s time to send a strong message to Pakistan: Stop terrorism.

MR KIRBY: Look, I’m not going to get into a discussion about that. We routinely discuss with our Pakistani counterparts the importance for continued focus and energy on the counterterrorism efforts and the terrorism threat, particularly along that spine between the two countries. Our focus on this and the focus that we want to see Pakistan expend on it, that’s not going to change.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

MR KIRBY: Said.

QUESTION: Yes. Sir, can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: And we have some Palestinian journalists in the back from Gaza and the West Bank.

MR KIRBY: Welcome.

QUESTION: Welcome, yeah.

MR KIRBY: Good to have you here.

QUESTION: Okay. Very quickly, the PA – the Palestinian Authority – is increasingly using its police forces to quash peaceful protests of Palestinians. And in fact, they conduct raids and so on into Palestinian camps, into Palestinian neighborhoods. Are you concerned that this – a force that you have trained and financed and so on is conducting itself in this fashion?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ve seen those same reports. I’m not going to comment on specifics. I think you know I won’t do that, but obviously, we’re always concerned and we will always want to caution everyone to avoid violence, to use restraint, and to maintain calm.

QUESTION: Because I think there is a feeling there is some sort of a vacuum in the next couple months and so on, and as the gap gets wider between the governed and the government --

MR KIRBY: A vacuum in the next couple of months?

QUESTION: No, it’s a vacuum in terms of direct American influence, possibly, in the peace process, which lets, like, those in control – the PA --

MR KIRBY: Because there’s two months left in the Administration?

QUESTION: No, man, because you’re busy. I mean, I’m not saying that you guys are --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, and one of the things that we’re busy on is continuing to focus on this issue.

QUESTION: Well, let me put it this way: The peace process is off the radar screen for the time being. Would you agree with that? Would --

MR KIRBY: No, I would not agree with that. Look, I mean, the Secretary continues to spend a lot of energy and effort on this and so does the President. I mean, there’s not – nobody’s taking a foot off the gas here, because there’s too much left of the Administration, particularly on this issue. So I would absolutely refute the notion that there’s some sort of vacuum here or lack of attention being paid to it.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: Well, wait a second. Are you saying that you still think in two months that you can put together a --

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that.

QUESTION: -- peace process and --

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that, but I --

QUESTION: -- achieve a result?

MR KIRBY: But I didn’t – no, I didn’t say that. What I said was we’re not going to stop focusing on this. We’re not going to – there’s not going to be a vacuum here --

QUESTION: Yeah, but every administration, you realize, at some point is going to have – has to realize that time has run out.

MR KIRBY: I think everybody realizes --

QUESTION: It was literally the day after the election in 2008 when a bunch of us flew with Secretary Rice to the Middle East to – basically for her to announce that the Annapolis process wasn’t going to result in anything. It sounds as though --

MR KIRBY: I think everybody realizes that – first of all, we’re mindful of the calendar --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- and the clock. Everybody realizes the challenges with respect to the time left here. But that doesn’t mean that the Secretary is not going to continue to stay focused on this.

QUESTION: Well, then let me ask you this: that some Israeli officials are mulling granting settlers protected population status. It was the attorney general and the Justice Minister Shaked examining three possible solutions to legalize settlements in the West Bank, including defining settlers as local population like the Palestinians, and that would allow to them to expropriate Palestinian land. Have you seen the report and can you comment on that?

MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the reports and again, Said, our policy and view on settlements has not changed. It remains absolutely the same.

QUESTION: But we have seen in this past week alone an acceleration of these measures that are designed to sort of embolden the settlement processes and so on. In fact, there was an editorial today in The Washington Post that speaks about this and so on. So I know you’ve given a strong statement at the beginning of the week on settlements, but that is not really deterring the Israelis, is it?

MR KIRBY: It’s not what?

QUESTION: It’s not deterring them, is it?

MR KIRBY: Well, I can’t speak to Israeli decisions here. But again, let me reiterate that our policy on settlements is absolutely clear and it’s consistent. We believe they are corrosive to the cause of peace and that legislation such as what we talked about earlier in the week and other decisions to advance settlements, they are endangering prospects for a two-state solution, absolutely.

Okay?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) I’ll go last.

MR KIRBY: I think he’s done.

QUESTION: No one else? I just wanted to ask you very briefly about this vote yesterday in the UN on the Third Committee, the vote on the resolution opposing Nazism – neo-Nazism. You don’t have anything on this?

MR KIRBY: I don’t, no, no, Matt. Let me take that question for you.

QUESTION: So – well, let me ask it and then you can – maybe take the question and --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, no, I --

QUESTION: You guys were one of three countries to vote against this. And I realize why you did it from the explanation of vote that was read by your representative --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- saying that it – it infringes on freedom of speech and freedom of expression and you think that it was being used as – by the Russians who proposed it to be – to interfere politically in other countries. But at the end of the explanation of vote, it said that the United States is going to oppose this, as it has done in years past, and we urge other states also to oppose it. Well, only three countries opposed it: you, Ukraine, and Palau. So I’m wondering, one, was this just an epic failure on the part of – on your behalf to get anyone else to agree to vote no? And two, you obviously felt strongly about it, because you voted no instead of abstaining. And most of your European allies – NATO members, members of the EU – abstained. And I’m just wondering, why was it that you felt so strongly that you voted no along with only two other countries instead of abstaining like most of your allies? That’s --

MR KIRBY: All right. Well, let me get back to you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Have a good weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:48 p.m.)

 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 15, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 15, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

BURMA



SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



BURMA



DEPARTMENT



YEMEN



SYRIA/RUSSIA



IRAQ



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



LEBANON



MISCELLANEOUS/ICC



CHINA/HONG KONG




TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EST

MS TRUDEAU: AFP has deigned to join us.

QUESTION: Two of them.

MS TRUDEAU: I know, it’s the tag team.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS TRUDEAU: We appreciate that. Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the State Department. I have a few things at the top.

First, on Burma: We’re concerned by reports of a spike in violence in Burma’s Rakhine State. We’re following the situation closely and attempting to get reliable information about developments there. I’d note that the U.S. Ambassador to Burma Scot Marciel, along with a visiting delegation of officials from the State Department as well as other U.S. agencies, held a previously scheduled bilateral dialogue with the Government of Burma today in Naypyidaw. The delegation included the deputy assistant secretaries from both the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau, as well as the Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Bureau. The U.S. delegation stressed the need for the Government of Burma to facilitate a credible and independent investigation of these allegations to improve transparency and information sharing, and to provide access for both media as well as humanitarian aid.

We note the recent visit to Rakhine State by Ambassador Marciel and other representatives was a positive step in improving international access, but it’s important for the government to do more to stem the violence and provide assistance to those in these affected areas.

Next, a quick update on the Secretary’s travel. As you’ve seen, Secretary Kerry met with the Emirati Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, as well as National Security AdvisorSheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi today. He’s now headed to Marrakech, where he’ll participate in the 22nd Conference of the Parties, COP-22, to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. While at COP-22, Secretary Kerry will deliver a speech that highlights the urgency of addressing climate change and the importance of a continued, ambitious climate action around the world.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Can I just start – ask you very briefly on your Burma statement?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Who exactly did this delegation meet with?

MS TRUDEAU: So it met with – let me see if I’ve got this. So it was with their counterparts with the Burmese Government, so it’s ministries of border affairs, home affairs, and foreign affairs. Separately they also met with a host of local NGO, and they’ve also met separately with officials from Rakhine State.

QUESTION: But they haven’t met with anyone from the military?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, I’ve got border affairs, home affairs, and foreign affairs, as well as the office of the state counsellor.

QUESTION: Do you think that they got to meet with the right people to --

MS TRUDEAU: I think that they engaged with the interlocutors that they felt were important there. If they did meet with the military, I can update you on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Moving on.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is going to be your daily question here. Any contact from the transition team yet?

MS TRUDEAU: As of this morning, we have no update to offer you; we have no contact to report.

QUESTION: Okay. None at all that you’re aware of?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: And that – and – okay. All right. Then, unless anyone has questions about that --

QUESTION: Yeah. Is that normal that at this stage you would not have had contact with the transition team?

MS TRUDEAU: We discussed this yesterday. It’s up to the president-elect and his team. We stand ready to welcome them, provide the briefing materials, the facilitation, as we look towards inauguration in January.

QUESTION: I guess the other question would be though you – so you don’t see this as being some kind of a snub or --

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, absolutely not.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: No, absolutely not.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up Matt very quickly?

MS TRUDEAU: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: But it seems like it’s not only with the State Department but also with the Pentagon and even the White House that there is no – been no contact in the transition teams.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would direct you to the president-elect’s team.

QUESTION: I mean, just going back to the normalcy of those things.

MS TRUDEAU: I would direct you to the president-elect’s team. We stand ready to support. We look forward to having those discussions.

QUESTION: Can I change to the subject of Yemen?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: The Secretary, in his comments to people – to reporters in Abu Dhabi earlier today talked about the – getting an agreement --

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- on a ceasefire to start on the 17th, whatever day of the week that is. But immediately afterwards, the Yemeni Government, President Hadi’s government, said: What? – basically – we’re not on board with this. And I’m just wondering, was this premature that – what the Secretary announced?

MS TRUDEAU: No, I wouldn’t say it was premature at all. If people missed this, the Secretary actually made these remarks this morning our time in Abu Dhabi. As we all know, the Secretary continues to actively engage the parties in the conflict to bring the fighting to an end. As part of this sustained effort in Muscat yesterday – actually very early this morning – Secretary Kerry met with members of the Houthi delegation in a push to make progress into restoring – resolving the conflict in Yemen.

As the Secretary said in his remarks to the press, the Houthis have indicated a willingness to abide by the terms of the April 10th cessation of hostilities on the condition that other parties abide by that commitment as well. We understand the Saudi-led coalition has also expressed a willingness to return to the cessation. Additionally, the Houthis accepted the UN-drafted roadmap as a basis for negotiations to end the conflict to work for the establishment of a new national unity government.

In terms of your question, in terms of the Yemeni Government, we continue to support the UN special envoy’s work. This is his role as he seeks to negotiate the details of this solution moving forward. In terms of the interactions that he’s had directly with the Government of Yemen, I’d point you to the UN special envoy.

QUESTION: Okay. So then you’re saying that he did not exaggerate or – because he said only that the Houthis had agreed and --

MS TRUDEAU: No. We believe that for the reaction of the Government of Yemen, as I said, I’m going to point you to the special envoy. We believe that we have an agreement on the UN roadmap. We continually – we continue, though, to urge the Republic of Yemen to support this roadmap, to agree to those terms. As you noted, the 17th is – has been posited as a start date. We continue to work on the granularity of that.

QUESTION: Right. But it’s not – not all parties have agreed to it.

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that we have a good path towards the parties agreeing. I note the Yemeni Government’s reaction to this this morning.

QUESTION: Yeah. So not all parties have agreed to it, correct?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe we have a good start towards it. Correct.

QUESTION: Sorry?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: Correct?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: Not all parties have agreed to it.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve seen the Yemeni Government’s reaction – yes.

QUESTION: Right. They rejected it. So why – I mean, can you just say --

MS TRUDEAU: So we have three days as we move to --

QUESTION: I’m just looking to --

MS TRUDEAU: As we look three days as we --

QUESTION: I’m looking for some kind of acknowledgement from you guys that it’s – all is not well and good with the ceasefire in Yemen --

MS TRUDEAU: No.

QUESTION: -- yet because not everyone has agreed to it.

MS TRUDEAU: No. And I think what we explained is part of the Secretary’s remarks on what I’ve just said is that we’ve made enormous progress. We think that this provides an opening. We’re looking towards November 17th as that time. We continue to engage with the UN special envoy as he works to bring all parties to the table.

QUESTION: Okay. But you do acknowledge that President Hadi’s government needs to be brought onboard still?

MS TRUDEAU: I saw those remarks. Yes.

QUESTION: Does that mean yes, you accept that --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the government has yet to agree?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe that is correct.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: And Elizabeth, did you think that the Secretary coordinated with the government before his announcement or not? And do you think that there is a coordination between the Saudis and the government, the Yemeni Government, in this regard too?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So in terms of the coordination between the Saudis and the government, I’d refer you to those parties. Where we are working is with the UN special envoy in his role to facilitate the communication between the parties.

QUESTION: But how can he announce such an agreement or ceasefire --

MS TRUDEAU: What he announced was that we have made significant progress towards that roadmap, towards the UN roadmap, looking at a November 17th date; that he had had constructive engagements with the Houthis about this; and that we believe there’s a path forward.

QUESTION: But it’s not – this issue is not related to the Houthis only.

MS TRUDEAU: Well no, of course. And that’s what we’ve said and we continue to work with the UN special envoy as he continues to talk with all parties to move towards that November 17th date.

QUESTION: And why don’t you talk to the Yemeni Government directly as the Secretary talked to the Houthis directly?

MS TRUDEAU: So the conversation that the Secretary had with the Houthis was to talk about that UN roadmap. In terms of conversation directly with the Yemeni Government, we believe that’s the role of the UN special envoy and we direct you there.

QUESTION: And it’s not the role of the UN special envoy to talk to the Houthis too?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that it was important to talk to the Houthis as we move forward and try and move to that 17th to get that cessation of hostilities to create a roadmap going forward under the UN auspices.

QUESTION: As you know, the Houthis get significant support from abroad. Has the Secretary been in touch with Foreign Minister Zarif?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no calls to read out on that.

QUESTION: So you don’t know then if the Houthis’ main sponsor is also onboard? It’s not just the Yemeni Government that is not yet onboard, but you don’t know whether the --

MS TRUDEAU: The Secretary had direct engagement with the Houthis regarding the path forward on this. They have accepted the UN roadmap as the path forward, so we take their word for it.

QUESTION: Do you happen to know how many times the Secretary has had direct contact with this – with the Houthis, Houthi leaders?

MS TRUDEAU: Actually, I don’t. I do note it’s unusual. I can check though.

QUESTION: It’s – yeah. I don’t know that he’s ever had himself. I know that there have been contacts, but is this the first?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I don’t believe that, but we’ll check. And if he has before, then I’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: Where did he meet with them? In Oman or UAE?

MS TRUDEAU: He met with them last night, so that was in Oman.

QUESTION: And do you have the names of the --

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second. I do not.

QUESTION: -- of the Houthi representatives?

MS TRUDEAU: I do not. Why don’t we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Yemen? A quick Yemeni --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course on Yemen.

QUESTION: Right. I’m just confused, trying to clarify. The 17, the date of the November 17th – who proposed it?

MS TRUDEAU: I believe this came out actually of the discussions that the Secretary had, noting, as Matt has pointed out, that there’s still some granularity, that there’s work to do moving towards that – that cessation. But we believe we have a path forward on this.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Was it premature, do you think? Sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: No, I don’t believe it was premature. I think – I think with the Houthis’ agreement on this, this was a significant step.

Are we moving to Syria? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we do Syria? Yeah. Could you update us? Apparently, the Russians resumed bombardment of Idlib and these areas although not in the Aleppo area. Could you first update us on what the situation is and if there has been any kind of contact with the Russians on this issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. So we have seen that. We strongly condemn the resumption of airstrikes in Syria by the Russians as well as the Syrian regime. The most recent reported attacks are on five hospitals and one mobile clinic in Syria. We believe it’s a violation of international law.

It’s also worth noting – and I would say this as an aside – but noting our focus has been on the delivery of aid, is that despite Russian claims that it halted airstrikes in the past month, Russia allowed no aid or food into east Aleppo; they let eastern Aleppo residents starve while seeking praise from the international community for halting indiscriminate strikes for three weeks.

We have consistently tried to work to de-escalate the violence in Syria. We’re at the table again in Geneva on that today. And we’ve consistently pushed for the provision of humanitarian aid to these civilians suffering under siege. Instead of joining us constructively to reach that goal, Russia again has backed the Assad regime in their ruthless war against the Syrian people.

QUESTION: You’re saying that they have halted aid during the times --

MS TRUDEAU: They did not permit the facilitation --

QUESTION: How did they do that? How did they do that physically? I mean, did they like have barricades? Did they stop the – obstructed the roads and --

MS TRUDEAU: In terms of – they did not facilitate the access. They worked with their partners in the regime to block the aid.

QUESTION: What specifically did --

QUESTION: Okay. There are also reports --

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second.

QUESTION: Yeah. Yeah, go ahead, and I’ll follow up on you.

QUESTION: And just on this one, I mean, what specifically did Russia do in this latest bombing campaign that you’re saying is a violation of international law?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, it’s – we’re taking a look at what Russia is hitting. It’s hitting mobile clinics. It’s hitting hospitals. Again, it’s denying aid. We’ve said this repeatedly: Russia had an opportunity here to facilitate aid and food and medicine to these people under siege. It failed to do so.

QUESTION: But is the – is – when you’re saying it’s a violation of international law, are you talking about something they have specifically done as part of this resumption of airstrikes, whether it’s the hitting of hospitals, or are you saying this is just what they’ve been up to?

MS TRUDEAU: The set of actions that they have taken within the last weeks.

QUESTION: Over the last many weeks?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

Said.

QUESTION: According to the UN --

QUESTION: Are you surprised?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve talked a lot about Russia’s actions and their words. Russia, for three weeks, made a significant point of saying that it had halted bombardment of Aleppo.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: And had broadcast that through it’s various platforms and various outlets. The resumption of airstrikes today I won’t say is a surprise; it’s certainly a disappointment.

QUESTION: But they did say that they – that these pauses were temporary in nature and they kept being extended. And then --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, with the idea that it would be for aid access, which did not happen.

QUESTION: Right. And then it – right. And then they did tell – make the announcement that everyone should leave that part of the city. That doesn’t make it any – that doesn’t mitigate it --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. Warning civilians that you’re going to bomb them doesn’t make bombing civilians (inaudible).

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that it does. I’m just asking you that --

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: -- you don’t think that that’s a mitigating factor.

QUESTION: So does this mean it has yet --

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on. One second, Lesley. I want to go to Said, because we --

QUESTION: No, I – stay on Syria. Just very, very quickly – now, they’re making a separation between bombing Aleppo and bombing Idlib. You don’t make that separation. You think that’s part of the same campaign.

MS TRUDEAU: We think bombing civilians --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: But it’s one – it’s part of the same campaign.

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: The same Russian aerial bombardment campaign. And my last question is: It seems that areas under government control is also suffering from lack of aid and so on, according to the United Nations. Do you have any information on that? There is --

MS TRUDEAU: I don’t. On that, that would be best a question for the UN. Civilians need aid, period.

Lesley, I’m sorry to cut you off.

QUESTION: No, no, not at all. Have you raised your thoughts with the Russians, if you are talking in --

MS TRUDEAU: So we continue to have these discussions in Geneva.

QUESTION: Was it raised with them there?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: It was?

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: So – wait. Today?

MS TRUDEAU: We met in Geneva --

QUESTION: Today?

MS TRUDEAU: -- on the issue of – the issue of the possibility of strikes – I’m not sure on the timing, because I believe the strikes happened while they were still meeting in Geneva. We’ve raised the issue of bombardment. Let me check the exact timing and see if it came up today.

QUESTION: Well, but, wait – but I mean, you can’t say that --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. So we were meeting in Geneva. We talked about the issue --

QUESTION: There was a meeting underway when the resumption of the attacks happened?

MS TRUDEAU: I want to check the exact timing on that. Okay.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS TRUDEAU: Are we done on Syria?

QUESTION: Well, I just want to go back to the – not the point that I made yesterday, but my question from yesterday. If they were, in fact, in the middle of a meeting – how can you say that these meetings are accomplishing anything when in the middle of it the bombardment resumes?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. We believe that Russia and the Syrian regime’s actions are inexcusable. However, we still believe that the only way forward is a political resolution and that resolution will happen through multilateral talks.

QUESTION: Right. But these multilateral talks are not aimed a political resolution. They’re – I thought they were aimed at trying to get the ceasefire back.

MS TRUDEAU: It is. A ceasefire, aid delivery, creating the space --

QUESTION: I know. But these meetings --

MS TRUDEAU: -- to have that political resolution.

QUESTION: But the meetings in Geneva are not aimed at – I mean, they are ultimately aimed at restarting the political talks.

MS TRUDEAU: They are.

QUESTION: But in the immediate term they’re supposed to be for the ceasefire, right?

MS TRUDEAU: That’s correct. But we do view this as a sequence of steps.

QUESTION: I get that. But you’re still saying that these meetings are worthwhile.

MS TRUDEAU: We do.

QUESTION: And I don’t understand how you can say that if in the very middle of the meeting the attacks begin again.

MS TRUDEAU: We continue to believe it’s important to talk.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: And when will you be ready to withdraw from --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to get ahead of that, Michel.

QUESTION: And --

MS TRUDEAU: One more.

QUESTION: Well, I was trying to figure out – can we just clarify, at what level are these discussions again?

MS TRUDEAU: They’re working level.

QUESTION: So if you say --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, is Ratney there? Is the special envoy there?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, it’s working-level discussions. It’s my understanding that the special envoy is not in Geneva right now.

QUESTION: But what are the achievements of these meetings or of these groups?

MS TRUDEAU: We talked about this at length yesterday, Michel.

QUESTION: But we didn’t get it yet. If there is no results yet and they are still meeting, what’s the purpose of meeting without achieving anything?

MS TRUDEAU: We actually spent about 20 minutes unpacking this yesterday. We are not saying that these discussions in Geneva are coming to an immediate conclusion or an immediate win, but we continue to believe that this is the best path forward – is a discussion in a multilateral setting. And we’ll stay at the table until we believe it’s not the case.

QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador in Iraq visited Erbil over the weekend.

MS TRUDEAU: He did.

QUESTION: Could you give us a readout on his meeting, please?

MS TRUDEAU: I did. I believe you might have seen the embassy in Baghdad actually issued a statement on this today, but I’m happy to recap it. Ambassador Silliman did visit the Iraq Kurdistan region yesterday. The ambassador was accompanied by the Deputy Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, Terry Wolff. The ambassador met separately with President Barzani and other IKR officials to discuss progress in the battle against Daesh, U.S. support for the Peshmerga, and the IDP situation in the area. The ambassador praised the sacrifices and the bravery of the Peshmerga and thanked the leaders for their support of the more than 1 million IDPs and refugees who have come to the IKR. Ambassador Silliman also encouraged the Kurdish leaders to continue what we see as productive dialogue between Erbil and Baghdad to address outstanding issues.

QUESTION: And while he was there, he gave a press conference, asked – answered a reporter’s question, saying he was confident that Peshmerga forces would return to their pre-ISIS positions once ISIS is defeated. Was that just an opinion he was expressing or a formal policy that you intend to enforce?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I think we’ve spoken about this before. The Peshmerga themselves have said that and we would hold them to their word.

QUESTION: Well, there are, kind of, changing circumstances in that a lot has happened – a lot of bloodshed, a lot of animosity. In fact, the CIA director, John Brennan, has expressed skepticism that Iraq can ever be put back together again. And I’m wondering if that – if you still remain firmly committed to that or there’s room for negotiations between Baghdad?

MS TRUDEAU: No, we remain firmly committed to that.

QUESTION: Do you think that will continue in the new administration?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I would refer you to the president-elect’s team to discuss any of his policies for the next administration.

QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I have a quick question. We discussed this a couple weeks ago – I think Matt raised it on the – this barring BDS supporters and so on from entering Israel. Well, it passed its first reading yesterday and so on, and in fact, they were called by former Israeli Minister of Justice Livni – Tzipi Livni called it McCarthyism and we should allow everybody in, and that would actually help the BDS movement. Do you have any comment on all this? I mean, I know you said that you don’t interfere, but I wanted to know if you do have a position.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I guess I – yeah, I’d reiterate what – I think it was Mark who briefed --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- that day where we spoke about this. We’re aware of the various reactions to the proposed bill to bar pro-BDS activists from entering Israel. We understand. I’d also note that the legislation requires several more steps before becoming law. The United States strong opposition to boycott and sanctions of the state of Israel is well known, however, as a general principle, we value freedom of expression even in cases where we do not agree with the views espoused. In terms of where the legislation is and the local reaction in the Israeli community, I’d refer you to Israel.

QUESTION: What should, let’s say, Americans of Palestinian descent that are active on these issues – when they go to, let’s say, and they land at Tel Aviv airport and so on, and they’re barred from entering the country or held, what should they do? What should the – what do you advise them to do in this case?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I think we’ve spoken about this before --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- and we’ve spoken about our conversations with Israel and treating all Americans equally on that. And while every country has a right to control its borders, we certainly support the freedom of expression even when we don’t agree with the policy.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, on the U.S. tanks that appeared in the --

MS TRUDEAU: The armored personnel carriers?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: Any update on it?

MS TRUDEAU: So we actually have been looking into it, so thanks for that, because I did want to update you. We take any allegations of end-use violations seriously – in Lebanon, in Syria, anywhere around the world. Our embassy in Beirut is working with the Lebanese armed forces to investigate the images circulating on social media purporting to show Hizballah displaying U.S. military equipment in Syria.

We’d note that the Lebanese military has publicly stated that the M113s depicted online in the Hizballah military parade were never part of their equipment roster. We’d also note the vehicles in the photos that you can see circulating on Twitter are extremely common in the region. The M113s are old. They’re found in a number of different countries’ militaries in the region. Identifying their origin is difficult, something that we have not yet assessed exactly at this period of time. However, we continue to work closely with our colleagues within the Pentagon and the intelligence community and will update you either later this week or later as soon as we come to a conclusion.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: So what countries have them in their --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: What countries in the region --

MS TRUDEAU: So I actually – I asked that, and apparently it’s a number of countries in the region, and these apparently also – it’s things I did not know about M113s – is they can last for decades. They can last upwards – 40, 50 years. So as we continue to take a look at these images that were circulating on social media, we’ll drill down; we’ll see if we can identify it by the configurations of the tanks, things like that.

QUESTION: Right. Well, bravo. I’m glad that they last long. It’s another testament to American manufacturing.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Thank you. Buy American, Matt.

QUESTION: Exactly. (Laughter.) Well, so Hizballah should buy American? Is that what you’re saying?

MS TRUDEAU: Or not, yeah.

QUESTION: Well, wait a second. I --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: You say “a number of countries.” Can you name them or at least give --

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, I don’t want to get ahead of it, because we’re still looking.

QUESTION: Well, how many? What’s the number?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I will say several. We’re still looking --

QUESTION: Three, four, five?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to characterize it.

QUESTION: It’s not like – well then, how – but how can you come and say a number of countries and then not --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. As soon as we have more granularity, more details – but I will say, as I mentioned yesterday, that we’re actively looking at this. It is of concern, as end use is anywhere around the world. And as soon as I have something more, I’ll update you guys.

QUESTION: I think Israel has some, but I think they’re probably unlikely to be Hizballah’s supply.

QUESTION: Is it conceivable that they are actually old Iranian tanks from the shah days?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I’m just not in a position to --

QUESTION: But do you suspect that? Do you suspect that they may have been old Iranian tanks that have found their way to Lebanon?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I’m not in a position to sort of judge hypotheticals like that. We’re looking into it. As soon as I have an update, you guys will get it.

QUESTION: Did the U.S. deliver such arms to Iraq, to the Iraqi Government, lately?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, we’re taking a look. We’ll get back to you as soon as we have more, Michel.

Anything?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: The other question: Does --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- the Iraqi Government have the same kind of tanks?

MS TRUDEAU: These are questions in terms of that sort of capability that, as we take a look at the photos that were circulating on social media, we’ll be able to narrow it down. I just don’t have an answer for you.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, three weeks ago Kirby told us that the ICC has made a valuable contribution to the service of accountability in a number of situations. This was in reference to African countries – a handful of them withdrawing cooperation from the ICC. Now the chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, says she’s investigating U.S. military and the CIA for potential war crimes in Afghanistan. Will you cooperate with this investigation? Do you find it helpful, a valuable contribution to the service of accountability?

MS TRUDEAU: So I think you’re talking about the preliminary examination report of the Office of the Prosecutor. Obviously, we’re aware of the report. I’d note the United States is deeply committed to complying with the law of war. We have a robust national system of investigation and accountability that is as good as any country in the world. We do not believe that an ICC examination or investigation with respect to the actions of U.S. personnel in relation to the situation in Afghanistan is warranted or appropriate. As we previously noted, the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and has not consented to ICC jurisdiction.

QUESTION: Is that the reason that it’s inappropriate, because you’re not a member?

MS TRUDEAU: We – for that and for other reasons. We do not believe it’s warranted or appropriate.

QUESTION: Well, Sudan says that – Sudan is not a member.

MS TRUDEAU: What --

QUESTION: And it says that the indictment of its president is not appropriate or warranted. What’s the difference?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we have a robust system of accountability. It is longstanding U.S. policy, and you guys see this every day. Kirby, I think, of anyone, speaks about the accountability of U.S. military systems. Though when credible allegations of wrongdoing by U.S. forces are made, an investigation is undertaken so appropriate actions may be taken.

QUESTION: So the reason that this is not hypocritical is because one, you’re not a member, and two, you conduct investigations and hold people accountable on your own and don’t need the International Criminal Court to --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, as you said, we’re not a member, we’re not subject to ICC jurisdiction and we also do have a robust system --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- of national accountability.

QUESTION: So I think you’re saying --

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: -- yes, that those are the reasons.

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: One, you’re not a member, and two, you handle these kinds of investigations on your own.

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: But I don’t understand how those two things – I mean, there are lots of countries that aren’t members – and when you say that it’s a bad thing or a negative thing for African countries to want to leave because they think it’s unfair and then say – and then give this as your reasoning for why it’s inappropriate for the ICC to look into these allegations, do you not see how that opens the way – opens the door to --

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I would say, as we said --

QUESTION: -- people saying that you’re – that there’s a double standard here?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we have engaged with the ICC and we’ve supported ICC investigations and prosecution of cases that we believe advance our values in accordance with U.S. law. I understand your point, but we hold ourselves accountable more than – I wouldn’t say more than any other country, but we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards when it comes – we believe that we have national systems of accountability that are more than sufficient.

QUESTION: But if --

QUESTION: Okay, but there’s been criticism, though --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m aware.

QUESTION: -- of the national system of accountability that – and do you reject that as being --

MS TRUDEAU: No, we --

QUESTION: -- unfair criticism?

MS TRUDEAU: We – what I would say is that we do an extraordinary job of investigating and of holding those accountable -- investigating credible allegations, holding ourselves accountable, holding our personnel accountable, and closing investigations in a manner that serves justice.

QUESTION: So in these – with these specific allegations that the prosecutors say that they were looking into, people have been held – there have been investigations and people have been held accountable for --

MS TRUDEAU: On specific investigations on issues like that, especially the ones in this report, I am going to have to refer you to the Department of Defense. I can speak broadly about our view on this report.

QUESTION: Right, but the – you’re saying that the ICC doesn’t need to or shouldn’t investigate this, because the U.S. has its own system, so I’m --

MS TRUDEAU: We have extensively examined the conduct of our own forces in Afghanistan, for example.

QUESTION: And determined what?

MS TRUDEAU: We have made public reports on detention operations, we have extensively examined our own activities, we have been as transparent as possible.

QUESTION: Right, but the findings were – and people were or were not held accountable for any abuses?

MS TRUDEAU: In many cases, people were held accountable. Yes.

QUESTION: They were? Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I’m sorry, Dave.

QUESTION: Yeah, so you said that you have in the past cooperated with similar ICC investigations into other countries where you see an opportunity to advance American values.

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: So you’re selectively using the ICC as a tool of foreign policy, rather than as justice.

MS TRUDEAU: No, I would say that we – as I said, that we cooperate with the ICC, we support the ICC. We believe the ICC, as we have made clear --

QUESTION: You support the ICC’s investigation of other countries.

MS TRUDEAU: We have supported the ICC when we believe in cases, for example, of accusations of genocide where you have these grave violations of – grave atrocities on this, but we’re not a signatory to the Rome statute; we are not members. We have our own system of accountability.

QUESTION: Right. Does that undermine your case for asking, for example, African countries to cooperate with us?

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve raised our concerns. When countries --

QUESTION: Your concerns bear little weight since you yourself would not put yourself under their jurisdiction.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, when we did raise concerns, we’ve always been clear that we ourselves are not signatories.

QUESTION: You were a signatory at one point.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we --

QUESTION: Not a ratifier.

MS TRUDEAU: Not a ratifier. Thank you.

QUESTION: I have --

MS TRUDEAU: One more.

QUESTION: I don’t know if this was addressed before. Maybe you did or there was a statement over the weekend and I missed it, but Hong Kong? And --

MS TRUDEAU: I haven’t, so if you --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: -- if you want to ask about them.

QUESTION: The removal of these legislatures on the oath issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. We are aware of reports that a Hong Kong court has disqualified two legislator-elects who altered the wording of their --

QUESTION: I think it’s legislators-elect.

MS TRUDEAU: What did I say? Legislators – did I put the plural on the wrong --

QUESTION: It’s like attorneys general.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Legislators-elect who altered the wording of their oaths of office. The United States strongly supports and values Hong Kong’s legislative council and independent judiciary, two institutions that play a critically important role in promoting and protecting the special administrative region’s high degree of autonomy under Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” framework that has been in place since 1997. We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s continued stability and prosperity as a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

QUESTION: Okay, maybe I missed it. So you think that – you don’t like this action by the court?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that the Chinese and the Hong Kong SAR government and all elected politicians in Hong Kong should refrain from any actions that fuel concern or undermine confidence in the “one country, two systems” principle.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you – that altering the oath, you’re opposed to, or that the court stripping them of their office is of concern? Which or both?

MS TRUDEAU: Both. We --

QUESTION: So you don’t like the fact that they changed the oath and you don’t like the fact that the court ruled the way it did.

MS TRUDEAU: We believed that – actually, both. So one, it was an independent – the independent legislative council, the independent judiciary, we believe played that important role. But we also call on both the Hong Kong politicians as well as the Chinese Government.

QUESTION: Can I have a quick Hong Kong question?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: The student advocate Joshua Wong is coming in Washington, and he’s supposed to be in Congress tomorrow. Is there any plan from this building? Anyone is meeting with him?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no meetings to read out for his visit. If that changes, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:41 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 14, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau

Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 14, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

PAKISTAN



AFGHANISTAN



GHANA



SECRETARY TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/RUSSIA/REGION



BAHRAIN



COLOMBIA



VENEZUELA



COLOMBIA



SOUTH SUDAN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SYRIA/LEBANON/REGION




TRANSCRIPT:

2:01 p.m. EST

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. We know that the President will be speaking about 3 o’clock, so we’ll do this as quickly as we can today so you all can watch that. I do have a few things at the top.

First, on Pakistan: The United States condemns in the strongest terms the attack on Saturday on a Sufi shrine in Balochistan that killed 52 innocent worshippers and wounded over a hundred more. We extend our condolences to the victims and their families. Attacks like this only deepen our shared resolve to defeat terrorism and end the targeting of religious minorities. We stand with the people of Pakistan at this difficult hour and remain committed to supporting religious freedom. We’ll continue to work with our partners in Pakistan and across the region to combat the threat of terrorism.

In Afghanistan, we also strongly condemn the suicide attack on coalition personnel at Bagram Airfield this weekend that killed two U.S. servicemembers and two U.S. contractors, and injured 16 other U.S. servicemembers and one Polish soldier participating in the NATO mission. Our deepest sympathies go to the family and friends affected by this tragic loss. So we mourn their sacrifice, we reaffirm our commitment to protect the homeland, and help our Afghan partners secure their country and their future.

On Ghana, the United States is deeply disappointed by the targeting of the home and family of the primary opposition presidential candidate. We condemn all violence in Ghana, including political violence in the period leading to, during, and immediately following Ghana’s elections scheduled for December 7th. Ghanaians from across the political spectrum have worked hard to build one of the leading democracies in Africa. We call on all Ghanaians to remain peaceful and respect the democratic process. We specifically call on candidates, their parties, and their supporters to reaffirm their pledges to renounce violence and settle any disputes through the judicial process.

And finally, I believe you all saw the readout of Secretary Kerry’s meetings today in Oman, where he met in Muscat with His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said in Muscat. Secretary Kerry and the sultan reaffirmed the enduring partnership between the United States and the Sultanate of Oman. Secretary expressed the United States’ deep appreciation for the helpful role that Oman has played in securing the recent release of U.S. citizens held in Yemen. He also discussed with the sultan the conflict in Yemen, the urgent need to find a durable political settlement to ease the suffering of the Yemeni people.

I think also, as you know, the Secretary met with his counterpart, Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, where they discussed a range of regional issues of mutual concern, including the conflict in Yemen.

The Secretary travels to Abu Dhabi tomorrow to meet with the crown prince, and we’ll have more on that tomorrow.

And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. Thanks. Let’s start with any transition news that you might have. Has there been any contact yet? Have – do you have any idea when the president-elect’s team will be showing up?

MS TRUDEAU: So we have no updates from this weekend. As we said on Friday, the department stands ready to help the transition team and support them as we move to Inauguration Day, but I have no updates.

QUESTION: But does that mean that no, there hasn’t been any contact?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. Does anyone have anything on that, or --

QUESTION: Well, from – so just to clarify, so nobody from the president-elect’s office, nor from the State Department, has reached out?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.

QUESTION: So what would normally happen? Would the State Department --

MS TRUDEAU: I think this is standard. I think at this stage we’ll wait for the transition team. Certainly we’re poised to help, we’re poised to support with a range of administrative, logistical briefing information materials. We would welcome that. And as soon as I do have an update, I’ll make sure you guys get it.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Just to understand clearly, how is what – the Secretary’s activities, how do you brief the president-elect on what he’s doing far as U.S. foreign policy – from the State Department’s perspective, not from the White House? How do you do it?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I think we would back it up and we would take a look at --

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- the range of foreign policy issues. We’ve spoken about this in previous transitions from the podium.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: There’s briefing books, there’s oral materials coming in. So it really – it’s something that the State Department is adaptable, looking at what the transition team would need. And we look forward to working with them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Elizabeth, on Syria, Secretary Kerry has called Minister Lavrov today. Do you have any readout for this phone call?

MS TRUDEAU: So I don’t have much of a readout. I can confirm that the Secretary did speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, spoke about the situation in Aleppo. They also re-emphasized the need for a political solution to the conflict in Syria. But beyond that, I have no details to offer.

QUESTION: But it looks like the Syrian regime and the Russians are planning to invade eastern Aleppo soon. Did they discuss this? Has the Secretary asked the Russians to postpone this military operation?

MS TRUDEAU: So I know they discussed the situation in Aleppo. In terms of what the regime or their Russian backers are planning on doing, I’d refer you to them to speak to their plan. But the Secretary did re-emphasize, again, that there’s no military solution to the conflict in Syria.

QUESTION: And are you concerned about such an operation?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, as we’ve said all along, we’re deeply concerned about the situation in Aleppo. We’re deeply concerned about the civilian toll that we’re seeing there. What we have said all along is that aid needs to go in and that there needs to be a period where we can get back to the political negotiations. The Secretary in his conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov did emphasize the dire situation in Aleppo and --

QUESTION: But since this whole – since the September 9th agreement collapsed not too many days after it was actually announced, you guys have spoken – and then the bilateral contact, or at least in terms of a ceasefire was broken, you guys have talked about how the teams are still meeting in Geneva and continue --

MS TRUDEAU: Which they are, including today.

QUESTION: So exactly what have they done over the course of the last month and a half since the bilateral U.S.-Russia thing broke down?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to detail the conversations that we’re having in Geneva. What I would say, and I confirmed this this morning, is we continue to have conversations there in a multilateral setting, taking a look at the emphasis that we’ve placed on aid, that we’ve placed on re-establishing a cessation of hostilities and the political transition.

QUESTION: Can you – can you --

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just wondering, can you point to any kind of success that these talks – that you continue to have – have made? I mean, is there any --

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t point to success, but I can point to the fact that we continue to think that they’re valuable enough that we remain at the table.

QUESTION: But they haven’t – but they’ve produced nothing, then, right?

MS TRUDEAU: At this stage, we continue to engage. I don’t have a result to point to, Matt.

QUESTION: Just that – right, I know, that I – and that’s the issue here because you guys have said, and actually, everyone has said all the time that – or everyone does say all the time that there’s no point in having talks for talks’ sake. And frankly, if they’ve been meeting for a month and a half and you can’t point to a single thing that they’ve accomplished, I just wonder what the – what is the point of continuing this? It seems just like it’s a charade and an excuse for people to get a lot of expensive room service meals in luxury hotels in Switzerland.

MS TRUDEAU: I think where we are very focused on is the fact that we go back to our fundamental principles where we’ve focused on, on – in the conflict in Syria, is that there is no military solution. The only solution on this is going to be through a multilateral setting. We are having these talks because we think it’s important to have these talks and we wouldn’t continue to engage in these talks if we didn’t think it was valuable. Again, I’m not in a position --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then, just --

MS TRUDEAU: -- where I can unpack the specific strands of our work – where we’ve seen progress, where we don’t see progress – but what I will say is that we’re there, we’re at the table, we’re in Geneva, we continue to push.

QUESTION: Can – but can you give one reason why you think that they’re valuable?

MS TRUDEAU: I think they’re valuable because what’s our other solution? Our other solution is a military solution and the international community understands there is no military solution for the conflict in Syria. So what we do is we continue to engage every day, pushing for a political one.

QUESTION: Well, that’s a very odd way to describe – to ascribe value to something, because, I mean, if they don’t produce anything, they’re not productive, right?

MS TRUDEAU: We continue to believe it’s valuable.

QUESTION: All right. Can we – are we done on Syria?

QUESTION: On Russia and Syria.

QUESTION: I had a follow-up.

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on, a few on Syria and then we’ll move on. We’ll go to Said, then Michel.

QUESTION: I just want to – the – according to the Russian foreign ministry’s readout of the meeting, they’re saying that Minister Lavrov raised the fact that you refuse to separate the terrorists from the other groups and so on, and that is basically causing the problems in eastern Aleppo.

MS TRUDEAU: So I couldn’t speak to the veracity of the Russian foreign ministry’s readout on that. What I would say is what we’ve said all along, is we do understand this is a problem. We’ve talked about the marbleization on that.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve talked about our efforts to pull those groups apart that continue.

QUESTION: So what are you doing in terms of basically pulling them apart from one another, to use your words?

MS TRUDEAU: It’s a – this is something that we’ve spoken about for weeks and weeks, Said. We continue to have conversations with the groups on the ground. We’ve also said how difficult it will be when these groups are under constant bombardment and this is – this is a situation where it’s very difficult for them to pull apart. When they’re under threat, they’re under attack. We believe it’s important. Our view on Nusrah and certainly Daesh have not changed.

QUESTION: So now with – apparently, there is a decision to target al-Qaida-affiliated groups and so on in eastern Aleppo. That would really include many of the groups under that umbrella, correct? I mean, including some of the groups that you may have supported in the past.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we’ve spoken about who is included in the cessation of hostilities – the one that was put in place earlier this year. Nusrah, Daesh have always been excluded under that.

Michel.

QUESTION: Yes, Elizabeth. You were saying that there is no military solution, but Russia and the Syrian regime are talking about a military solution in eastern Aleppo and the – it looks like the military offensive on eastern Aleppo is imminent.

MS TRUDEAU: We continue to believe that attacks like this just push the country further into chaos. They continue to push the country farther from the goal of a nonviolent solution.

Lesley.

QUESTION: Also, still on Syria. Do you – following up what Matt was saying, do you really believe that there can be progress made in the next two months, or is it really just a situation of --

MS TRUDEAU: No, we do, or else --

QUESTION: -- maintaining the situation as it is until a – I mean, it’s a difficult --

MS TRUDEAU: It is.

QUESTION: -- situation to be in, where – I mean, what progress can one make in two months when you’ve got a new administration --

MS TRUDEAU: We believe it’s valuable to be at the table to continue to explore all opportunities that will alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people, and to create that space for a political dialogue. We work at this every single day.

QUESTION: Can I ask, has the president-elect’s transition team in any way – I know he’s getting daily security briefings, but have they in any way joined or been briefed on this situation?

MS TRUDEAU: I would refer you to the president-elect’s transition team on that, Lesley.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I stay in the region --

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but move south a little bit to Bahrain?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: You will have seen, I believe, that this secular leader has been arrested after giving an interview – or for giving an interview about Prince Charles’ visit to Bahrain, and I’m wondering if you have anything to say --

MS TRUDEAU: I think you’re talking about Ibrahim Sharif.

QUESTION: Sharif, yes.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. We are aware of media reports, actually, that Ibrahim Sharif, the former leader of the opposition Waad political society, has been questioned and charged over comments he actually made in an AP article. We’re following the case closely. As we’ve said before, we believe that no one anywhere should be prosecuted or imprisoned for engaging in freedom of expression, even when that expression is critical. Any charges against Sharif on that basis should be dropped.

QUESTION: Can I go to Colombia?

QUESTION: Thanks. Just do you know if his --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: -- if you’ve raised this case directly with the Bahrainis?

MS TRUDEAU: We have. We have raised the case of Ibrahim Sharif and other human rights separately directly with the Bahrainis.

QUESTION: Okay. So this – I mean, this just kind of happened over the weekend, so --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: But since his – since he was detained, you have --

MS TRUDEAU: It is my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. All right, thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Lesley.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the Colombians – the Colombian Government publishing a revised peace accord? Do you --

MS TRUDEAU: I think you saw a statement from the Secretary this weekend.

QUESTION: I actually didn’t, but --

MS TRUDEAU: It was – let me recap that statement for you. So the Secretary actually spoke to this this weekend. We congratulate Colombia on achieving a revised peace accord and we continue to support efforts by President Santos and the Colombian people to pursue a just and lasting peace, the peace that Colombia deserves. The United States has supported Colombia in conflict; we will continue to be a strong partner in peace.

QUESTION: And then on Venezuela --

MS TRUDEAU: Yes.

QUESTION: -- you didn’t put out a statement on that.

MS TRUDEAU: We did not.

QUESTION: So the discussions – the second round of peace talk – of talks on Venezuela. When Tom Shannon was here, he was pushing for the release of prisoners and said that was the most significant thing that everybody’s watching for. As they moved into the talks, obviously didn’t see anything on that happen. So do you continue to do that? Do you think it’s on the way? How did you think the second round went?

MS TRUDEAU: So I’d characterize it this way, is we’re pleased to hear that reports from the Venezuelan Government and the political opposition that they’ve made some progress in their dialogue. We understand the dialogue continues. We hope it will continue to bear fruit in the coming days. As we’ve said before – and I believe the under secretary addressed this – is that Venezuela needs a good-faith and productive effort to end its political impasse and to address the urgent challenges facing the Venezuelan people. We continue to work with our partners in the region through the Organization of American States to support the dialogue.

Nike. I’ll get to you, Said.

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on Colombia.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: What is the U.S. position on the referendum of the revised peace accord? Would the United States support it?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure. How the revised accord is submitted for approval is really up to the Colombian Government to decide.

Said.

QUESTION: If I may, can I --

MS TRUDEAU: Oh, I’m sorry. Of course.

QUESTION: Take your time.

QUESTION: One quick question on South Sudan.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: A United – USAID-funded radio station, Eye Radio, was shut down last Friday by the government. Do you – first, do you have anything on that? What does that say about --

MS TRUDEAU: I do, and thank you for the question. We are aware that South Sudanese authorities recently shut down Eye Radio. We’d note this follows the closure of other media outlets. Such actions send the wrong message to the people of South Sudan, who are guaranteed the right of freedom of information and expression by their own laws and constitution. As we’ve said many times, a society that’s free, vibrant, and successful depends on the unrestricted flow of information and ideas through a free and independent press. We understand Eye Radio and South Sudanese authorities are engaged in talks right now to restoring Eye Radio and allowing it to reopen. We’re also raising it directly with our counterparts in Juba.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Great. Said.

QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict very quickly?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the – Israel’s ministerial committee for legislation unanimously approved a law to retroactively legalize the illegal outposts. Do you have any comment on that?

MS TRUDEAU: I do. I’ve got quite a bit to say on that, so --

QUESTION: All right, all right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- give me a second. We’re deeply concerned about the advancement of legislation that would allow for the legalization of illegal Israeli outposts located on private Palestinian land. Israel’s own attorney general has reportedly expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. If this law were enacted, it could pave the way for the legalization of dozens of illegal outposts deep in the West Bank. This would represent an unprecedented and troubling step that’s inconsistent with prior Israeli legal opinion and also break longstanding Israeli policy of not building on private Palestinian land. Our policy, as you know, on settlements is clear. We believe they are corrosive to the cause of peace. This legislation would be a dramatic advancement of the settlement enterprise, which is already gravely endangering the prospects for a two-state solution.

This only makes the clearer the choice Israel faces between building more settlements and preserving the possibility of peace. I would note we understand this legislation has several more steps to go before it’s passed. We hope it does not become law.

QUESTION: Now, the logical follow-up. Now, if they go ahead and do this, will – will you, before – this Administration before departing, will they do anything or they are not likely to do anything?

MS TRUDEAU: So that’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get in there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Obviously, we very – made very clear our position on this proposed legislation.

QUESTION: So independent of the incoming administration, are you likely to do something tangible if they move ahead and (inaudible)?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I’m not going to speak to this. We’ve made our position very clear on this. Let’s see where that goes.

QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple more if you would indulge me.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Also, a couple of days ago the Israelis – they made a Palestinian family of 12 – or a number of families demolish their own homes in East Jerusalem. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

MS TRUDEAU: We’ve spoken before to this practice of demolition.

QUESTION: Yes. Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that any actions like that that raise tensions are counterproductive to peace.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Well, can I just add to --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- to your comment on the draft law. You referred to the settlement enterprise.

MS TRUDEAU: The idea of settlements, new settlements, the retroactive legalization of existing illegal settlements – so settlements taken as a whole.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, “settlement enterprise” suggests that it’s --

MS TRUDEAU: Should I say “settlement issue?” That’s probably better.

QUESTION: I don’t know what you --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: I don’t know what you mean by “enterprise.”

MS TRUDEAU: I would say the issue of settlements. It’s a good clarification.

QUESTION: Can we go back and find out if – because, I mean, if the Administration believes that settlements are a quote/unquote “enterprise” that is – that suggests that it’s got --

MS TRUDEAU: I’ll check. I think what we meant is --

QUESTION: -- it’s got some broader implication to it.

MS TRUDEAU: -- the issue of settlements writ large.

QUESTION: Okay. And then nearby, Syria – just – over the weekend you may have seen some photographs that appeared on Twitter and other social media that appeared to show some U.S. tanks being in a Hizballah parade in Homs. Do you know anything about that?

MS TRUDEAU: So I saw the social media report’s very grainy photographs. I have no information on it. I will note that we’re working with our interagency counterparts to find out more information and get some clarity on it.

QUESTION: Well, if – and I realize you will be able to dodge this by saying it’s a hypothetical, but it shouldn’t --

MS TRUDEAU: I love it when you set me up like that.

QUESTION: But it – well, but it shouldn't really be a hypothetical. If it turns out that these were tanks that were sold to the Lebanese armed forces and then ended up in Hizballah’s hands, wouldn't that be some kind – wouldn't that violate some kind of U.S. law?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, Hizballah is a foreign terrorist organization, clearly.

QUESTION: Yeah. So wouldn't it violate some kind of --

MS TRUDEAU: Why don’t I look for granularity, get some clarity on this? I don’t want to speak --

QUESTION: I’m not interested in – I mean, I am interested, but I think this is a question that can be answered without you knowing definitively whether these tanks --

MS TRUDEAU: Obviously, we would be gravely concerned if equipment ended up in the hands of Hizballah.

QUESTION: Equipment that you sold or gave to the Lebanese armed forces.

MS TRUDEAU: To whomever.

QUESTION: There is a precedent for this. It happened in the middle ‘70s. I mean, the Lebanese army basically broke up and everybody went to his own group, so to speak, or --

MS TRUDEAU: Again, what we’re looking at --

QUESTION: So it could --

MS TRUDEAU: -- is sort of a Twitter feed with some grainy photos. As I said, we’re trying to look for clarity on this. As I have more information, either we can discount it or we have more, I’ll definitely come back.

QUESTION: How urgently are you looking into --

MS TRUDEAU: Very much.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS TRUDEAU: Lesley.

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Matt?

QUESTION: That’s it.

QUESTION: No, thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:23 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 10, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 10, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

WESTERN HEMISPHERE



SECRETARY TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



PHILIPPINES



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



SYRIA/IRAQ



IRAN



ISRAEL



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



AFGHANISTAN



SYRIA/IRAQ



RUSSIA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Greetings on a Thursday.

QUESTION: Last day of the week.

MR TONER: True that.

QUESTION: Tomorrow’s a holiday.

MR TONER: Tomorrow’s a federal holiday. And as the Europeans should also know, it’s Armistice Day. The 11th – 11th day of the 11th month --

QUESTION: (Inaudible), yes.

MR TONER: -- 11th hour, I believe, was when it hit. A little bit of European history there.

Anyway, welcome to the State Department. A few things at the top: First of all, at the State Department today, we have 250 young business and social entrepreneurs from across the Western Hemisphere joining us for the closing summit of the Young Leaders of the Americas Initiative, or, as we like to put it – as we like to put most things into acronyms – YLAI, which is a professional fellows program. And they’ve just spent the past five weeks in cities across the United States.

As part of the summit here in D.C., they’re engaging senior department officials, including Under Secretary Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary Evan Ryan, Assistant Secretary also for Western Hemisphere Affairs Mari Carmen Aponte. And the fellows will close the day with a Q&A with Sir Richard Branson of the Virgin Group, which will be moderated by Under Secretary Rick Stengel, on the value of being an active global citizen. YLAI emphasizes entrepreneurship and is one of the young leaders initiatives that aims to empower young people around the world to tackle our shared global challenges.

And just a very quick update: The Secretary left for this morning – or left this morning for Antarctica, where he’ll arrive at the Pegasus Ice Field midmorning. He’ll meet with McMurdo staff there, and they’ll discuss their important work and the impact of climate change. These scientists and researchers study a wide range of subjects in the extreme south of the planet. And as you know, the Secretary will be hosted by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which manages the U.S. Antarctic Program. And tomorrow he’ll travel, weather permitting, to the South Pole, and then return to New Zealand.

And I know Kirby got the chance last week, but I just wanted to take note of Arshad Mohammed’s departure – imminent departure from the building. I just want to say – speak personally and professionally, but personally, Arshad’s been a great friend and has always kept me honest and made me a better spokesperson. He’s a great journalist, a tough journalist. The two go hand in hand sometimes. I respect him enormously and I very much appreciate, as I said, his friendship and guidance in the time that I’ve been in the Public Affairs Bureau and in the deputy spokesperson, and even before that as director of the Press Office – those roles. So we’re going to miss him, and I know you’re not going far, so please – and I know you’ll continue to keep us honest here from the podium, but all the best.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark.

MR TONER: Great.

QUESTION: I’ll echo that sentiment and since it – I think it is your last briefing, right?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Take it away. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: Well put.

QUESTION: Thank you. Well, I’ll start with the Philippines. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Just down to business. Okay.

QUESTION: Did you want me to --

MR TONER: No, it’s okay. It’s okay.

QUESTION: Okay. I’ll say something.

MR TONER: No, I’m joking.

QUESTION: If you will allow me to apostrophize for a moment, these briefings have sometimes seemed otiose or almost pyrrhic – (laughter) – but I have greatly enjoyed our exegetical and Talmudic efforts to understand American foreign policy. I’ve used all five of those words in briefings over the last dozen or more years. (Laughter.) I’ve had enormous --

MR TONER: Well put.

QUESTION: I’ve had enormous fun and I wish everybody in the room, those on this side of the podium and those on that side of the podium, well as you keep doing this.

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: But I do have a question about the Philippines.

MR TONER: Of course. (Laughter.) Yeah.

QUESTION: So as I’m sure you have seen, a Philippine law enforcement agency has filed bribery, graft, and drug-related complaints against one of President Duterte’s fiercest critics. Her name is Senator Leila De Lima. Does this move toward prosecution strike you as politically motivated?

MR TONER: We’re aware of reports, Arshad. I don’t have a lot to add at this point. Of course, we’re looking at it very closely but we don’t have any kind of pronouncements to make as to what it might mean. But of course we’re watching it very closely and we would urge the Filipino Government to conduct any legal actions against a politician in accord with its international legal obligation and its own legal process – due process.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: I wanted to see if you could give us an update on a transition – transition planning, if there’s been any contact yet with the incoming – or the people who will decide who the incoming team is.

MR TONER: I don’t. I deliberately left that off of the topper just because I don’t have a lot really to add. I don’t have any substantive update – I guess I’ll put it that way – on the transition process here at the State Department beyond what I said yesterday. Of course, we stand ready, as I said yesterday, to work with the incoming team once that team is designated and arrives here. But we don’t have any firm word as to when that might be. As we have updates, I’ll certainly – we’ll certainly provide them to you.

QUESTION: So there’s been not a single envoy from the Trump transition team that’s come into the building as far as you know?

MR TONER: No, not that I’m aware of, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I checked before coming out here.

QUESTION: So is that – is that --

MR TONER: All quiet on that front --

QUESTION: In past --

MR TONER: -- but again, we’re poised. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: In past transitions --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- was it normal that they would send someone right away?

MR TONER: I think it varies, Said.

QUESTION: To the best of your knowledge (inaudible) remember --

MR TONER: No, I think it – right, no, no, it’s a fair question. I think it varies as to – I mean, look, we’re two days past what was a very tumultuous, I’ll put it that way, campaign and even Election Day. So you saw that the president-elect and his team are moving forward. There was a meeting earlier today that we all watched at the White House. He’s up on Capitol Hill now. He’s moving forward, taking steps, but as to – there’s no – I guess what I’m saying is there’s no timeline for how this works. For our part we’re ready to receive them and to work with them as soon as they are able to get in place.

QUESTION: I guess my question is, I know that the president-elect gets the intelligence and so on and all these things.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Is there something similar that the State Department provides his team? Is there something --

MR TONER: Well, again, I think once that – once the transition team moves over here, we would provide them with briefings. I think that would, obviously, depend on the clearance level or whether they would come with – what clearance level they would come into the building with. And then certainly as there’s a secretary of state-designate named, we would work with that individual very closely, as well as their top aides.

QUESTION: If you make any major policy decisions in the next nine weeks, do you brief them in advance?

MR TONER: That’s a good question. I don’t have a ready answer for that. I would guess that, if not in advance, we’d obviously notify them and work with them to – so that they can understand the decision making behind any policy shifts. That said, I don’t have anything to announce. I don’t anticipate – I mean, I – we’ve been pretty clear about what our stated priorities are going forward for the next two months. There’s very little time left on the clock, but we’re going to keep at the business that we’ve set before us.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR TONER: We can go to Syria.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you update us on --

MR TONER: Speaking of one of those issues where we continue to try to make progress.

QUESTION: Right. Okay, could you update us on anything that is new or ongoing as far as Syria is concerned? Has there been any contact with the Russians?

MR TONER: I don’t. I mean, you saw – we’ve seen reports, obviously, Russia said they’re going to extend this pause in Aleppo. We are concerned, frankly, by the UN’s announcement earlier today about the – that the last available food rations had been distributed in Aleppo earlier today. We would support any UN effort or plan that can provide access or greater humanitarian assistance to Aleppo, and we would call on the Russians and the regime to allow that access. Obviously, that’s something they agreed to in the February 22nd cessation of hostilities.

Beyond that, as I said, we continue to meet in Geneva. Those meetings are ongoing. I’m not aware that they’re an everyday occurrence, but that process continues.

Please.

QUESTION: Thanks. The CENTCOM said U.S. strikes in Syria and Iraq over the past two years have killed 119 civilians. Do you see that number as too many or do you find it acceptable for two years of operations?

MR TONER: In answer to your second question, we don’t – we certainly don’t find any civilian death acceptable. And I think we’ve made that very clear many times from the podium. And certainly, I know the Department of Defense has also made that very clear. We, obviously, regret any unintentional loss of life or injury resulting from coalition airstrikes in Iraq.

I do want to take note – you mentioned – I think that it only confirmed 64 civilian deaths in this most recent announcement, but – I don’t want to quibble over numbers, but again, we take any civilian casualty very seriously. We assess all incidents as thoroughly as possible, and that includes considering information from a variety of sources, U.S. Government departments and agencies as well as human rights documentation. We’ve talked a little bit about that before and – as well as different human rights groups. And more for the Department of Defense, although the Department of State does work within this process, but the Department of Defense does consider any information – any new information – when and if it is provided in order to carry out the most extensive review of any incident that it’s – that it can.

And just to make the point again that we’ve made before, that we make every effort to protect civilians during our operations. That includes the use of precision munitions or weapons. And as we’ve said before, it also includes making a decision at times to not strike valid targets if we feel it puts undue risk on civilians.

QUESTION: U.S. investigations into civilian casualties usually lead to the conclusion that it was unintentional and therefore not a crime. Through these two years of U.S. operations in Syria and Iraq, are you aware of any instances in relation to the killing of civilians that was ruled a crime? I’m not aware of one. Are you?

MR TONER: No, I’m not. No. I would, frankly, be shocked if that were the case. Again – but that doesn’t remove the onus on our own government, specifically the Department of Defense, to take any report of an incident like this very seriously and to look into it and to compile a report about it and then, as you saw today, to actually publish a report on these allegations and to basically own up to when we have caused civilian casualties.

QUESTION: Do you think intent is what should decide whether killing of a civilian is a crime or not?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m certainly not an expert in how you would establish criminal intent. All I can say is that we stand by our commitment to investigate any allegation of civilian casualties and civilian killings. We report them. We’re as transparent as possible about our findings, and that also includes the input of NGOs and other human rights organizations. We work with them to – when they have credible allegations, credible reports. We also work with them and consult with them about how we can do better due diligence on our own procedures. So I’ll – that’s all I feel capable of speaking to.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, Amnesty International estimated at least 300 civilians killed in coalition strikes in Syria alone, while the number that the Pentagon acknowledged is much lower. Why do you think the discrepancy?

MR TONER: I don’t know. I would refer you to the Department of Defense. What I can say is we have actually brought – I think our DOD colleagues have brought in some of these – I’m not sure if it’s Amnesty International specifically, but some of these other NGOs who have higher – have reported some of these higher numbers to try to square the circle, if you will, to try to talk about where these discrepancies might have come into play. So there is an honest effort, an honest exchange there between some of these NGOs. Again, I don’t if specifically – if that includes Amnesty International, but I do know it does include some of the NGOs.

QUESTION: Can I go back to the --

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: -- the IAEA Iran report from yesterday?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So have you been able to determine whether or not Iran not being in compliance with the agreement is a violation of the agreement?

MR TONER: So I don’t have a straight-up answer for you, except to say that this is what – what is reported on in the IAEA report that has not gone public yet is a technical issue that was caught by the IAEA, and Iran is taking steps to address it. And in fact, what I did find out in – that they’re doing it over and above what they need to do. If I have it in front of me here, they’re making preparations for a large transfer of almost five metric tons of nuclear-grade heavy water out of Iran, which the IAEA will be able to verify. And once they do that, that will drop them well below this limit. But that does not in any way mitigate the fact that they did overstep or go beyond the limit. We take that very seriously. I’m not going to use the V-word necessarily in this case. But we and our partners are going to continue to hold Iran accountable, and because of the JCPOA – P – JCPOA, we do have a system in place that we can hold Iran accountable.

QUESTION: Can I just – why is it that you’re reluctant to call what would seem to the average person to be --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- a violation of the agreement --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- a violation or the V-word, as you --

MR TONER: For the – for – I was trying to be cute there --

QUESTION: I know.

MR TONER: -- and that was unfair.

QUESTION: No, no, I – (inaudible.)

MR TONER: But – no, but – so first of all, if you look at the wording within the JCPOA, it actually says that Iran’s needs, consistent with the parameters, spelling out – I won’t read all the technical – are estimated to be 130 metric tons. That’s not a hard, certain figure. That said, it is a ceiling that we look at and certainly the IAEA looks at. But to say because it’s, I think, one-tenth of a metric ton over that limit – to say that’s an outright violation of the JCPOA and would somehow put that agreement in doubt, I think – I don’t want to necessarily say that.

QUESTION: Well, okay, but doesn’t that open the door to other --

QUESTION: Violations?

QUESTION: -- to them violating other elements of the agreement and then you guys saying, well, they’re going to take steps to address it, so it’s not an issue? I mean – the agreement is a whole thing and you might say that this is a technical aspect of it, but the entire agreement is technical. I mean, how many other technicalities do they – do you let the – or do you let them get away with?

MR TONER: Well, we’re not letting them getting away with it, but I get it.

QUESTION: I mean, that’s the wrong word, but --

MR TONER: I guess that’s – no, but I guess that’s the ultimate point of – bone of contention here. Well, not “we” but the IAEA has identified where they have gone over the limit. Iran has owned up to that. They’ve not made any effort to hide that. And they are taking immediate steps to address it, and as I said, going beyond in actually what they need to do to address it.

That, to us, shows that the agreement’s working. That’s what the agreement is set up to do, that we have – we collectively have eyes on what Iran is doing with regard to its nuclear program that we can address these problems as they arise. Now, if Iran refused to abide by that limit or obfuscated or tried to hide the ball or however you want to put it, then that would be a major concern, and that could be considered a violation, but they’re not.

QUESTION: So this is not, then, a violation, because they have said, okay, you caught us?

MR TONER: We feel like they’re addressing this, yes.

QUESTION: We’re – and so now we’re going to ship it out, even though they haven’t done so yet?

MR TONER: And again, we’re watching this very closely and I don’t want to give any impression that we’re not. And if they don’t, then that’s a problem.

QUESTION: Okay, but – so are you prepared to offer the same kind of terms for violation to other parts of the – other parts of the deal, say if they – if they’re found to be operating many, many more centrifuges than they were allowed to or higher --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- capacity ones?

MR TONER: -- a couple points there. One is --

QUESTION: I mean, if they’re one or two over, is that not a violation?

MR TONER: Again, it’s a matter of what we’re talking about. It’s a matter of how far they’re over and whether they’re taking steps to address it. And let me just remind people who are listening in on this, but it’s important to note that heavy water is not – is non-nuclear and is not a breakout concern. That said, they’ve overstepped their limits.

QUESTION: Right, exactly.

MR TONER: They’re addressing it.

QUESTION: I mean, that’s not – the point is not that it’s an imminent or a potential imminent threat. The point is that they agreed to do something and then they didn’t do it. And, I mean, it sounds to me like you’re willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this was potentially an accident or they didn’t realize they were producing more than they should have, but I’m not sure that that matters. I mean, it’s like a penalty in sports. You can – you clip someone on a football field, the flag goes down and you get a penalty for it, even if you’re sorry that you did it, right?

MR TONER: So again, we’ve now had two instances where Iran has slightly exceeded its limits. The IAEA has promptly reported and identified the issue and the U.S. has immediately raised our concerns with Iran directly and our JCPOA partners. And Iran has taken quick action to address the situation. So it’s not like we’re giving them a free pass here. And I’m not saying that that’s going to be the case with every aspect of the JCPOA, I just am not equipped or not --

QUESTION: All right, so there is no --

MR TONER: -- ready or willing to say that.

QUESTION: There’s no concern or no sense from inside the Administration that not penalizing them for non-compliance might encourage other non-compliance?

MR TONER: I think it’s something that has to be calibrated and looked at very closely. I think if we see a trend line here or if we see bigger infractions or infractions elsewhere that are more serious, that’s always an assessment that the IAEA, as well as the other JCPOA partners, are going to have to make. But as long as we see Iran recognizing where it’s come up short – or exceeded, in this case – and taking steps to address it, then --

QUESTION: All right, well what would be a trend for you?

MR TONER: We’re not going --

QUESTION: As you say, this is the second time. Does it have to be three times? There’s a school of thought out there that two is a trend. Maybe that’s not the Administration’s position. How many --

MR TONER: It’s not a hat trick.

QUESTION: How many more times does it have to happen before you call it a trend that is worthy or that is deserving of some kind of a determination of a violation and some kind of penalty?

MR TONER: Sure. Fortunately for the American public and for everyone, I’m not the one making those calls. It’s – this is nuclear experts within the IAEA who have a long experience in tracking these kinds of programs who can look at the data, have access to the data, have access to Iran’s programs, who can make a far better assessment than I can.

QUESTION: Last one on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: It’s my understanding that if there are instances of non-compliance, to use your non-V word language --

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I like that.

QUESTION: -- that Congress has to be –Congress is supposed to be notified. And in fact, in the earlier instance of non-compliance on the heavy water, they were notified --

MR TONER: They were notified, yeah.

QUESTION: -- of this. Have they been notified of this instance?

MR TONER: I’m not – well, I’ll get that answer for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: You mentioned the United States directly raised concerns with Iran about this. Can you tell us more about that? What level was that done at?

MR TONER: I don’t. I don’t have more detail to provide. I don’t know at what level, but we have – I said actually we immediately raised our concerns with Iran. I mean, there’s various channels. I don’t think it was Secretary to Foreign Minister Zarif. I think it was at a lower level.

QUESTION: Can I – I don’t know if you’ve seen the comments by Foreign Minister Zarif --

MR TONER: I did.

QUESTION: -- today, yeah. So among other things, he says that their hope, desire, and preference is for the full implementation of the nuclear agreement, quote, “which is not bilateral for one side to be able to scrap,” close quote. Do you share that view that the JCPOA, which after all, is an understanding and not technically an agreement --

MR TONER: True.

QUESTION: -- cannot be abrogated by one side?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, and I think I talked a little bit about this yesterday with respect to Oren’s question, any party – and I’m speaking very hypothetically here, because I don’t want in any way kind of attempt to hypothesize about what the incoming administration is going to do, I’m just talking purely about an agreement – the fact that any party can walk away from it and that will have profound consequences on the integrity of the agreement. And certainly that would be true in Iran’s case.

Honestly, I looked at his comments. I didn’t see anything there that surprised me or looked out of place. I mean, I think the important thing about the JCPOA is that this was an agreement reached through negotiations with, as I said, the P5+1 and Iran. And it’s incumbent on all the parties to uphold their commitments and certainly that’s something that Secretary Kerry has been a very strong advocate for, including when initial sanctions were lifting – lifted even – working with the financial community to help ensure that they understood the environment, the business environment and sanctions environment, with regard to Iran. We’ve upheld our commitments thus far and that’s what I can speak to.

QUESTION: So your view, though, is that any party – any of the parties to the understanding can essentially – I mean, you said walk away from, but can unilaterally decide to cease to meet their obligations under it?

MR TONER: Well, I said – what I said was that would have profound consequences on the integrity of the agreement. I mean, I think that --

QUESTION: Right. Obviously.

MR TONER: Yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: Right. But my point is: I’m trying to get at whether he --

MR TONER: It’s not a treaty.

QUESTION: I know it’s not a treaty and I know it’s not even an agreement --

MR TONER: Right, right.

QUESTION: -- in some legal technical sense, which I don’t understand, but is it your view that you can simply – that any party to it can essentially end it just by saying we’re not playing ball with this anymore; we’re not going to meet our commitments under this anymore?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, if that party were to be Iran, there would be consequences to that.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: And I mean, we can’t --

QUESTION: But if that party were to be the United States, there might also be consequences. You might end up with an Iran that actually then actively pursues a nuclear program again, right?

MR TONER: Exactly. I mean, those are – yeah. I mean, I’m not – yes. That’s the reality of the situation. So this is in what we believe to be in everyone’s interests, including the world’s interests, that if Iran abides by this agreement, and all the parties abide by the agreement, then we have collectively shut off Iran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon, which is a win for the security of the region, security of the United States, and the globe.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the bottom line is then that just by fiat anybody can basically end it, correct?

MR TONER: Again, I – it is not a legally binding treaty, so that is my understanding. If that’s incorrect, I’ll certainly correct that. (Laughter.)

Please.

QUESTION: Can I move on --

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah, I think we’re --

QUESTION: -- to the – what? The --

MR TONER: Oh, Steve. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: -- Palestinian --

QUESTION: But he --

MR TONER: Which one? I don’t know. Okay.

QUESTION: -- needs to run, so I’ll wait for him.

QUESTION: No, it’s okay.

MR TONER: Oh, I’m sorry. Of course, Said. Go.

QUESTION: No, I just wanted to follow up on the question that was posed to you yesterday about the embassy --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- the United States Embassy in Israel, regarding the – I think there is the --

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: -- Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, and I think you said that you will take the question and --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I mean, it’s –

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR TONER: I wanted to make sure, and I think we – if we didn’t, I apologize – get the language to Matt Lee.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: But since Israel’s founding – you’re talking about the – what the U.S. embassy – where the location of the U.S. embassy.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: So I mean, since Israel’s founding, the administrations of both parties have maintained a consistent policy here and that is recognizing no state as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. And we remain committed to this long-standing policy – we, the Obama Administration.

QUESTION: But in fact, there was a congressional act in 1995 that was supposed – that called for the moving the embassy by 1999 if they allocated the money. And ever since then, presidents have used a waiver.

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: They used the executive waiver. So there is nothing in the law that will prevent moving the embassy. But it is up to the discretion of the president, correct?

MR TONER: It is correct that administrations since, as you note, 1995 have consistently exercised a waiver, because it’s been determined – they’ve determined, we’ve determined, that it is in our national security interests to do so.

QUESTION: And will that be the advice that you give the coming administration?

MR TONER: I would think, as we consult with the incoming administration, we’ll certainly make sure they understand, which is all we can do, our rationale behind exercising that waiver.

QUESTION: And my last one. Sorry.

MR TONER: It’s okay. No worries.

QUESTION: On the language that was adopted in the – during the convention, the GOP convention, back in July, which expunged any reference to the two-state solution, and in fact, there were statements yesterday by the minister of education and the minister of justice saying that basically the election of a new president shelves and nullifies any reference to the two-state solution. Do you have any comment on that or any take on that?

MR TONER: I don’t, beyond the fact that no administration – previous administrations worked harder than this one to try to get to that two-state solution. The President, but certainly Secretary Kerry and before him, Secretary Clinton, have worked long and hard to bring the two sides together, the two parties together into direct negotiations. We have not gotten there. It’s been a somewhat frustrating effort, but it was – it remains, I think, what we view as the only means to a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So it’s going to remain this Administration’s pursuit until the very final moments.

QUESTION: Is it an active pursuit until the final moments or are there any diplomatic initiatives or policy initiatives planned on that? Or is it simply your view will remain until the end?

MR TONER: Sure. I don’t have anything specific to announce, but I can tell you that Secretary Kerry remains very engaged on it. He speaks frequently with leaders in the region, but also with Prime Minister Netanyahu about new approaches or new ideas and ways to revitalize those efforts. Again, I don’t have any groundbreaking announcements to make, but I can’t rule out that there may be a new initiative before the end of this administration.

Please.

QUESTION: Mark, three and a half hours ago, the State Department’s travel Twitter account sent out a quite specific and somewhat alarming tweet. I quote: “Possible pending attack targeting foreigners at Serena Hotel and at guest house located in PD 10 Kabul City.” Just wondering if there’s been any more information on that and if you got anything on what prompted it. It seems a bit unusual to have this specific alert like this.

MR TONER: Sure. I honestly don’t have an update on that for you. My guess is that this was information, even intelligence that was received by our embassy that was immediately pushed out via Twitter, but also I would imagine the other platforms as well in an effort to immediately share that, what is actionable intelligence, with the American community on the ground to prevent a possible threat to their safety. But as we get updates to that, we’ll certainly provide them.

QUESTION: Please, thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Of course.

QUESTION: Just a quick note --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for the record. I looked into the number 119 civilians killed over the last two years – that number includes the latest announcement as well as the --

MR TONER: I see.

QUESTION: -- Pentagon’s previous disclosures.

MR TONER: Yeah, okay.

QUESTION: Just maybe one more question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: How would you characterize that number? Do you see it as too high?

MR TONER: I think, again, I would say any – and I’m not trying to be glib or any – I’m trying to be serious about this. I think the bar has to be set very high, which is that any death, civilian death, unintentional or intentional, is too many. And so while we look into these reports, while we seek to learn from them what happened after action, if there were civilian deaths caused, it helps us carry out these kinds of airstrikes in a more effective way that doesn’t put civilian lives at risk.

Is that it, guys?

QUESTION: No, if you’ll take one more.

MR TONER: Oh, go ahead. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Did you see the Washington Post story about the Trump campaign having had contacts with Russia? Is there – if I’m not mistaken, a number of countries, including some of your close allies like Britain, delegate diplomats to follow the American elections. They will sometimes travel to campaign rallies and observe the candidates and so on. Is there, to the State Department’s point of view, anything intrinsically inappropriate about a presidential campaign having contacts with a foreign government?

MR TONER: I can’t speak to the depth of these contacts, the extent of these contacts. I just have to refer you to President-elect Trump’s transition team to answer any questions about those contacts. As you note, there are instances where other foreign governments, as you said, have contacts with the different political parties during a campaign. I just don’t have anything to add to what’s been already reported.

QUESTION: Well, but do you regard such contacts as some kind of interference?

MR TONER: Again, without knowing the extent, without knowing the nature of those contacts, I just --

QUESTION: Well, just on the faith – on the face of it.

MR TONER: On the face, no.

QUESTION: The fact that there were – or someone says there were --

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, on the face of it --

QUESTION: -- is that an issue?

MR TONER: -- without knowing any more about the depth of them, the – what they were about, no. It’s not particularly concerning.

QUESTION: So this has not been typical in previous presidential races?

MR TONER: I can’t speak to that. I just don’t know the precedent there.

QUESTION: Thank you. See you.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:41 p.m.)

DPB # 193

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 9, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 9, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAN



DEPARTMENT



CUBA



DEPARTMENT



IRAN



DEPARTMENT



JAPAN



NORTH KOREA



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/UKRAINE



INDIA



RUSSIA/UKRAINE




TRANSCRIPT:

2:02 p.m. EST

MR TONER:  Hey everybody.  Welcome to the State Department.  A couple things at the top.  First, on a scheduling note.  We’ll have seven winners receive the Associates of the American Foreign Service Worldwide Secretary of State Award for Outstanding Volunteerism Abroad at a ceremony tomorrow, Thursday, November 10th, at 10 a.m. in the Benjamin Franklin Room at the Department of State.  Deputy Secretary Heather Higginbottom will highlight the winners’ extraordinary and exemplary service and present the awards at this ceremony.  Now, the SOSA awards recognize U.S. Government employees, family members, including domestic partners and other members of household at embassies and consulates who performed exceptional volunteer service to their communities, mission, or host country, or rendered outstanding assistance in emergencies.  So that’s tomorrow.

Also just wanted to say a few words at the top about the outcome of yesterday’s and last night’s presidential election.  President Obama and Secretary Kerry are obviously very committed to preparing for a well-coordinated and effective transition to the incoming administration.  Ensuring a professional and orderly transfer of power – transfer at the State Department, rather, is a top priority for Secretary Kerry.  And several months ago he designated three experienced senior career officials to oversee that transition – Counselor Kristie Kenney and Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy, and they’re working closely with Executive Secretary Joseph MacManus.

When the president-elect’s transition team does arrive at the State Department, the full expertise and support of the State Department will be at their disposal.  As we’ve done with every transition, we’ll provide administrative support staff to assist the team as they request information or briefings from the department.

Just a last word.  President Obama put it very eloquently a few hours ago when he said that a peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy.  And I think the world saw that and hopefully was reassured by it in full display last night in President-elect Trump’s remarks, this morning in Secretary Clinton’s very gracious concession speech, and also in President Obama’s remarks, as I said, a short time ago.  Our focus at the State Department is to work, I think, to ensure two things: one, that we continue to work to make progress on our foreign policy priorities in the time remaining for this administration; and then secondly, that we work as closely and effectively with the incoming administration to ensure a smooth transition with respect to this nation’s national security and its foreign policy priorities.

Matt.

QUESTION:  Right.  Let’s stick with transition for --

MR TONER:  Of course, yeah.

QUESTION:  -- a minute.  Other than the letter that the Secretary sent to the employees, has there actually been any work on transition?  Has the campaign been in touch yet, that you’re aware of?

MR TONER:  Right, so – and I don’t think this has changed so far today, but my understanding as of this morning was that there was not – there has not been any contact from the President-elect’s transition team with respect to the State Department.  Of course, there is a space, as you probably noticed, already set aside for them, as it has been for past incoming administrations.  But certainly we’re ready with respect to when they do arrive here, and that could come as soon as tomorrow, to greet them and to make them as comfortable and meet their needs as best we can.

QUESTION:  Well, do you have reason to believe that it could be as early as tomorrow?

MR TONER:  I think it will happen very soon.  I don’t have a date certain.

QUESTION:  Okay.  But there hasn’t been --

MR TONER:  No.

QUESTION:  That you’re aware of, they haven’t been in touch yet?

MR TONER:  Right.

QUESTION:  And is it their responsibility to get in touch with you, or do you get into touch with them?

MR TONER:  I think it’s their responsibility.  And I think that’ll happen both at the White House – obviously, you saw Josh spoke about and the President spoke about --

QUESTION:  Right.

MR TONER:  -- a meeting with the President.  But I think this will all fall into place very quickly in the next couple of days.

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR TONER:  Yep.

QUESTION:  And a couple of things policy-related to the transition.  The President-elect has, during the campaign, spoke about his ideas for foreign policy, many of which are dramatically opposed to or not in line with this current administration’s.  So in the – over the course of the – until January, the end of January, do you expect that the Administration will maintain its strong stance in favor of the Iran deal, for example, in favor of TPP, in favor of climate – the Paris climate agreement?  Or will these things become less of a priority since they are not a priority for or in fact they are – well, they’re a priority to replace under the next administration?

MR TONER:  Yeah.  Well, they are a priority.  The very – of course, the Iran agreement’s already been implemented and being implemented.  Of course, we’re not in any way, shape, or form going to relent from that effort.  And there are other priorities, as you mentioned, with respect to TPP – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – other agreements out there and also pursuing a political resolution to the conflict in Syria.  I mean, there’s any number of priorities, as you noted, that we’re going to remain focused on making as much progress on as we can in the remaining two months.  That includes --

QUESTION:  But even though every indication is the next administration is going to either not have them as priorities or try to dismantle them?

MR TONER:  I think, Matt – and I’m being very careful here because I don’t want to ever attempt to speak on behalf or for the incoming administration – what I would say is that’s part of the transition.  We’re going to work with them.  We’re going to brief them up as much as we possibly can on all of the issues of interest to them, but that’s really for them to speak to, what their foreign policy priorities are going to be.

QUESTION:  Right.

MR TONER:  Let me finish.  So, I mean, we have two months more or less remaining to this administration.  We’re not going to take our foot off the pedal.

QUESTION:  Right.  But I mean – well, so does that mean you’re going to try to convince the people on the transition team that your way is – that they should carry on with policies that they don’t think are -- 

MR TONER:  Again, I think it’s – we’re going to make every effort to make sure that they understand the current administration’s perspective on all of these issues and the importance of what we’ve accomplished and the progress we’ve made on these issues, including climate change, including Syria, including Iran, et cetera.  Ultimately, it’s for the incoming administration to choose its foreign policy goals and priorities to pass.

QUESTION:  All right.  And then just very quickly is specifically one of the things that the President-elect has said when he was a candidate.  He said that he would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  This is something that previous administrations have not done – have resisted, in fact – since --  

MR TONER:  That’s correct.

QUESTION:  And I’m just wondering, can you remind us very briefly why exactly that is?  And if you want to do it as a TQ, that’s fine.

MR TONER:  Well, sure.  And I would prefer to actually get the policy out there as word-for-word as I possibly can.  But there is a longstanding, as you note, policy from both sides of the aisle – so to speak – with regard to Jerusalem’s status.

QUESTION:  All right.  And then just a last one on Iran.

QUESTION:  Mark -- 

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  And this also has to do with the transition.  So you will have seen that the IAEA report came out today finding Iran to be in violation of the heavy water stockpile provision of it.  This is the second time that’s happened.  Why are you – or do you still say – is it still your position that Iran is adhering to its commitments?

MR TONER:  So I have to caveat my response by saying we normally don’t discuss the details of these reports before they’re made public by the Board of Governors.  But as you note, the report’s already been in the media, and as you note, there were in the coverage some concerns reported on – sorry – in the reports on the report, there are concerns about – that Iran has exceeded its heavy water limit.  And indeed, the IAEA has observed that Iran has slightly exceeded its 130 metric ton heavy water stockpile limit under the JCPOA by 100 kilograms.  So that’s about one-tenth of a metric ton. 

A couple of points to make on that.  It’s important to note that Iran made no effort to hide this – hide what it was doing from the IAEA.  During the course of its ongoing heavy water production, Iran produced a little more heavy water than permitted but is now taking steps to address the issue by shipping a – the excess quantity out of the country, we expect in the coming days.  So the IAEA flagged us.  Iran made no attempt to hide it, and they’re taking immediate steps to address it.

QUESTION:  And that’s supposed to make – that’s supposed to be a relief, that they made no effort to hide it?

MR TONER:  No, I just wanted to – I said -- 

QUESTION:  So it’s okay if they blatantly violate it and don’t try and to – don’t try to cover it up?  I don’t get it. 

MR TONER:  Well, Matt --  

QUESTION:  It’s a violation, is it not?

MR TONER:  Well, look, it is – so they exceeded the limits.  They acknowledged it.

QUESTION:  Right.  That’s a violation, is it not?

MR TONER:  Well, again, it’s – but they’re addressing it.  I mean, this is something that -- 

QUESTION:  But did they – so you don’t think – they violated the deal and you can’t – and you won’t say that they violated the deal?  I don’t --  

MR TONER:  So they – again, yes, they exceeded the allowable amount of heavy water that they were permitted.

QUESTION:  Is that or is that not a violation of the agreement?  Whether or not they’re taking steps to address it, they still violated it, didn’t they?

MR TONER:  I’m not sure whether that constitutes a formal violation.  I’d have to look into that, to be honest with you.  I mean, they certainly exceeded, again, what their – their allowable amount of heavy water.  Whether that constitutes, again, a formal violation of JCPOA writ large, I’m not certain about that.  Again, what’s important here is that this was detected, it was acknowledged, and they’re taking steps to address it.

QUESTION:  Okay.

QUESTION:  Mark, can I follow up on the transition, please?

MR TONER:  Yeah, please.

QUESTION:  So I know you’ve had three people – there’s a transition team already in place – you have State Department people --  

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- and the Trump campaign has not reached out. 

MR TONER:  And that’s not – but anyway, I’m not --  

QUESTION:  No.

MR TONER:  It’s just – yeah.  It’s just – because the elections were last night.

QUESTION:  It’s a few hours old.

MR TONER:  They’re probably a little tired.

QUESTION:  So – but the question is:  Would you expect someone to, from the campaign, from Trump’s side, to join those three in the transition?  I mean, how soon do you think that could be?

MR TONER:  Sure.  So in anticipation of a lot of these kind of process-oriented questions, we’re going to try to get somebody to – who can – who’s intimate with the process to come and try to brief you guys a little bit more thoroughly on this tomorrow if we can arrange it.

But normally how these work is that a transition team from the president-elect’s administration will come in and set up shop here at the State Department.  They’ll be briefed on the full range of issues – all the regional issues, all the functional issues as they, again, work towards the ultimate transition on January 20th.  And that’s a real important part of the democratic process and this period and it’s why I don’t want to try to speak to – again, trying to separate what were the campaign issues from the transition period now, because this is governance now and moving towards a change in governance.  So I don’t want to speak on their behalf. 

All we can do as the present Administration is to work to make sure that as they develop their policies that they’re going to implement, that they’re as well informed as they can possibly be by our team here.

QUESTION:  You’ve probably seen today, there’s a lot of expressions from around the world of concern, mainly about the uncertainty and the difference in policies from the Clinton and then the Trump campaigns.  What is the State Department doing or what can it do now to reassure allies and – that none of that – none of what is – what you’ve got going right now could be disrupted in the next – certainly until the handover?

MR TONER:  Well – and Josh Earnest over at the White House spoke a little bit to this in his briefing just a short time ago.  A couple of points to make.  I mean, it was a very contentious election.  I think everyone acknowledges that.  And it’s normal that that would have an effect on world leaders, certainly even on the financial markets we’ve seen.  The world watches our presidential elections very closely.

But we’ve already seen, as I said, a transition process begin.  And again, it’s part of the democratic process.  It speaks to the integrity and the stability of our democratic process that even as election results were still coming in and being finalized, President-Elect Trump spoke in a very conciliatory manner about his opponent, and she came out this morning, Secretary Clinton, and conceded.  And then you saw the President speak as well.

I think the world, as I said, would take note that that is reassuring.  I think for our part, and certainly Secretary Kerry going forward, we’ve accomplished a lot in four years.  We’ve made great strides in certainly environmental issues, but on a number issues including Iran, including a range of other issues, trade as well.  We’re going to continue to work towards making as much progress as we can in the remaining time with the understanding that, as we’ve seen with past administrations, there is this tendency to at least look at and consider thoughtfully the previous administration’s policies before embarking on a new course.

QUESTION:  Is it – my last question is --

MR TONER:  I think that’s all we can attempt to do, frankly.

QUESTION:  My last question is --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- I mean, do you expect an exodus from this building over the next few weeks?  I mean, there’s a lot of people that feel that Trump’s – that what he said he was going to do going forward doesn’t gel with how they believe.  So is there any evidence of it yet?  Have you got notices or do you expect --

MR TONER:  Sure.  Well, it’s a valid question.  I wouldn’t attempt to speak for my colleagues in the State Department.  I’m a career diplomat.  I’m a public servant.  And with that, frankly, comes an awareness that you’re there to serve the U.S. Government regardless of whether they – that’s a Republican or a Democratic administration.  Obviously, there are political appointees in the State Department, but I can tell you that what I’ve seen firsthand this morning is very serious professionalism and commitment, as I said, to making sure that this incoming administration, whether these people agree with their policies or not, are given every opportunity for a smooth transition and are as informed as possible before that transition takes place.

Go ahead, Justin.

QUESTION:  Just to follow on that --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- as has been mentioned here today, the president-elect differs so greatly on so many issues: Iran, trade, climate, Cuba, Syria, NATO alliances, nuclear proliferation – just basic tenets of the things that – and assumptions that this Administration has been working under.  What about – if you haven’t seen people saying, “I’m leaving today,” career diplomats, which is what I gather you’re saying, are you and is the Secretary worried about morale in these last days?  He – the first thing in his statement basically tells people, his staff, to continue focus moving ahead.  So given the disparity between the president-elect and this Administration, what do you see the morale here being in the coming days and weeks?

MR TONER:  Look, I think – again, it’s a fair question.  I think when you choose a path of public service, you do so with the recognition that – and again, I’m not speaking to the incoming administration or the present Administration – you have to compartmentalize your own political beliefs from your professional duties.  That is something that is incumbent on any public servant, whether it’s at the State Department or any other federal agency, or the military for that matter.  That’s what, frankly, provides continuity and institutional knowledge for our government.  So I wouldn’t predict any mass exodus, far from it. 

I think that under Secretary Kerry and under President Obama and under Secretary Clinton as well, this State Department has achieved great things.  I think they’re focused on continuing to work on the priorities.  Some of the urgent ones, like getting a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities in Syria that is attainable in two months, or next week, if we can get there through our multilateral efforts.  I don’t think any – there’s any kind of attitude that – of resignation or of – or any other attitude other than that, focused on the priorities of this Administration and ensuring that the new administration, incoming administration, has a smooth transition.

Please, Steve.

QUESTION:  I --

QUESTION:  Just one – sorry, just one follow-up.

MR TONER:  Yeah, please go ahead.  Yeah, I’m sorry.

QUESTION:  On one of these areas in particular --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- in Cuba, just quickly:  They announced today that they – they’re going to do five days of military training.  Do you see that as a reaction to the election?  Is this something that concerns you?  What’s your reaction, your response?

MR TONER:  Yeah.  I mean, it’s a – so it’s my understanding – I’m not going to speculate on what prompted it.  My understanding is that they’re routine military exercises.  But as to the timing, I have no idea why now.  I’d refer you to the Government of Cuba for that question.

Please.

QUESTION:  Can you tell us where the Secretary of State was precisely when he got the news about the election results --

MR TONER:  Sure.

QUESTION:  -- and by what method?  Was he watching television, got a phone call, or --

MR TONER:  Right.  He’s --

QUESTION:  -- because he was on his way to --

MR TONER:  So he’s on his way to Antarctica, so that’s a fair question – how he got it, carrier pigeon or – that’s right – snowmobile.  No, he’s actually – he was not yet there.  In fact, some of you may be aware that the actual trip into Antarctica has been – has been delayed somewhat by weather.  They hope to leave later today.  But he was actually – he had arrived late in the day, or in our night, in New Zealand, but well before the final results were actually called.  So he was able to watch the results in his hotel.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR TONER:  Please.  Yeah, (inaudible).

QUESTION:  So we kind of touched on this, but I want to see if we can go into it a little more in depth.  The issue of the Iran deal – Trump said – has said that he wants to tear it up.  Is that even possible?

MR TONER:  Well, anything’s possible.  I mean, and look, this Secretary obviously and this Administration feels very strongly that the Iran deal has worked.  It has prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon within a short period of time, and it’s put in place a regime of verification by the IAEA that will prevent it from achieving a nuclear weapon in any kind of short-term breakout time.  That’s a real success, and we worked hard to get there, as you all know in this room, and to then convince Congress that this was in America’s national security interest and the region’s national security interests.  So obviously, as part of the transition, we’re going to work and the Secretary is going to work very closely to make that case to the incoming secretary of state.

QUESTION:  So what’s the – what would the – well, first of all, what would the impact be if they actually – if he actually went through with his, I guess, threats, I guess, to --

MR TONER:  I just – again, the day after the election, without having even a secretary of state nominated for the new administration, but certainly while this Administration’s still in place, I just wouldn’t speak to hypotheticals about what decisions President-elect Trump or his administration may take.

QUESTION:  But what would the – I mean, if the Obama Administration hadn’t been able to obtain this agreement, what would the results be?  What would have happened?

MR TONER:  Well, again, this was – I mean, that was part of reaching implementation day, but certainly all of the parties who signed to the – signed up to this agreement had obligations to meet, one of which was having parliamentary or congressional approval.  So that was – that required a pretty significant lobbying effort.  But again, I think looking back in the past year or so since implementation day, we have seen that this agreement has done what we said it was going to do, which is limit Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  It always was focused on that.  It wasn’t focused on changing Iran’s behavior writ large.  It was focused on preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION:  What – but wasn’t one of the other obligations of this that Iran would curb or limit its heavy water production?  And did they not, in fact, not do that?

MR TONER:  Well, again – and I would let experts --

QUESTION:  I just don’t understand why this is --

MR TONER:  No, no, no, I’m not trying to – I just – I don’t – I don’t want to say that this was some kind of formal violation of the JCPOA or something that – and that’s my own limitations of understanding of the agreement – whether they’ve got a period of time where they can address these – this overproduction of heavy water.  It’s not significant.  It was caught.  Again, you said “blatant,” but they didn’t try to hide it or obfuscate or in any way – they – this was something that occurred and they’re addressing it.  So I don’t want to make too much out of this, is my point.

QUESTION:  Right, but isn’t not trying to hide a violation worse than --

MR TONER:  No.  I mean, I wouldn’t say that at all.

QUESTION:  No?

MR TONER:  In fact, I would say that it shows that there is now a channel of – or just a channel of communication between – and access between Iran and the IAEA that was part of the goals of the JCPOA.

QUESTION:  Or it shows that they just – they don’t care if they’re caught.

MR TONER:  That’s not true, Matt.  And again, I don’t want to speak to a report that hasn’t been published yet, but our understanding is that the Iranians – and again, I’m also not – I feel like I’m in this peculiar spot of justifying Iranians’ – Iran’s behavior.

QUESTION:  Okay.  Well, we’ll wait until the thing is public and then go at this again.

MR TONER:  All I’m trying to – the only point I’m trying to make, Matt, is that it’s partly a success of this agreement that this was caught and is being addressed.

QUESTION:  Okay, but can’t you look – you surely have an open enough mind to see that --

MR TONER:  I can see the glass as half empty or half full.  Was that (inaudible).

QUESTION:  -- from the other side that this is a sign that Iran isn’t complying.

MR TONER:  But again – and I don’t have the particulars and I don’t want to necessarily get into particulars – I have no idea if this was an accidental overage or whatever.  I just don’t know the --

QUESTION:  All right.  Well, when it comes out – when it’s public --

MR TONER:  Fair enough.

QUESTION:  Sir, I want to get back to my line of questioning.

MR TONER:  Yeah, sure.  Of course.

QUESTION:  Is there a – is there like a back-out clause in the Iran deal or some kind of a procedure for if the parties want to back out of it?

MR TONER:  Well, I mean, look --

QUESTION:  What is the procedure if they – if people want to – if one of the parties wants to --

MR TONER:  I mean, we’ve talked about this a lot.  I mean, there’s always – I mean, the agreement is valid only as long as all parties uphold it.  I mean, that’s always – so, I mean, that’s always something that we’re mindful of, other members of the P5+1 are mindful of.  But again, I don’t want to speak to hypotheticals.

QUESTION:  I mean, there are certain elements of the Iran detail that aren’t revocable.  I mean, there’s been cash that’s been --

MR TONER:  Correct.

QUESTION:  -- that’s been passed over or released, right?

MR TONER:  Well, there’s – right.

QUESTION:  Changed hands in one way or another.

MR TONER:  Right, right, right, but no – in fairness, though, I don’t want to – I – you’re conflating several – I don’t necessarily want to relitigate or discuss that again.  But --

QUESTION:  I’m not relitigating whether --

MR TONER:  Yeah.  No worries.  I just want to make sure that --

QUESTION:  -- why that money was exchanged, but --

MR TONER:  That was a different – no, but seriously, it was a different resolution for a Hague – The Hague – or The Hague – I forget what it’s called.  Not The Hague Tribunal, but The Hague settlement process.  Excuse me.

QUESTION:  So those money – there were funds that were released.  There was also some sanctions that were lifted --

MR TONER:  As part of implementation day, because --

QUESTION:  As part of the -- as part of the implementation day, yeah.

MR TONER:  -- Iran met their commitments, right.  But we’ve always left it – sorry.

QUESTION:  But what are the things that can’t – that have yet to happen, that still – I guess, what are the – I mean, those things can’t be – you can’t back out of the things that have been done.  But are you saying that if this government in the future just decides not to do the next things on the list, that it could do that?

MR TONER:  I’m just not going to speak to decisions that the new incoming administration has or hasn’t made yet.  I just – I’m not going to go there, sorry.  Please.

QUESTION:  Okay, I’m trying to understand that answer, that – is there any provision that all that money in cash can come back?

MR TONER:  No, and I – the only reason that I was – anyway – dwelling on that is – and we, as I said, we discussed this in excruciating detail a few months ago.  That money was part of The Hague settlement process for money that we owed Iran.  And I think that there was a lot of back and forth and a lot of conflating it with somehow money that Iran had gotten from us as part of a deal.  That’s not at all the case.  So I just want to make that clear.  But that money has been paid, that was a settlement that was actually to the advantage of the American taxpayer, because of the interest level – the interest rate that we got on it.

QUESTION:  Okay, the other one is on the State Department data going on the web.  According to the NARA specifications – and this question has been raised earlier and – their deadline says that some of them are end of 2016 that all – everything has to be stored online like – and then --

MR TONER:  Help me here.  We’re talking about emails in FOIA or --

QUESTION:  Everything.  The National Archives had given a deadline when Jason Baron was the director that made all – that every data of every federal government will be on – not for people to see, but --

MR TONER:  Yeah, no, I – right, I --

QUESTION:  -- in the cloud or whatever.

MR TONER:  Yeah, I understand what you’re talking about.

QUESTION:  So there is a – one of the deadline is 2016.

MR TONER:  Okay.

QUESTION:  So is the State Department going to meet it?  Is it going to --

MR TONER:  Going to meet that deadline? 

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR TONER:  Let me get an update for you.  I just don’t have that in front of me. 

QUESTION:  Okay.

MR TONER:  I’ll get an update for you.  Please.

QUESTION:  So the President-elect spoke a lot about Japan throughout the campaign.  What would you say is the impact of his election on the future of the U.S.-Japan relationship?

MR TONER:  Well, look, I mean, the U.S.-Japan relationship is a cornerstone relationship.  Part of our strong presence in Asia – the Asia Pacific and that relationship is going to remain, regardless of the administration, a cornerstone for the United States in its relations with Asia.  And I can only imagine that it’s going to grow stronger in the coming weeks, months, and years.  They’re a strong ally and partner and, certainly, within this administration we’ve been able to deepen and strengthen that partnership.  So I guess my message would be one of reassurance to the Japanese people that that relationship is of a core foreign policy interest to the United States.  Please, in back.

QUESTION:  Yeah, I just wanted --

MR TONER:  No, go ahead – if you – we can shift, I’ll get to you in a second.

QUESTION:  I just want to follow.  Thank you.  On difference of North Korean policy, and how will the difference between current Obama’s administrations and next coming Trump administration toward North Korean policy?

MR TONER:  Well, again, that’s a question that you’re going to have the opportunity to ask the incoming administration.  You know where we stand with regard to North Korea and its, frankly, pattern of behavior that’s caused so much insecurity in the peninsula and in the region.  We’re going to continue to apply pressure on the regime and Pyongyang to try to get them to change that behavior and answer the international community’s concerns about their nuclear ambitions.  That’s going to continue full-stop in the remaining two months. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR TONER:  Sure.  Go ahead.

QUESTION:  Yeah, I have another separate question.

MR TONER:  Yeah, sure.

QUESTION:  You mentioned the Administration’s or the department’s priorities for the next two months.

MR TONER:  Right.

QUESTION:  Can you tell us what those are?

MR TONER:  I can.  Well, I mean, obviously – I promise I won’t go on, but the coalition – the anti-Daesh coalition, has made, frankly, significant, important progress in the past year.  We’re in the process of liberating Mosul.  We’re in the process of an initial stage to isolate and eventually liberate Raqqa.  It’s not to say that Daesh is defeated, but in the last year and a half we have really set up a structure, working effectively with partners on the ground and with Iraqi forces on the ground, that has put Daesh – Daesh, rather – on the defensive.  That’s going to continue.  That’s been a successful effort.  It’s not to say they’re defeated, not to say they can’t still strike out and cause violence, but that’s a significant effort.

Climate change – we’re getting ready.  The Secretary is going to be in Marrakesh next week.  This year we had the entry into force of the Paris Agreement.  We had the agreement on capturing emissions from international civil aviation, and also the agreement from Kigali to phase down on hydrofluorocarbons.  So that’s been a trifecta that’s been a real success with regard to combating climate change.  Those efforts are going to continue in the months ahead. 

And then just the urgency of what’s happening in Syria and trying to get a cessation of hostilities into place – we continue to meet with – in a multilateral venue, or setting, rather, in Geneva.  We’re still trying to overcome some of the gaps, but we’re still working hard to get some kind of credible cessation of hostilities in place, certainly in Aleppo but throughout Syria, and try to get a political transition back in place.  That’s – there’s an urgency there that’s obviously not something even for the next couple of months, but something in the days and weeks ahead that we need to address.

I’ll stop there.

QUESTION:  (Inaudible.)

MR TONER:  Please, go ahead.

QUESTION:  Sorry, one last one before we run off.

MR TONER:  Yeah, of course.

QUESTION:  Apparently, Russian – an aide to Russian President Putin says he believes that a Trump administration would lift sanctions against Russia.  I know you can’t comment on what that administration would do, but perhaps you could tell us what your stance is now on sanctions (inaudible).

MR TONER:  Our stance is what it’s been and will remain in – certainly throughout this Administration, which is with regard to sanctions on Crimea, those remain in place until Russia removes its forces from Crimea and gives that peninsula back to Ukraine.  With regard to other sanctions with respect to Ukraine and its actions in eastern Ukraine, those sanctions remain in place until the Minsk agreement is fully implemented.  And we continue to make progress and work in that regard, but that’s the clearest path to remove sanctions for Russia.

QUESTION:  What’s the consequences of – if those sanctions weren’t there, what would the consequences be?

MR TONER:  Well, again, it’s the question of what sanctions do and how you use them in a diplomatic setting.  They’re a way to apply leverage, to apply pressure on Russia.  They’ve had a significant impact on Russia’s economy.  I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but we can certainly get them for you.  But it’s had an effect of applying pressure, and that’s what its intent is.  It’s not a means to an – an end all to itself, but it’s a way to make clear to Russia that its actions have consequences.

QUESTION:  I just got one on this Administration, nothing to do with transition.

MR TONER:  Okay, yeah.

QUESTION:  That – you know what happened in India yesterday.  Narendra Modi, prime minister, he dumped rupees 500 and rupees 1,000 --

MR TONER:  Yes.

QUESTION:  -- currency notes.  And today the banks are closed, ATMs are not working.  There are a lot of Americans who are traveling --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- who are there.  What are the – anything our embassy is doing there or this department has issued anything?  So if you have any --

MR TONER:  It’s a fair question whether we’ve issued anything via our consular system to the – to Americans who are traveling there or whether we’re updating our travel documents or travel information about India.  I assume that’s in train, if it hasn’t been done already.  But to speak to the – speak to the broader actions that were taken, it was, frankly, the anti-corruption measure that was taken by the Modi government, following a series of steps that that government has taken in the past years in an attempt to reduce counterfeit money or black money.

QUESTION:  All that --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- that is fine.  I did not find anything --

MR TONER:  You’re just asking about the impact on tourists?  Yeah.

QUESTION:   I did not find anything on the embassy --

MR TONER:  It’s a completely legitimate question.  I think we’re --

QUESTION:  -- embassy website --

MR TONER:  Yeah.

QUESTION:  -- for the people who are right there there, because the 500 and 1,000 --

MR TONER:  I know.

QUESTION:  -- I was there a couple – a few months ago, and these are the notes that you really carry.  It’s cash. 

MR TONER:  Yeah.  No, I’m aware that this has had --

QUESTION:  People are --

MR TONER:  I’m aware that it’s had an impact.  I assume --

QUESTION:  Yeah.

MR TONER:  -- that we have informed at least Americans who are visiting or living in India of how to work around this and to deal with it.

QUESTION:  Can we go back to the Ukraine question real quick?

MR TONER:  Of course.

QUESTION:  So you – does this Administration feel that the sanctions tempered Russia’s behavior towards Ukraine or in that part of Europe?  And would – if they weren’t there, would Russia have been more – I guess more aggressive in its behavior?

MR TONER:  Sure.  I mean, look, it’s – I don’t think it’s possible to say categorically that it stopped Russia’s bad behavior in eastern Ukraine, because we saw, even after sanctions were implemented, a continuation of that behavior with respect to Russian forces and weaponry moving around or being positioned in, frankly, Ukraine’s sovereign territory.  But I do believe that it was a useful, as I said, application of pressure to get Russia to want to resolve the unrest in eastern Ukraine, and how we’re working to do that is through the Minsk agreement.  We’re still not there with full implementation, but that’s the way to resolve the current unrest.

Thanks.

QUESTION:  Thank you.

MR TONER:  Yep.

QUESTION:  Thank you. 

 (The briefing was concluded at 2:42 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 4, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 4, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

TURKEY



UNITED NATIONS



DEPARTMENT



TURKEY



SYRIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE




TRANSCRIPT:

2:20 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Okay guys, a few things at the top here. And I’ve got several, so just bear with me.

First, let me say that the United States condemns the indefensible bombing in Diyarbakir. We wish the wounded a speedy recovery and offer our deepest condolences to all the loved ones of those who lost their lives. We again call on the PKK to cease its senseless, brutal attacks, and we continue to stand by our friend and ally Turkey in this fight.

Also on Turkey, the United States is deeply concerned by the Turkish Government’s detentions of opposition members of parliament, including the co-chairs of the HDP, and by government restrictions on internet access today. Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke this morning with Turkish – the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Under Secretary Yalcin and raised these concerns. He made clear that when democracies pursue legal action against an elected representative, they must do so in a manner that reinforces the public’s confidence in rule of law, and that restricting the internet undermines confidence in Turkey’s democracy and economic prosperity. The deputy secretary and the under secretary also discussed U.S. cooperation, of course, in Syria and Iraq, and next steps in the counter-ISIL campaign.

I think you saw earlier today that the Secretary met with the UN Secretary-General-designate Antonio Guterres at the State Department. The Secretary took the opportunity to use this meeting to congratulate Mr. Guterres on his appointment, of course, and to underscore our desire to work closely with him in his new role. They discussed some of the important global challenges that will continue to require UN leadership, such as ending the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, and South Sudan; addressing climate change; implementing sustainable development goals; and responding to global migration and other humanitarian crises.

On the Paris Agreement, in case you missed the anniversary today --

QUESTION: I did not.

MR KIRBY: -- actually – what’s that?

QUESTION: I did not.

MR KIRBY: You didn’t. Good. Less than a year after being adopted, the historic Paris Agreement now officially enters into force. I think as you know, the Paris Agreement is the most ambitious and inclusive climate agreement ever achieved. With this momentum now, we head into COP22, which will be in Marrakesh starting next week, with a strong focus on now implementation and action towards actually getting there on all the things that countries need to do.

On Monday we’ll have right here at the podium the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Dr. Jonathan Pershing. He’ll give you a preview of COP22.

And then speaking of COP22, I think you’ll see a travel announcement from us shortly about the Secretary’s upcoming travel. He will leave on Monday, the 7th of November. His first stop will be Antarctica, where he will have a chance to visit with the scientists and researchers both at McMurdo Station as well as the South Pole. He’ll be the first Secretary of State and the most senior U.S. Government official to ever travel to Antarctica, and he’ll be there from the 10th to the 12th of November. Follow-on stops on this trip include Wellington, New Zealand for bilateral discussions on the 12th and 13th; on the 14th he’ll be in Oman; on the 15th, United Arab Emirates. We go to Morocco on the 15th and 16th for COP22, and then he goes on to Peru for the APEC conference on the 17th and 18th before returning home. So it’s a long trip, lots to cover. But we’ll keep you guys posted as the schedule continues to firm up.

QUESTION: Can I just ask very briefly on the trip and Antarctica? I mean, he’s not going directly there, is he? He’s got to stop beforehand, right? In New Zealand?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, several stops.

QUESTION: Well, in New Zealand, though. I mean, he’s – you can’t just fly --

MR KIRBY: I thought you were talking about fueling.

QUESTION: No. No, I’m just saying you can’t just fly from Washington to Antarctica.

MR KIRBY: No, you can’t.

QUESTION: Right. So --

MR KIRBY: That’s impossible.

QUESTION: Right. So --

MR KIRBY: It can’t be done.

QUESTION: -- he’s leaving – where --

MR KIRBY: So we are – we’re going to --

QUESTION: He’s going to Christchurch or is he going someplace else?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, so we’ll be stopping in Christchurch, but really the first stop in Christchurch will just be to follow on.

QUESTION: Gotcha.

MR KIRBY: We’ll go back to Christchurch for bilateral meetings.

QUESTION: And then what – okay, so he’s going there. What’s he going to – what’s the purpose of going?

MR KIRBY: Of Christchurch?

QUESTION: No, Antarctica.

MR KIRBY: So I think McMurdo Station is the largest research station of the U.S. Antarctic Program, as well as surrounding areas on Ross Island. And he’ll also visit the U.S. Government’s Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. There he’ll have a chance to meet with scientists and researchers that are studying a wide range of subjects in the extreme south, including, of course, climate change. He’ll also get a chance to see firsthand part of the recently established Ross Sea region marine protected area which we announced a week or so ago, the world’s largest marine protected area, which is 1.5 million square kilometers or about – nearly 600 square miles. So this visit will be hosted by the U.S. National Science Foundation, which manages the U.S. Antarctic Program. So it’s a chance to really see firsthand what’s going on with climate change research.

QUESTION: But it’s – climate change and ice?

MR KIRBY: Of course, yeah.

QUESTION: Has he voted?

QUESTION: He will be – he’s leaving on Monday, so he’s not – so he’s --

MR KIRBY: Wait, wait, let’s just – go ahead. Stay on --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: Is the scheduling of this designed to keep him out of the country during the election?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I remember the last --

MR KIRBY: I mean, will it? Yes. But is there some sort of design to keep him out of the country on Election Day? No. I mean, the Secretary has been wanting to get down there for a long, long time, and frankly, this schedule was very literally driven by the weather. As a matter of fact, as I understand it from the briefings that we got last week from scientists, that we are – that you wait much longer in the year and it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to travel down there.

QUESTION: And then – but so do you know, has he voted?

MR KIRBY: I understand that he has voted.

QUESTION: In Massachusetts?

MR KIRBY: I – assuming it’s still his home state. I can check on that, but I know that he has voted, yeah.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Is he physically going to go from the Amundsen station to the spot, the actual spot of the South Pole? Do you – are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: Yes. So it’s a – it’s – you go to Christchurch, it’s about a five-hour flight to McMurdo. We’ll spend the night there because of just the time it takes to get there and acclimatizing. And then we’ll get up the next morning and it’s about a three-hour flight from there to the pole. There’s an actual research facility at the pole.

QUESTION: So he’ll go outside and go to that marker for the South Pole?

MR KIRBY: I’m assuming so.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I don’t know, but the research – as I understand it, the research facility itself is just a few hundred meters from the actual pole, so we’ll --

QUESTION: Yes. You still have to go outside to get there, though.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I’m assuming you have to go outside to get there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But the research facility’s right there, so we will be on the South Pole.

QUESTION: Do you know if the foreign minister of New Zealand is going to be going with them, or --

MR KIRBY: He will not be.

QUESTION: So there’s no real like technically diplomatic component to the trip. I understand there’s a climate change --

MR KIRBY: The purpose for the South Pole is to talk to researchers and scientists --

QUESTION: Got you.

MR KIRBY: -- largely about climate change research.

Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Well, can I just ask about Antarctica?

QUESTION: Oh.

QUESTION: Just what – I mean, what specifically does he hope to achieve with this visit and how much is it going to cost U.S. taxpayers for him to go look around --

MR KIRBY: I will see if we can get you an estimate. I don’t have that. But I think any basic understanding or attempt to understand climate change, you have to understand what’s going on both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, especially with melting glaciers and ice and the sea level rise that can come from that. And as an individual who has literally championed climate change research and awareness for decades now, the Secretary is and will remain committed to increasing the awareness and education of the public about this. And he himself feels it’s important – particularly in the wake of us entering into force now the Paris Agreement, and in advance of the COP22 discussions which will all be about implementing the agreement, that it’s important for him to see firsthand what we’re learning about the environment down there on the South Pole and what information we can then glean from the research to make better, smarter policy decisions. Because that, in the end, as you’ve heard the Secretary talk about – that’s really the answer here, is energy policy, and he believes it’s important to go down there and see that for himself.

QUESTION: Because there’s some criticism that this trip is basically the Secretary wants to knock Antarctica off his bucket list and he’s doing it sort of on taxpayer expense.

MR KIRBY: Where’s the criticism coming from or – I haven’t seen that. Have you?

QUESTION: I – I’ll send you some, yeah. I mean, it’s --

QUESTION: Really?

QUESTION: It just --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know how there can be criticism of this when we haven’t even announced the trip, but --

QUESTION: Well, you just did. The criticism obviously came in the last 10 minutes. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: It must have come in the last five minutes. But nevertheless, Nick – nevertheless, you’ve traveled with the Secretary. I think you know how packed his schedule is, and he wouldn’t be making this trip – or any other trip, for that matter – if he didn’t think it was important to advancing issues that are important to our national security and our foreign policy. And climate change is – and it’s not just the State Department that said that; the Pentagon has said it’s a national security imperative. And that was a study two, three years ago. So given all the stakes for the planet, particularly for sea level rise, but – by melting ice, the Secretary believes this is an important trip to make and it’s some – and it’s a place that he’s been wanting to go for a while now. It is largely weather-dependent and that has restricted our – somewhat our ability to be able to get down there, plus you want to get down there when there’s research going on that is the most relevant to what we’re trying to learn, and this is a good time to go.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Turkey on your statement?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I realize that you said that Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke to a senior Turkish foreign ministry official. Is that the only contact that you’re expecting today on the arrests of these pro-Kurdish MPs and --

MR KIRBY: Is that the only --

QUESTION: Is that the only contact that you’re expecting or is the Secretary planning to call the foreign minister? Is the President planning to – or (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any other contact to speak to now, Matt, but I certainly wouldn’t rule other discussions out. He talks quite a bit with --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- Foreign Minister Cavusoglu.

QUESTION: You said you’re deeply concerned, but, I mean, why? Just because the fact of the arrests or do you see this as part of the broader crackdown on media and opposition that you’ve been talking about --

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: -- for months and as a sign that things are actually getting worse rather than better?

MR KIRBY: I’d say both. I mean, the arrests themselves concern us, but certainly – and I’ve talked about this before. We have seen a continuing trend of very stringent limits on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, certainly shutting down access to the internet also is not conducive to the free expression that’s, again, enshrined in the Turkish constitution. So it is another act in what we have continued to see as a worrisome trend. So it’s both. I mean, on the face of it, we felt strong enough to raise it, but it is – you have to take it in context of everything else we’re seeing.

QUESTION: Right, but, I mean, is this the kind of behavior that you think is worthy of a NATO ally?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, the fact that they’re a NATO ally has nothing to – we don’t judge this just based on the fact that they’re a NATO ally. They’re also a democracy, and they’re a democracy and a country that we care about.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) so forget about the NATO --

MR KIRBY: But obviously --

QUESTION: Then how about --

MR KIRBY: Obviously, we care about --

QUESTION: -- democracy?

MR KIRBY: We care about the health of Turkey’s democracy and we care about the future of Turkey and that’s why we raise these problems, but we’re not pinning this to their membership in the alliance.

QUESTION: All right. Well, what is the – what do you think, how would you describe the health of the – of Turkish democracy?

MR KIRBY: It is obviously still – we still believe it to be a democracy and we have said repeatedly, certainly since the coup, that we continue to support the democratically elected institutions and Government of Turkey. We recognize that in the wake of what was a absolutely serious coup attempt in July that they have every right and should have every right and responsibility to try to get to the bottom of it and to deal with it.

At the same time, we have been very honest about expressing our concerns about some of the manners and methods in which they have gone about doing that. So if you’re asking me, are they still a democracy, of course they are.

QUESTION: No, no --

MR KIRBY: And it’s because we believe them to be and we believe them to be serious about that that we’re able to have these discussions.

QUESTION: I asked you what you thought the state of the health of the --

MR KIRBY: I’m not --

QUESTION: -- Turkey’s democracy was and you answered that --

MR KIRBY: I’m not --

QUESTION: -- it is a democracy. So --

MR KIRBY: I’m not --

QUESTION: -- you obviously think it still has a pulse if you think that it’s – but is it sick? Is it not healthy?

MR KIRBY: I’m not qualified to characterize it or give them a letter grade here. I mean, it’s a discussion that we routinely and will continue to have with them, and we’re not – again, not bashful about expressing our concerns when we have them. That’s what allies and friends do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Turkey, first of all, a year ago --

MR KIRBY: Are you sure you want to ask a Turkey question?

QUESTION: Yes, I got a couple questions. Thank you. The November election last year was not classified as fair and free elections by the OSCE report. So you keep referring Turkish – Turkey as democratically elected government, whereas this Administration, also the OSCE, did not classify it as fair and free elections. How do you view --

MR KIRBY: Well, as I – look, as I said to Matt, I’m not going to give them a letter grade here, and I don’t have the OSCE report in front of me to --

QUESTION: We discussed it.

MR KIRBY: I’m not disputing that you’ve read it. I’m just saying that those findings nevertheless, they are still – it’s still a democracy and there are principles enshrined in their constitution, many of which we’ve talked about here a lot, that we continue to want to see observed.

QUESTION: The first week of June, President Obama was in Poland, and he was talking about the NATO membership and he was saying that universal values and democratic institutions are the core at the NATO alliance. So you, I think, just said that this has nothing to do with NATO membership. Isn’t that the democratic values is the part of the membership?

MR KIRBY: No, you’re over-simplifying my answer back to Matt, which was do these arrests – how do you feel about these arrests in light of the fact that they’re a NATO ally? And I – what I was trying to do was say we’re not drawing a connection between these arrests and their membership in the alliance. And yes, the alliance is – one of the guiding principles of it is a devotion to democratic ideals. And Turkey is still a democracy and Turkey is still a member of the alliance.

QUESTION: A week ago, Human Rights Watch issued a report regarding the torture in the Turkish jails. This report followed Amnesty reports which had similar findings. You did not have a statement last week. I was wondering if you have anything today.

MR KIRBY: I would say what we’ve said before about this: Any allegations of torture and mistreatment are, of course, concerning to us.

QUESTION: Could I follow up on that? The UN Human Rights Office --

MR KIRBY: I didn’t even finish yet.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry, my apologies. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: My good stuff here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Look, we urge – obviously, we urge the Turkish authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of any alleged incidents of abuse perpetrated by government officials. So we take this seriously. And now you can go.

QUESTION: A final question, my final question. In 2009, President Obama did his first overseas bilateral visit to Turkey, and Turkey was applauded as the model partner and the model democracy or inspiring democracy. Now, at the end of the Obama Administration, we are talking about the health of the democracy and whether Turkey is still a democracy. Do you have --

MR KIRBY: You are talking about that.

QUESTION: No, everybody is talking about that.

MR KIRBY: You are the ones raising that question every day. And --

QUESTION: And everybody does.

QUESTION: Well, to be fair, it’s not just him that’s raising it every day.

MR KIRBY: And to your --

QUESTION: It’s a lot of people. And it’s a lot of people in Europe, it’s a lot of people here.

MR KIRBY: I got it, I got it. Were – are you ask – again are you – go ahead.

QUESTION: My question was: Do you think this Administration has any blame for its Turkish ally going through this downward spiral on human rights issues as well as democratic issues, whether you think that you took enough – your policies handled Turkey well on these regards?

MR KIRBY: The question is: Is it the United States fault that --

QUESTION: Whether you take any blame on this. Do you think your policies have been consistent and good enough to --

MR KIRBY: Yes, our policies have been consistent about our relationship with Turkey, absolutely. And this is a country, I think it’s important to remember, that just a few months ago, had members of their own military shelling and dropping bombs in their capital. Now, can you imagine what that would feel like and be like in our country if it happened? How seriously the democratically elected government, whether you like him or not, democratically elected, how they would – the responsibilities they would have to respond to that? A lot’s happened. You cited comments made back when – Poland? Right?

QUESTION: Two months, three months ago, yes.

MR KIRBY: To now?

QUESTION: About NATO. It was about NATO.

MR KIRBY: Before the coup?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. A lot’s happened since early summer and --

QUESTION: Are you sure you want to be talking about the prospect of a coup in the United States?

MR KIRBY: I’m just saying, imagine what the reaction would – here would be if that were to happen. Obviously, it’s not going to.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is – wait a second, guys, just hang on. I take great exception to this – to a notion or even the suggestion that the United States is somehow to blame for what’s happening inside Turkey, as if our policy determined the events of – since summer. Look, they suffered a nearly successful coup attempt and --

QUESTION: Did they – did they --

MR KIRBY: And they’re reacting to it. And in the reacting to it, we have been firm and consistent, as recently as today with the deputy secretary’s meeting – or sorry, discussion – we’ve been clear and consistent about our concerns about how Turkey is dealing in the – with the aftermath of the coup. But they’re an ally. They’re a friend. They’re a partner. And we’re going to keep the dialogue close, we’re going to keep the relationship strong, and we’re going to keep working at this. But a suggestion of laying it at the feet of the United States Government and United States policy is not only wrong-headed, but it’s well oversimplified that any one nation’s policy about any other one nation is going to determine the entire direction it moves with respect to its democratic institutions.

QUESTION: Kirby, why do you think that U.S. --

QUESTION: Today we --

QUESTION: -- that the United States – as you say, you have been public and consistent --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in your concerns both about the manifest reduction in media freedoms and about the incarcerations of large numbers of people, tens of thousands detained, right? Why do you think those arguments do not appear to have found much resonance with your Turkish allies? I get that they suffered a political trauma, but you’ve been making this case – and it doesn’t appear, certainly not on the media freedom side, right, and not really particularly on the roundups of the officer corps and other people like school teachers. It’s very broad and deep. So why do you think your arguments have found so little resonance in the Turkish Government?

MR KIRBY: That’s hard to say, but I would make two points. One is it’s difficult to know exactly what’s inside the minds of Turkish leaders as they make these decisions, but they are making these decisions. President Erdogan is making these decisions as a – the head of government.

The second thing I’d say, Arshad, is it’s – again, it’s this idea that it’s U.S. policy alone here that’s driving the flow of the democratic river through Ankara, and it’s not just about the United States. There are – other nations, many other nations, have had and have expressed similar concerns about the situation in Turkey. Yes, we do it probably more often and certainly more publicly than some nations, but it’s not just the United States that has these concerns or has raised those concerns. So it’s not just about – it’s not just about Turkish leaders, to borrow I think what you’re trying to say, rebuffing U.S. calls. It is – there – other nations also have expressed these concerns. And why we’re still seeing these kinds of decisions get made, it’s just difficult to know.

QUESTION: Follow-up to that --

QUESTION: Following up on the – to – on the question of a while back, today the UN Human Rights Office said that the arrest of the pro-Kurdish politicians combined with the detention and suspension of 110,000 officials goes beyond what is permissible. Would you agree with that statement?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that report, and I – look, I’m not going to characterize each and every report that’s made. We have – I think, Steve, you can go back and look at everything we’ve been saying about this and see exactly where our heads are. And I wouldn’t – if it wasn’t important to us in terms of our concerns about what’s going on, I wouldn’t have read out the discussion that the deputy secretary had just today. So I’m not going to, again, give them a letter grade here. That’s not my job.

QUESTION: I’m not asking for a letter grade. Asking for a reaction to the UN Human Rights Office --

MR KIRBY: You’re asking me to – you’re asking me to confirm what another group is saying. I haven’t seen that report. I would just go back to what we’ve said before about our concerns. They’ve been clear and they’ve been consistent.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Are – given the strong criticism from the EU as well as your own and from the UN Human Rights Office, and Arshad’s comment that they haven’t been really responsive so far, are you contemplating further measures, whether the United States alone or in concert with the EU and perhaps through the UN?

MR KIRBY: What we’re focused on is having a continuing dialogue with Turkish leaders about the situation there and about continuing to express our concerns when we have them and as well as our support, which gets lost in this discussion, our support for the democratically elected government of Turkey. So we’re going to focus on the bilateral relationship. And as for next steps or decisions that might or might not be made, I’m not going to speculate.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. Turkey says this is a legal issue; it’s not a political one. As HDP parliament members detained after failing to answer for an investigation summons. Among the charges facing HDP members are offenses of spreading PKK propaganda, which the group you mentioned in your opening statement carried out an attack this morning, killed nine people and injured hundreds of people. I was wondering what is your comment on that, as well, about Turkey’s (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I think I would just point you back to what I said at the beginning, which is – which states very clearly what our concerns are. And I’m not going to – I’m not going to characterize or dispute a characterization by the Turkish Government on this. We’ve been on-the-record now, both in a discussion with a representative from their ministry of foreign affairs with our deputy secretary, and with me here at the podium about our concerns about these arrests. I think I’d leave it at that.

QUESTION: HDP co-chairman Demirtas was here last summer and he met some high-level officials in this building, as well. I was wondering – there is an accusation in Turkey, actually, about HDP having a organic link with the terrorist group PKK. I was wondering if this topic came up in discussions --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a more specific readout of the discussion.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you think that the arrests of the Kurdish parliamentarians puts at even greater risk the Kurdish population, the people of Kurdish origin, in Turkey? As a background, in 1915, how many years ago, the Armenian genocide was launched after the Ottoman Church Government arrested the Armenian parliamentarians of the Ottoman Parliament. And now, the voices of Kurdish people in Ankara, in the Turkish parliament, are being silenced. Do you think that this puts at even greater risk the Kurds of Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Again, we’ve responded to this arrest. I’d point you back to what I said at the beginning of the briefing on that. Turkey’s own constitution enshrines in it freedom of expression, a free press, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest peacefully, all those terrific democratic principles. And we – what we want to see is Turkey live up to those principles, which means that all Turkish citizens, no matter who they are, have the ability and have a voice and a vote in their country’s future. I’m not going to speculate, I’m not in a position to do that, to determine right here from the podium what these arrests mean for larger issues for the Kurdish people in Turkey. We’ve been very clear about our concerns over some of these decisions and I’d leave it there. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you about the phrase that you used, which was a nice turn of phrase: the driving the flow of the democratic river through Ankara. Did you just come up with that on your – just now?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because I wrote that down too. I --

QUESTION: I thought it was quite good. It would have been --

MR KIRBY: I want to see it – I’d like to see it in some of the coverage.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Would’ve been – it would have been better if you could have worked in the Bosporus.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Like --

MR KIRBY: Well, my geography is a little weak, Matt, but --

QUESTION: Yeah, well --

MR KIRBY: I mean, I was just trying to make a point.

QUESTION: Gotcha.

MR KIRBY: And I do want to see it quoted, I thought it was a great line too. (Laughter.) Yeah.

QUESTION: John, you said you are deeply concerned about the recent incidents in Turkey. And we know that the leadership of the HDP were here in the United States and spoke up and raised their concerns about the direction where Turkey has been leading, which is getting worse. What does it take for you to say you condemn it and make a more clear message to the Turkish leadership that this is not, as Human Rights says, not permissible?

MR KIRBY: I think, again, we have been nothing but clear and consistent about our concerns over what’s happening in Turkey. Now, maybe you might want to quibble with the verbs that we’re using up here, but I think any reading of things we’ve said publicly and readouts of meetings that we’ve had privately will show you that we have been nothing but clear and consistent about our concerns. Okay?

QUESTION: Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria? First of all, could you give us an assessment of the current cessation of hostilities, if you have an assessment of the current cessation of hostilities?

MR KIRBY: Well, no, there isn’t a cessation of hostilities. I mean, and there’s still discussions going on in Geneva to try to get us to one.

QUESTION: I’m saying that it’s – what the Russians announced, that this is – they extended the cessation of hostilities this week.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no, Said. They said that they were going to extend a humanitarian pause and --

QUESTION: Extend the humanitarian pause.

MR KIRBY: And – yeah, I don’t – I’m not – I don’t have a battlefield update in terms of whether that pause has actually been fully observed or not. We have seen violence in and around Aleppo, but I’m not going to get into a blow-by-blow. What I can tell you, though – remember, though, a humanitarian pause was designed for what? To allow people to leave, but it was also to allow aid to get in. And how much aid has gotten in? None. And so we’re seeing reports now of citizens of Aleppo tying ropes around their abdomens to try to get around the abdominal pain that they’re feeling from starvation. They’re going to contaminated water sources for drinking water, because there isn’t any. What little hospitals there are in Aleppo are now being forced underground into basements, and the medical personnel that are staffing them, we’re seeing reports now, of them having to use non-sanitized equipment to try to tend wounds and to try to make people feel better. They’re not able to sanitize their equipment.

So whether the pause is in effect or not, you’d have to talk to the Russians. But the Syrian people, particularly the citizens of Aleppo, certainly aren’t feeling any benefits from it.

QUESTION: So on the actual bombardment: Are there any ongoing aerial bombardment by the Russians or the Syrians?

MR KIRBY: Again, I don’t have a battlefield update here for you, and I tend to avoid trying to get into that.

QUESTION: But there’s been any increased bombardment from eastern Aleppo to western Aleppo? Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: I – Said, I don’t have an operational update for you. What we have seen – again, I don’t know what the situation on the ground is today in terms of bombing. I don’t know. That’s a better question put to those who actually have the influence and the control to do that, and that’s the Russian military. What we’ve seen is these humanitarian pauses stop and start, and when they stop, the bombing starts again. And throughout how many extensions, whether it’s this one or not, how much aid have we actually seen get in, which was the stated purpose of doing it in the first place? The answer is none, and that’s unacceptable. And that’s why we’re going to continue to work in Geneva to try to get a meaningful cessation of hostilities, something that the Syrian people can actually count on, and that can be sustained over a longer period of time.

QUESTION: My last question: The Chinese ambassador to Damascus, Qi Qianjin, said that both you and the Russians should work together to bring the Syria crisis to an end, that you should look beyond your own – your strategic interests, both of you, and work toward --

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re grateful for the input, but I think that, again, any reading of recent history will tell you that we’ve tried mightily to work with the Russians, predominantly until of late in a bilateral fashion to do exactly that, and it didn’t get us anywhere, because the Russians weren’t willing to meet their commitments. So now we’re doing it in a multilateral format, something smaller than the ISSG. Those discussions are ongoing. We’ll see where they go.

QUESTION: Are you really grateful for the Chinese input?

MR KIRBY: We’re always grateful for --

QUESTION: It sounded like you might not be.

MR KIRBY: We’re always grateful for good ideas from all around, including from you, Matt. (Laughter.) Absolutely.

QUESTION: Now I know you’re not (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Said.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can I go the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: You always make a point – whenever you criticize the settlements and so on, you always make a point that also the Palestinians should stop their incitement and so on. I wanted to ask you something. The Israelis are increasingly besieging refugee camps, more checkpoints – they’re introducing more checkpoints and so on – like yesterday at the Jalazone refugee camp and so on, really causing a great deal of – and – or contributing to raising tensions between Palestinians and Israelis.

MR KIRBY: You’re talking about --

QUESTION: I wonder if that – those acts are not considered incitement by the Israelis.

MR KIRBY: You’re talking – what acts?

QUESTION: I talk about the – increasingly there are more checkpoints --

MR KIRBY: Checkpoints being --

QUESTION: -- increasingly there are raids at night, they are arresting people – whole families and so on.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, as I said before, and specifically on checkpoints – or closures of them – that we would hope that any measures that Israel takes will be limited and will minimize the impact on the vast majority of non-violent citizens.

QUESTION: One other question. In my – in fact, in my neighborhood of Abu Dis, the Israelis went in this morning and ordered the mosques not to have the morning prayer for – call for prayer. Isn’t that an incitement? Isn’t that something that is – might incite the population and so on?

MR KIRBY: Look, you know I’m loath to get into characterizing each and every decision made and every comment put forth, but I think you also know, Said, how seriously here in the United States we take the right of freedom of religion. And we want to see people everywhere be able to worship the way they choose to worship. I think I’d leave it at that.

QUESTION: But that is a completely Palestinian town. I mean, there are no settlers in the city – in the town. The closest settlement is --

MR KIRBY: No, I --

QUESTION: They just went in and they enforced this order without giving an explanation.

MR KIRBY: I understand what you’re saying. I can’t confirm the specifics of what you’re saying, but in general, of course we always support the right of people to worship as they deem fit, as they believe.

Okay, thanks everybody. Have a great weekend. Oh, one thing before you go, before you go, before you go – and I meant to do this at the top, but you weren’t here. This is the last briefing that I have with Arshad. I know your last day is not today – it’s next week – but I will be on a trip and I won’t be here to --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: What’s that?

QUESTION: I’ve already (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: I won’t be here for your last day. So I wanted to, on behalf of everybody that – in the Public Affairs Bureau, certainly on my behalf, thanks for your professionalism, for your dogged pursuit of some tough issues, and trying to get to the bottom, to get to the truth, to get the facts on issues. Anybody that’s stood up at this podium knows that you are no easy questioner, and that’s a credit to you and to the organization that you work for. When your hand goes up and I call on you, I know that I need to know what I’m talking about, because the questions are going to be smart and your expectations of answers – they’re going to be high. So I respect you as a professional. We’re going to miss you here. I know you’re moving – you’re still going to be covering us in a different capacity at Reuters. We wish you well in that endeavor, all the best. It’s a well-deserved move for you. But again, thanks for being such a pro.

And I think a round of applause. (Applause.)

All right.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Have a good weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 3, 2016

Mark C. Toner

Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 3, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

LEBANON



IRAN/REGION



AFGHANISTAN



IRAQ



PHILIPPINES



INDIA



SYRIA



SUDAN



SOUTH SUDAN/KENYA



VENEZUELA



DEPARTMENT



IRAQ/ISIL




TRANSCRIPT:

2:14 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Happy Thursday. Abigail, put the phone down. (Laughter.) I’m teasing. It was a joke. (Laughter.) You can use your phone all you want. Anyway, welcome to the State Department. I just have one thing at the top and then I’ll get to your questions.

This is about Lebanon. The United States congratulates Saad Hariri on being named prime minister-designate of Lebanon. Today Lebanon took another important step to help build a better future for all of its citizens. The Lebanese people deserve an inclusive government that promotes peace and stability, restores basic services, and confronts the range of economic and political – or rather, economic and security challenges currently facing the country. The United States stands with the people of Lebanon in support of a secure, stable, and sovereign state.

Matt.

QUESTION: Well, let’s just stay with – I’ll just start with Lebanon very briefly --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and then move – I think there will be a natural segue here. You may have seen that Foreign Minister Zarif is going to be going to Beirut to greet the new president and potential prime minister this week. He’ll be, if not the first, among the first foreign visitors. Does that give you guys any pause at all?

MR TONER: No. I have not seen those reports, first of all. But look, Kirby spoke to this the other day. We’re going to judge the new government by its actions. We’re aware of its affiliation or at least its backing or support of, rather, of Hizballah. But as we’ve made clear, we’re going to look to see what kind of new government they form and whether it’s in accordance with the constitutions. And I’d just say this isn’t the first time that we’ve confronted a very complex political environment in Lebanon.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But you say you want to judge the new government by – the new president, the new government by its actions. But if their first action is to meet with the Iranians, what does that tell you?

MR TONER: Well, again, I can’t speak to that. And I wouldn’t necessarily say that’s their first action. Let’s give it a bit more time.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Today is the anniversary of the takeover of the embassy. And once again, as they do every year, it’s not really a surprise --

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: -- there were big demonstrations and lots of chants of “Death to America” and burning of flags, et cetera. I’m wondering, one, if you think that that is in keeping with the kind of relationship that you had hoped to promote, or improve, at least, in the wake of the nuclear agreement.

MR TONER: So you’re absolutely right. It’s – this day certainly brings out the overhyped rhetoric on the part of many in the Iranian Government. We don’t necessarily want to engage in all the various statements that are made on a day like today.

I think in response to your second part of your question, I don’t know that we ever held out hopes that our agreement with regard to – or the JCPOA would across the board change Iranians’ – Iran’s behavior overnight. And it speaks to the fact that Iran needs to choose what kind of role it’s going to play in the region. All kinds of – and also it speaks to the fact that there’s a certain political environment in Iran. Like any country, there’s heated political rhetoric that comes out. And I’m just not going to respond to every instance of that in this case.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I mean, you may not have hoped, or if you did it was a – no, I won’t even suggest that you did hope --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but that it would change overnight. But I mean, surely there was – an opening was seen whereby what had been talks exclusively about the nuclear – the nuclear deal with the side talks on the American prisoners, then expanded to include Syria talks. So there was – but --

MR TONER: That’s a valid point.

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- now you see, again, after this, and after you welcomed their chosen – or a guy they support as – to be president of Lebanon, you basically extended another kind of olive branch there, and yet you’re met with the same vitriolic rhetoric.

MR TONER: So I wouldn’t necessarily couch our support for the new government in Lebanon in that – quite those terms. I think what we’re looking for in Lebanon --

QUESTION: You might want --

MR TONER: -- what we’re looking for in – sure.

QUESTION: You might want to say that it’s purely – it has to do with Lebanon, but people look at it much more broadly. And if --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And you have to recognize that they do. Because I mean, you basically welcoming Iran’s guy as – to be – as president of Lebanon, and that’s --

MR TONER: What we’re welcoming in Lebanon is --

QUESTION: And that’s the way that --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Iranians look at it.

MR TONER: What we’re welcoming in Lebanon is a new government that we hope can restore basic services, stability to the country. And we’re going to look at its behavior going forward, and we’re going to judge it according to its actions.

That said, going back to your question about Iran and its behavior, of course – so a couple points. And the reason I said what I said is today is a – as you noted, an emotionally charged and politically charged day in Iran, so I don’t want to judge comments necessarily made in the environment of today’s anniversary.

QUESTION: These aren’t comments that are just made today.

MR TONER: But let me finish. Let me finish.

QUESTION: They make them every day.

MR TONER: Let me finish. Let me finish, with respect to how we view our relationship with Iran going forward. And the other reason I said what I said in response to your initial question was we did the JCPOA because it took that nuclear threat off the table, and we figured that that was something worth pursuing in its own right.

That said, do we want to see Iran play a more constructive role in the region? Of course, we do. Could it, with regard to Syria and with regard to Yemen and other conflicts? Of course, it could. We’re going to continue where those options look realistic to continue to pursue them.

QUESTION: Okay. But those are broad policy --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: In the short term, would you like to see them – I mean, they can turn this rhetoric off if they wanted to, presumably. Would you like to see them stop?

MR TONER: Well, again – and I’m – of course, we’d like to see the – no one likes to see this kind of hyper-charged rhetoric on the part of any government anywhere, and anti-American sentiments expressed. But again, we’re not going to base our whole relationship going forward based on – or base our relationship going forward on these kind of heated political remarks made on the part of --

QUESTION: And I’m going to drop this shortly.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: But I mean, it’s not just heated political rhetoric. This is like their policy.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, with regard to – you’re talking about the remarks made today on --

QUESTION: I’m talking about the chants of “Death to America.” I mean, it seems it’s coming from the supreme leader. This is not just like some guy, one guy standing out there with – on speakers’ corner or something with a tin foil hat on. It’s thousands of people and very powerful parts of the government that are doing it. So it’s not just rhetoric; it’s policy.

But anyway, that’s – we’ll just --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

QUESTION: I just – go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just, do you actually regard “Death to America” as being Iranian policy? Because Iranian senior officials sit down across the table in very fancy hotels, mostly in Europe, with senior American officials; they engage with them; they negotiate stuff with them over the course of the months, years. Do you regard “Death to America” as being – as truly being Iran’s policy?

MR TONER: No. What I would say is we continue to see Iranian behavior in the region that is, frankly, not positive, that is unconstructive, with regard – and I’m speaking specifically with regard to Yemen, with regard to Syria, but other places as well – and that raise our concerns. And as much as we can engage constructively Iran on any of those issues, we’re going to do so. But we’re mindful of the fact that its behavior hasn’t changed across the board just because we got agreement on the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Would you add Lebanon to that list --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in terms of their unconstructive and not-helpful behavior?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: So just last one. This will be brief, I think.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: And that is that there’s been some attention paid to some comments that Secretary Kerry made in London earlier this week about the JCPOA, the nuclear deal, and the sanctions relief in terms of European banks doing business with Iran. He said in his Chatham House comments that the banks did not need to do any extra, additional due diligence before – they just needed to do the standard amount of due diligence that they would do for another country if they were looking to do business with – in Iran. And there’s been some pushback, or seems to have been some pushback on that from Treasury, which says that no, in fact, you have to do enhanced due diligence because Iran is a high-risk market. Is that – what’s going on here? Was the Secretary saying something that’s different than what the actual policy is?

MR TONER: Without having seen how Treasury may have responded, I think the Secretary was just making the point that – and we’ve made an effort to explain this and we’ve – you’re all well aware of some of the engagement efforts that we’ve made with regard to financial institutions and companies explaining what sanctions have been relieved and the – have been lifted as a result of the JCPOA and the fact that – what business can be done with Iran going forward. I just don’t have the details of what the Department of Treasury may have tried to clarify there so.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Afghan officials say at least 30 civilians, including women and children, have been killed and dozens more wounded in a NATO strike in Kunduz. Any comment?

MR TONER: So yes, I do, obviously. It’s a terrible event. I think the Department of Defense has already spoken to this. But as part of an Afghan operation, friendly forces around Kunduz received direct fire, and airstrikes were conducted in order to defend them. We obviously take any reports or allegations of civilian casualties very seriously. This was, however, an Afghan operation, and so we’ll work – just let me finish – we’ll work with our Afghan partners in order to investigate this incident thoroughly. But I would encourage you to go to them for additional details.

QUESTION: It was a U.S. strike, was it?

MR TONER: My understanding it was not. It was an Afghan-led operation.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. But do you – are there Afghan-trained pilots operating Afghan-trained – Afghan-owned or borrowed or leased aircraft that conducted the strikes?

MR TONER: My understanding is this, again – and I don’t have the details. I just know the Department of Defense has said that this was an Afghan operation and that we – that they’re conducting the investigation into the incident.

QUESTION: Are you – okay.

QUESTION: On --

MR TONER: I --

QUESTION: I didn’t think that the Afghans had pilots that could fly aircraft of this sort.

MR TONER: If there’s any change in that, I promise I’ll update that. That’s just – I’m going – operating with what I have. It’s a valid question, but I just don’t have any more details.

QUESTION: On October --

MR TONER: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: On October 22nd, on the outskirts of Mosul in Iraq, there was a coalition strike, which killed eight civilians according to a family member of the deceased. The coalition confirmed the strikes – the strike and they said that they’re investigating the casualties. I heard you – Mr. Kirby say, I remember, one civilian casualty is too many. Is it the policy – is it the U.S. policy or is it something you say?

MR TONER: I’m sorry. You’re saying is it our policy to -- or is it --

QUESTION: One too many.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you say one civilian casualty is too --

MR TONER: Not at all. I mean, it’s not something we simply say. Let me clarify that. We take any civilian – let’s put it this way – any credible allegation of civilian casualties very seriously, and we investigate it thoroughly. That’s, again, the Department of Defense, and frankly, we hold that standard up to any other military in the world in terms of both following up on any credible allegation of a casualty or civilian casualty event and taking appropriate action with respect to consequences.

QUESTION: There is evidence that the civilian casualties are happening. So when you say, “one is too many,” do I understand it too literally? Should I not --

MR TONER: Again, recognizing – so two points to make here: One is that whenever we carry out a military strike, whether it’s part of the coalition or not, we take every effort and take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, to the point where we will choose sometimes not to take strikes against known enemy targets because it puts civilians at risk. We’re pretty scrupulous about that.

That said, this is kinetic warfare, and sometimes accidents may happen. And when they do and there are credible reports of civilian casualties, we investigate those reports very thoroughly. And in fact, I mean, I think Kirby spoke to this yesterday at the Foreign Press Center, but we have a number of events, allegations – credible allegations of civilian casualty incidents that we’ve investigated and reported on and even posted the findings on Department of Defense website.

QUESTION: Well, the U.S. argument against Russia’s actions in eastern Aleppo was that the fight against terrorists there was not worth the civilian casualties, not like that in Mosul. Do you think it’s worth it? I mean, there is evidence that they’re happening. And my understanding is that the operations are at their beginning. So it’s just --

MR TONER: So – and I would make this clarification. What we have seen – and I think we’ve talked about this a fair amount last week – what we have seen in around Aleppo are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, civilian targets that raise questions whether these are deliberate targets.

With regard to our operations in and around Mosul, of course we’ll investigate and look into any credible allegation of civilian causalities. And I’m not sure what the status of this particular event that you’ve raised is, but if it’s a credible allegation we will investigate it. We don’t see the same on the Russian side, and certainly not on the Syrian regime side.

QUESTION: Do you really believe that Russia is deliberately targeting civilians there? So you don’t believe when they say that they are targeting al-Nusrah in eastern Aleppo?

MR TONER: Again, when we look at the evidence that we’ve seen on the ground, it can only lead to the conclusion that civilians were being deliberately targeted in some of these actions in an effort to intimidate – I don't know – I mean, you tell me what the motivation is behind it, but perhaps in an effort to drive out the civilians from Aleppo in order to eventually take the city. Again, that’s not what you’re seeing in and around Aleppo – or in and around Mosul, not at all.

But I can never say in an operation, a military operation, that civilians won’t get hurt, injured, or killed. But what I can say is that we make every effort, as part of the anti-Daesh coalition and as a leader in that, to avoid civilian causalities.

Yes.

QUESTION: Different topic.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Philippines. Secretary of State Kerry today at the swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador Sung Kim said that he hopes to visit Manila again before his tenure is up. Has there been some sort of olive branch by President Duterte or some other indications that reveal some sort of change of climate that would clear the way for such a visit?

MR TONER: So Secretary – and thank you for drawing attention. I do want to congratulate Ambassador Sung Kim and also thank Ambassador Goldberg for his service in the Philippines. I think the Secretary was making clear that this relationship matters to the United States. It’s very important. And in fact, he emphasized the strong ties that our nations have, people-to-people ties. I think he cited some 30,000 Filipino Americans on active duty in our military; four million Filipino Americans live in the United States. This is – these are strong bonds. And I simply – I think he was expressing his desire not to see those bonds threatened in any way, shape, or form by some of the political rhetoric flying around. And he was emphasizing the fact that we’re going to continue to work to strengthen our relationship with the Philippines, and we’re going to continue to pursue a strong economic and security cooperation with them.

Thanks.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- can you – have you discussed the possibility of a visit with the Philippines yet?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce, no.

QUESTION: And then can you outline a bit of the priorities for Ambassador Kim in the Philippines?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, he spoke to it, obviously, today. And his remarks at least should be out there, if not they will be soon. Again, I mean, we’ve talked about it a lot. We already have a very strong security relationship with them, military-to-military cooperation. They’re, as you’ve heard, a treaty ally of ours, and so we take that very seriously. We want to strengthen that military cooperation. We’re working with them on their counter-narcotics efforts, mindful though that when they do carry out these kinds of efforts that they need to abide by international standards and international law. And we’re also – again, people-to-people ties, economic ties – this is a vital relationship in the overall framework of our close ties to the Asian region, and we’re going to continue to pursue those areas of cooperation.

QUESTION: Staying in Asia.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: It’s about the recent Travel Warning issued from the U.S., and now the Australians have issued a travel warning. Did the Australians – you share any intelligence with the Australians (inaudible)?

MR TONER: I wouldn’t speak to that. What I can clarify though – it wasn’t a Travel Warning, and there’s an important distinction to make there, Tejinder. The U.S. embassy did – in New Delhi did release a security message on November 1st that was highlighting recent media reports, frankly, that indicate ISIL’s desire to attack targets in India. I think it talked about increased threats to markets, religious sites, and festival venues. And this is a pretty common thing for an embassy to do when presented with this kind of information. As I said, this is information that was in the Indian media, but we’re certainly – when we have that kind of information, we’re going to send it out via our networks to the American community.

QUESTION: My next question was going to be on that, that you – in the language it says “recent India media reports.” There are thousands of channels and millions of newspapers out there.

MR TONER: Yep. It’s a vital --

QUESTION: And it’s a --

MR TONER: -- vibrant media scene in India.

QUESTION: Yes, and --

MR TONER: Of which you are a part.

QUESTION: And most of it – most of it is very sensationalism and fearmongering and anti-Pakistan, anti – kind of thing. So on the basis of that, are you not joining hands with the media? Or can you define or give us a list of the media that you have --

MR TONER: It’s a fair question. I don’t have the list of media in front of me. What I would say is that you are absolutely right, and I wouldn’t say just India. Many media environments have a broad swath of viewpoints, shall we say. And I think that – I trust, in fact, that our embassy and its public affairs section and press section are able to evaluate that media market and assess whether the information is credible or not.

QUESTION: Just a --

MR TONER: Please go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: -- quick one on that. That whenever there are state or any kind of elections in India, the media takes sides and there is a lot of fearmongering that starts and --

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: So I’m trying to see if we can find which are the medias your embassies – the able people did consult to come to this conclusion, because the – one of the elections is the UP, the (inaudible) Uttar Pradesh – these elections. So --

MR TONER: When I was in New Delhi a couple months ago, I was very impressed with the newspapers I read and the breadth of coverage. And frankly, there are some very, very good media outlets, including newspapers, in India that I’m sure figure into the assessment of the embassy when it’s carrying out or evaluating this kind of information. And I’m not joking. I’m just saying that there’s a very sophisticated media market, and that’s what both our Foreign Service officers posted in embassies overseas but also the Indians who are employed by the embassy are paid to do. They’re paid to evaluate and analyze that media.

Please, sir, in the back.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR TONER: Syria? Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. There are reports suggesting that the U.S. and Turkey agreed on clearing YPG forces from Manbij under U.S. and Turkey supervision. I was wondering if you can confirm this report.

MR TONER: I’ve seen those reports. I don’t have anything to confirm them. It’s the first I’m hearing about any kind of effort, so I can’t confirm.

QUESTION: And what’s your position on YPG forces being in Manbij, by the way?

MR TONER: What’s our position?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Again, we’ve worked with the YPG pretty extensively in northern Syria. They’ve been an effective fighting force against Daesh. We’ve talked about that fact. They’re part of, frankly, a broad coalition of forces – Syrian Turks, Syrian Arabs as well – who have been effectively fighting against Daesh in northern Syria. What we have spoken to before is we understand Turkey’s concerns with respect to some elements of the YPG, and we have asked them to live up to the commitments that they have made to us with regard to where they are based and where they are – yes, I would say based in Syria --

QUESTION: Did you make any --

MR TONER: -- in northern Syria. And what we’ve seen thus far is that they’ve lived up to those commitments.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that they cleared the place?

MR TONER: I think it’s our – was our assessment that they had cleared out, yes.

Yes. I’m sorry, yeah.

QUESTION: Sudan?

MR TONER: Sudan, yeah.

QUESTION: A letter was sent by members in Congress to Secretary Kerry expressing deep concern about the increased number of migration or refugees from Darfur, and also mentioning reports about the use by the Government of Sudan of chemical weapons against civilians. Are you aware of this and do you have a reaction?

MR TONER: Sorry, you’re talking about a letter?

QUESTION: A letter to the Secretary from a number of members in Congress expressing concern about increased migration of people in Darfur and talking about reports of the government using chemical weapons against civilians and asking for investigation on this.

MR TONER: I mean, it – with regard to the use of chemical weapons, of course, if there were credible reports of chemical weapons use, we would take those very seriously and also call on an investigation. I’m frankly not aware of the letter you’re referring to.

QUESTION: Humanitarian aid to people who are fledding Darfur?

MR TONER: You’re talking about that we should provide more humanitarian --

QUESTION: No, no, there are – they are asking for the Secretary to help in making sure that people who are fledding to get humanitarian aid.

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, look – I mean, Samir, I don’t have this – the number in front of me, but we provide humanitarian assistance to Sudan. We’re the leading provider of humanitarian assistance in the world today. Can we do more? We may be able to do more, but I’m quite comfortable that we’re doing our part.

QUESTION: They are concerned about the situation is getting worse.

MR TONER: And we are too. And we’ll certainly look at the letter and respond to Congress, but I don’t have any readout to give to you.

QUESTION: South Sudan, please.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: The UN has come out this week with a report about the violence in July. Firstly, can I get your reaction to the very difficult details that were contained in there of the failure to protect civilians and aid workers?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, you’re talking about the independent special investigation that was conducted into the July violence in Juba. And they did brief today at the Security Council and we thank them for that. Couple things to say about it: First of all, it’s absolutely critical that the South Sudanese Government protect civilians, humanitarian workers, and other international aid workers within its borders. And the government should act on the report that was compiled by the Terrain investigation committee and hold all the perpetrators of that violence accountable through a fair and credible process that’s consistent with South Sudan’s international human rights obligations.

The UNMISS peacekeeping mission, which was the focus of the report, and their actions is mandated under Security Council resolutions to use all necessary means to protect civilians under threat of physical violence regardless of the source of such violence, and within its capacity, certainly in the areas of deployment, with specific protections for women and children. And upholding that mandate enhances the faith in peacekeepers and the utility of peacekeeping missions everywhere. And we certainly express our gratitude to the peacekeepers who tried to stem the violence and extend our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives during the violence in July.

I think that we would say that we remain a proponent of UN peacekeeping. Peacekeeping missions, leaders are an indispensable tool for promoting peace and reconciliation in some of the worst spots of the world. And we’re going to continue to make every opportunity to work with UN leadership, including the secretary-general, to hold peacekeeping operations to the highest standards.

QUESTION: Now, the commander at the time of UNMISS, a Kenyan man called Ondieki, has been deemed to be responsible for a failure of leadership and has essentially been sacked. As a result of that, and the reaction to the report, the Kenyans have withdrawn over 1,000 troops from South Sudan. How concerned are you?

MR TONER: So with regard to his sacking, as you put it, that’s a decision for the UN secretary-general and we respect that decision. I’d refer you to the UN for more details. With regard to reports that Kenyan – Kenya, rather, has – intends to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from UNMISS, we have seen those reports. We certainly appreciate the invaluable role that Kenya has played in carrying out UNMISS’s peacekeeping operations – peacekeeping mission, rather – and it’s our hope that they’ll continue to play a role. Kenyan troops also serve in several other UN missions, and we’ve continued to discuss the importance of Kenya’s role and contribution to UNMISS with Kenyan authorities, so I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: Given that there’s a lot of work being done to try to increase the size of the UN force, this looks very much to be a step in the wrong direction. Is it hampering your ability to step up that force, and therefore is it compromising to South Sudanese security going forward?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’ve seen reports about Kenya’s intentions. We’re going to continue to engage with the Kenyan Government. I think, drawing on the conclusions of this report, certainly we want to see reforms made to the peacekeeping mission in South Sudan. But you’re correct in that it’s absolutely vital that we maintain a robust presence there given the current climate.

QUESTION: When you say --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- you’ve seen reports, I mean, President Kenyatta has announced this.

MR TONER: Right. Sorry.

QUESTION: You don’t believe him?

MR TONER: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying we’re continuing to talk to the Kenyans about their intentions.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean you’re hoping to convince him otherwise, or asking him to change his mind?

MR TONER: Again, we’re going to continue to engage with him. We believe --

QUESTION: Yeah, but what does that mean? I mean, you can say we’re going to continue to engage with him and then go have a cup of coffee with the guy and chat about the weather. That – I mean, are you --

MR TONER: Well, ultimately, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions.

QUESTION: Are you going to – I understand that --

MR TONER: But we --

QUESTION: -- but, I mean, would you prefer that they not withdraw their troops from – and when you – are – when you say “engage,” are you going to say hey, President Kenyatta, we don’t think this is a good idea?

MR TONER: We don’t want to see UNMISS compromised – the numbers – in terms of troop numbers on the ground, peacekeepers’ numbers. And we’re mindful of that. Obviously, Kenya’s going to make its own decisions, but we’re going to continue --

QUESTION: Right, but those troops could come from --

QUESTION: Matt, (inaudible) – let him finish the sentence.

MR TONER: No, but we’re going to continue to make the case that they need to – that we’re appreciative of the role they’ve played there.

QUESTION: And would like them to continue?

MR TONER: Would like them to continue.

QUESTION: So, in other words, you will be – you are talking to President Kenyatta about reversing his decision to pull troops out.

MR TONER: Matt, we’re in discussions with --

QUESTION: I don’t understand why that’s such a difficult question.

MR TONER: No, I’m just saying we’re --

QUESTION: Either you like the decision or you don’t, and if you don’t like it, are you going to ask him to reconsider or not? I mean, that’s all.

MR TONER: No, I get it, but, I mean, we’re going to continue to talk to Kenya about its role in UNMISS. I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a broader question about this, then?

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, it seems to me that the makeup of this UN force is still pretty much the same as it was in July. Many of those forces were – seem to be completely incapable of carrying out their mandate. Should we be looking at this in a much broader perspective and saying how do we resolve these issues?

MR TONER: I think in the sense that – well, look, first of all, we’ve long supported reforms to UN peacekeeping missions to strengthen them, and we’re going to continue to pursue those reforms. But I think you’re right in the sense that this report and – certainly shine a light on some failings, and we’re going to continue to push for reforms to strengthen peacekeeping across the board.

Is that it, guys?

QUESTION: No. I got --

MR TONER: Okay. Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- brief ones. Venezuela. I’m just wondering, do you have any kind of a readout from the conclusion of Tom Shannon’s trip down there? Did it come out and I miss it? Which is possible, as I was watching nothing but baseball last night.

MR TONER: I think we might – I mean, his last day was yesterday, but I mean, he’s obviously – he’s back here. He did meet with senior government officials. I don’t seem to have a list in front of me of who – is that what you’re looking for, who in fact he met with?

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: What are you looking for?

QUESTION: What he actually did. I’m not interested in the New Light of Myanmar’s caption of every general and whatever he met with. I don’t want a list of people he met with. I want the substance – as much substance as we can get of what the --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- what the subject of the conversation was.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And specifically whether or not you think that this dialogue that they have going on --

MR TONER: Well, of course, we think it’s --

QUESTION: -- is worthwhile.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What he said about that, if it’s --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Does he encourage – was he encouraging them to continue?

MR TONER: So first of all, I mean, I think his visit did show that our continued support for the ongoing dialogue process, as well as, frankly, our interest in the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people, who are enduring some very difficult times right now. And we would call on both sides to maintain the dialogue and strengthen it and work to determine solutions to – cooperate to determined solutions to Venezuela’s very urgent problems and respect the will of the Venezuelan people. I mean, ultimately the responsibility for this kind of dialogue rests with Venezuela’s leaders, but it was a productive couple of days, and we’re going to continue to engage.

QUESTION: Okay. But --

QUESTION: How was it productive?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, he – I mean, this is something, obviously, Secretary Kerry as well as Ambassador Shannon have pursued over the last few months. It’s productive in the sense that we’re trying to establish, maintain, strengthen this dialogue between the Venezuelan Government and the opposition, because there’s a very urgent economic crisis facing the country and political crisis. And we believe it’s, obviously, in our national security interest and the region’s interest to engage.

QUESTION: But --

QUESTION: What – sorry, if I may follow up.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: What outcome – I understand that you believe in the dialogue.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But what outcome was produced by his productive visit --

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean --

QUESTION: -- in terms of furthering that dialogue.

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, Arshad – so first of all, as you well know, diplomacy can sometimes take a while to produce concrete outcomes. What was beneficial from his visit was that he was able to meet with opposition leaders, able to meet with civil society leaders, able to meet with senior government officials, and make clear to all of them that the United States wants to help Venezuela work through its current political and economic crises as a friend and as someone who’s concerned about some of the challenges that are facing the people of Venezuela.

Now, we’re going to continue – this is a step in the process. We’re going to continue to engage. We’re going to work towards trying to strengthen that dialogue. But ultimately – and I said this – it’s up to the government and the opposition to work together to come up with a plan.

QUESTION: Critics of the Administration’s policy in Venezuela and more broadly, which I think is a somewhat larger universe, critics of President Maduro himself have said that – or argue that this dialogue is essentially a waste of time, and that you shouldn’t be encouraging the opposition to take part in what they say is kind of a sham process. Obviously, based on what you’ve just said, you don’t believe that it is a sham process. But – so why is it that you have hope for this? Is it just if you keep them talking there is less likely to be tumult and unrest? Is that the idea here?

MR TONER: Well, I --

QUESTION: Or do you actually expect and think that it is possible for these two sides, which appear to be irreconcilable, to come together for the good of the country?

MR TONER: Well, we’re always going to, obviously, promote and advocate for a peaceful political process to resolve any political crisis. And a necessary part of that is an effective dialogue between or among Venezuelans on how to, from across the political spectrum, on how to resolve those – the crises facing the country.

QUESTION: Well, the question is then --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- do you believe that the dialogue, as it exists right now, is effective, is an effective one?

MR TONER: So I think our assessment is that it’s worth pursuing.

QUESTION: All right. Last thing. Just my standard email question: Still no contact with the FBI?

MR TONER: Still no contact with the FBI.

QUESTION: And you’re going to release some this afternoon? I believe the court has a November 3rd deadline for you.

MR TONER: Yes. So, that I – yes, I can say that today at approximately 3:30, we are going to make publicly available online approximately 350 documents, totaling approximately 12 – rather, 1,250 additional pages of emails that were sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as Secretary of State. And these documents, as you all know, were the ones provided to the State Department by the FBI this past summer, and we’ve been reviewing them using FOIA standards for public release.

QUESTION: Did the court order you – I’m just checking right now --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but from memory, I thought the court had ordered you to produce 1,400 pages by today.

MR TONER: We were ordered by the court to process 1,850 pages of material received from the FBI by today.

QUESTION: Excuse me. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Right.

MR TONER: And we’ve met that requirement. We’re releasing approximately 1,250 pages of that 1,850 pages we processed.

QUESTION: And when will the --

MR TONER: And why is that?

QUESTION: Yep.

MR TONER: Because – I’m anticipating your question.

QUESTION: Please.

MR TONER: Yeah, that’s okay. So in processing these documents for release, the Department identified a number that were exact duplicates of those released in our previous productions. And so those documents were processed but won’t be – we won’t re-release them. We also processed a number of exact duplicates within the number – within the material that was provided by the FBI; that is to say, in that tranche, there were actually duplicates of emails within that same tranche. So not duplicates of what we’d already released, but within that – the tranche that the FBI --

QUESTION: Multiple copies --

MR TONER: Yes, thank you.

QUESTION: -- of the same document within the same tranche.

MR TONER: Thank you. Yeah, within the same tranche, right.

QUESTION: Got it.

MR TONER: So we’re not going to really re-release any of those that are duplicates.

QUESTION: So, but you have met the 1,850.

MR TONER: We have.

QUESTION: And is the number that you’re – the 1,250 that you’re releasing today, don’t you have to release some more tomorrow?

MR TONER: We do.

QUESTION: And can you walk us through that, and whether you’ve met the courts requirements on that?

MR TONER: We have, we will. I mean, we haven’t yet, but we expect to with regard to releasing the additional – I’m trying to think of what the number is. I don’t have that in front of me, but we expect to meet that deadline for tomorrow, as well.

QUESTION: And then one last question.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Just so I’m clear, vis-a-vis today’s release, the number that you are releasing today reflects all 1,850 pages that you processed excluding duplicates, correct?

MR TONER: Yes. And so – sorry, I actually do have – so today, we were required to meet, as you noticed, or required to process, rather, 1,850 pages of emails. And we are going to meet that requirement. And as you noted, we’re – but we’re actually going to release only 1,250, because of the duplicates.

QUESTION: So the other 600 were all duplicates and previously released?

MR TONER: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Great.

MR TONER: Tomorrow we’re required to process 350 pages of emails, and we expect to meet that requirement, as well. Sorry --

QUESTION: And do you have any idea how many pages you’ll actually be releasing tomorrow?

MR TONER: No idea yet. We’re still finalizing that.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR TONER: Please, of course.

QUESTION: -- anything on Baghdadi’s latest message, any comment on that, or any concern about him calling for terrorist attacks in new countries around the world?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look – so I don’t think we have any reason to doubt the authenticity of it. We still haven’t made a final determination on whether it’s an authentic tape. But as I said, we don’t have any reason to doubt that it isn’t. He made a lot of comments or statements about the state of things, or how he’d like to see them. But look, I’d just say no audiotape can change the reality of what’s happening on the ground in Mosul currently, and also can change our determination to continue with the operations that are currently underway to destroy and degrade Daesh in both Iraq and Syria. We’ve made tremendous gains over the past year. We’re on the verge of liberating Mosul. That’s not to say we’re there yet, but we’re making progress. We’re talking about Raqqa next, and that’s the – what ISIL purports to be the seat of its caliphate. We’re going to keep the pressure on them, and no audiotape’s going to change that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

DPB # 189

from

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 2, 2016

John Kirby

Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

November 2, 2016









Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA



DEPARTMENT



PHILIPPINES



DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY



AFGHANISTAN



BRAZIL/HAITI/REGION



VENEZUELA



SYRIA/REGION



RUSSIA



SAUDI ARABIA



IRAN/REGION



BURMA




TRANSCRIPT:

2:15 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Hello everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Just a quick topper here on – if I might, to take advantage of the day, to --

QUESTION: Wednesday?

MR KIRBY: Yes, it’s Wednesday. Thank you. Are you sure?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Pretty sure.

MR KIRBY: Wednesday. Just take advantage of the day here to talk a little bit about Austin Tice. I think you probably saw the Newseum put up a banner today outside the museum to serve as a public reminder of his situation and the – frankly, the very real risks that journalists face all around the world. As a matter of fact, that’s a topic of – that the Secretary raised with the Edward R. Murrow fellows that were here today, international journalists that were here. And he talked about that.

But it’s noteworthy, and I think given what the Secretary said this morning and given that the banner’s up at the Newseum, I felt it incumbent upon me to also note that we continue to remain deeply concerned about Austin’s well-being. And that’s across our government. And across our government, I can assure you that people are working very hard every day to try to bring him home to his family.

So even though we don’t have a lot of information right now, we’re going to continue to work with our Czech protecting power in Syria to continue to gain and to glean as much information as we can. And we’re obviously going to continue publicly and privately to urge all sides to ensure the safety of journalists that are operating in Syria, and obviously to call on Austin’s captors to release him now and return him safely to his loved ones, which is where he belongs.

So with that, we’ll start.

QUESTION: Just briefly on that, and then I’m sure we’ll return to Syria again – but on Austin Tice: Does that – your statement suggest that there isn’t any – there’s no new information here? It’s still – we’re still in the same kind of holding pattern?

MR KIRBY: No, I do not have any additional information.

QUESTION: Okay. Before we go back to Syria, can I just ask, the – my daily email question update?

MR KIRBY: Your daily email --

QUESTION: Well, just, has the FBI gotten in touch with the State Department?

MR KIRBY: Oh, no. No. No.

QUESTION: So to the best of your knowledge, then, this has – this part of whatever is going on with the FBI doesn’t have anything to do with the State Department as a building?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, aside from the fact that --

QUESTION: That she worked here and that the --

MR KIRBY: -- the email traffic in question could be email traffic that was --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- sent and received while they were working at the State Department, no, I’m not aware of any other connection, and we’re not – this is really just an FBI issue to deal with. We – we’re not in close communication with the FBI on this latest effort, and it’s really for them to speak to.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Okay?

QUESTION: Philippines?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So I don’t know if you will have seen Philippine President Duterte’s response to our story about the United States not proceeding with a planned or a possible – a planned sale of 26,000 rifles to the Philippines. Among other things, he has called the people behind the decision not to proceed with the sale fools and, quote, “monkeys.”

I know you addressed this to some degree yesterday, and I know that there are limitations on what you can say about --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- such a pending or potential sale. But it’s the last in a long series now of angry statements, critical statements, harsh statements from the Philippine president toward the United States. Do you have any response to his comments on this matter, even if you can’t discuss the underlying sale?

MR KIRBY: No, actually, I don’t, Arshad. I have seen those comments through press reporting, and again, I would say what we’ve said so many times before, that that kind of rhetoric is really at odds, and I think the word that I’ve used before is inexplicably at odds, with the close relationship that we continue to have with not just the Filipino people but the Filipino Government. But I can’t account for the sentiments expressed in those comments. All I can do is – and as you rightly noted, I can’t comment about potential commercial licenses in advance either – the decisions that affect them. But I – all I can do is reaffirm again how dedicated we are to our bilateral relationship with the Philippines, to our people-to-people ties with the Filipino people, and in fact how seriously we take our commitments from a security perspective through the defense treaty that we share.

QUESTION: And you said that you – you talked about how his remarks were inexplicably at odds with the close relationship that you have, not just --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- people-to-people, but also with the government. Do you mean the government excluding Mr. Duterte, or would you say that you have --

MR KIRBY: Well, he’s the head of state. He’s the head of the government, but --

QUESTION: Do you feel like you have a close relationship with him?

MR KIRBY: Absolutely. Well, we have a close relationship with the Government of the Philippines.

QUESTION: Including him, the head of --

MR KIRBY: Well, he’s newly elected, and I don’t know the depth to which we’ve had opportunities to engage on a personal level with him. I know Secretary Kerry met with him and came away from that meeting, as he said he did, feeling positive about where things were going to be going with the Philippines. I don’t know about our ambassador and the personal relationship that he might have been able to develop in this short period of time, but he is the head of state, and our government-to-government relations are very strong.

QUESTION: But how can you say that you have a close relationship with the government when you can’t say that you have a close relationship with the head of state?

MR KIRBY: Well, because the government isn’t – doesn’t rest – especially in a democracy, it doesn’t rest on the shoulders of just one individual. Yes, he’s the head of state, but there are many agencies in his government, there are many cabinet officials, there are longstanding relationships that we have nurtured over the years with figures in his government, and those relationships are still there and they’re still vibrant.

QUESTION: And last one on this: Do you remain open to – well, two things. One, by saying that the government doesn’t rest on the shoulders of one individual, you’re – are you trying to suggest that you would try to circumvent him or deal with others or --

MR KIRBY: Not at all.

QUESTION: No. Okay.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no.

QUESTION: And then second --

MR KIRBY: No, I was simply referring to the fact that in a democratic government such as the Philippines, that tasks are delegated to various agencies and that we have relationships with these institutions and agencies. Those are solid. They remain. Obviously, you also need to develop a good working relationship with the head of state. And I can tell you, as I’ve said before from this podium, we’re committed to doing that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I want to very – sure, I get that what you’re – are you trying to suggest something here?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: I mean, the head of state determines the foreign policy of the government, much in – in the Philippines as in the United States.

MR KIRBY: That’s correct. Right. What’s your point?

QUESTION: Well – so – but you’re saying that the U.S. – that you’ve built up relationships with other parts of the government, so it doesn’t matter what the president thinks?

MR KIRBY: That’s not at all what I said, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. I thought --

MR KIRBY: And it wasn’t at all what I implied. I mean, look, he’s the head of state. We recognize he’s the duly elected leader of the Philippine Government and we respect that. And we respect the fact that as the head of state, he determines foreign policy. We totally understand. What I was – the point I was trying to make is that there are institutions in the government that we have good relationships with and we’re going to try to continue those relationships, as well as try to develop a good working relationship with him himself. That’s all I meant.

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: That’s all I meant. Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue? Can I fill you in on a couple (inaudible?)

QUESTION: Well, can you – could I just go back to emails for one sec?

MR KIRBY: I’m – hang on a second. I’m sure we’re not ready to jump into that just yet, Said.

QUESTION: Sure, well, it was – well, okay.

QUESTION: Just before we start on the other – can I just go back to the emails for one second? I’m sorry, because I know Matt asked you a question. Some of the emails of John Podesta’s emails that were released today suggest that some people at the – well, they don’t suggest, they show that some people at the State Department were communicating with the Clinton campaign about certain statements and taking their cues on certain things that should be in the statements, particularly in relation to some press stories that were about to come out. That the State Department was sending the guidance that was going to go out for your briefings or Jen Psaki’s briefings, and also kind of massaging – taking the Clinton campaign’s cues for massaging the statements. Can you talk about that?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about leaked documents and emails that were allegedly stolen.

QUESTION: Well, can you talk about the general idea that people in this building have been --

MR KIRBY: But what I will say is that it’s – that there are times and – when in trying to make sure that we’re accurate, it’s appropriate to reach outside this agency to talk to former officials. That is not unusual, particularly when we’re trying to be accurate about something regarding that individual. That is not – that’s not uncommon practice. And frankly, Elise, I’d say to a degree, shame on us if we don’t do that when it’s required, so that we’re not getting up here – I’m not getting up here and putting something out that’s inaccurate. So – but I’m not going to talk about --

QUESTION: Accuracy is one thing, and making sure that you have all the facts, but working with the Clinton campaign to craft your press guidance does – or quotes that you’re sending out to members of the media does seem that that goes beyond trying to determine whether you’re accurate.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I am --

QUESTION: Do you --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to discuss the specifics of this exchange.

QUESTION: I’m not asking you to, I’m asking you to discuss as a general practice. When dealing with the email issue, is this building coordinating with the Clinton campaign on the messaging quotes, guidance that’s coming out of this building?

MR KIRBY: No. No.

Yes. Actually, Said was first. I promised him.

QUESTION: Okay, can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue very quickly?

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Monday, there was a group of senior Israeli Government officials, notably the Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, and they were pushing for the total annexation of Ma’ale Adumim, one of the largest settlements in the West Bank – a large part of the West Bank. Do you have any comment on that? Have you seen the report?

MR KIRBY: This is a – you’re talking about the deputy prime minister?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: And his remarks? So --

QUESTION: Right, because it’s the prime minister himself who is assuming the – not deputy foreign minister, because Mr. Netanyahu is also the foreign minister, so she’s the deputy – as deputy foreign minister.

MR KIRBY: Okay, but I just want to make sure I had --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- the comments right from the right individuals. So I can tell you we’re aware of the remarks. I’m not going to, as I said, react to every comment. What I will say is that – and you know this, Said – our policy on settlements is extremely clear. We strongly oppose any unilateral efforts that would prejudge the outcome of negotiations. And as we’ve also said, this is part of a number of trends highlighted in the Quartet Report that are threatening the two-state solution. These trends also include Palestinian incitement as well. And along those lines, I would just tell you we were deeply concerned by reports yesterday about a Fatah Facebook page praising the Palestinian who shot three Israeli soldiers day before yesterday. And we’ve raised this issue directly to the Palestinians as well.

QUESTION: I understand, but you are not – I mean, these are really separate issues. The settlements are not connected to the violence. You don’t say this is tit for tat --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to make – I’m not going to get into making connections and what --

QUESTION: You’re not --

MR KIRBY: -- what spurs --

QUESTION: No, I just want to understand you properly there.

MR KIRBY: But I wanted to – the reason I put it in there is because, again, we’re looking for ways towards a two-state solution.

QUESTION: I understand. You always --

MR KIRBY: These kinds of things, when they happen, pull us farther away from that.

QUESTION: You always make your position very clear on violence and so on and incitement.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I am talking about the settlements. This is really independent. I don’t think this – the violence is related to this statement or this statement is related to the violence. Do you agree?

MR KIRBY: I’m --

QUESTION: I mean by them.

MR KIRBY: I mentioned it today because these are the kinds of things, whether it’s rhetoric or actions, that are leading us farther away from a two-state solution. What connects one to the other is for the individuals involved to speak to; I’m not making some broad characterization about that.

QUESTION: I have a couple more if you indulge me – and my colleagues as well. Okay. The Palestinian Authority – no, that’s okay. I was just --

MR KIRBY: No, that’s – I’m --

QUESTION: -- taken aback a little bit.

MR KIRBY: I’m waiting.

QUESTION: The Palestinian Authority is basically bankrupt because it’s not getting any aid from the Saudis; it’s not getting any aid from the United Arab Emirates. They’re – they claim that they have not received much aid from you guys. Could you shed some light on what kind of aid you’re sending them, what – how strapped they are, how they are likely to continue to function?

MR KIRBY: I actually don’t --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I’m not in a position to answer that question, Said. I don’t have anything on that.

QUESTION: And finally, I want to ask you, today marked the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. I am sure you’re aware of the Balfour Declaration.

MR KIRBY: I am. I studied history in college.

QUESTION: Which basically launched this thing into – began this whole process and so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I wonder, the Palestinians are going to sort of demand that Britain apologizes for the Balfour Declaration. Will you support them in that effort? Will you support the Palestinians if they go to the UN to say that Britain must apologize for that and must do everything that it can to rectify the wrongs that have been inflicted on the Palestinians as a result?

MR KIRBY: This is the first I’ve heard that there’s an interest in doing that at the UN, Said, so I’m not going to get ahead of proclamations or announcements or proposals that haven’t been made yet at the UN. Look, I’ll tell you, not that I’m saying history is not important. Believe me, as a history major and still a lover of history, I get the importance of history. But I’ll tell you where we’re focused is on the future here. And this gets back to your first question about settlement activity. We want to see a path forward to a two-state solution, and the Secretary still believes that that path can be found. But it requires leadership and it requires a forward vision in the leadership there.

So we are very much wanting to look forward here to a meaningful two-state solution, and I think we’re a little less interested in proclamations about the past. Not that I’m saying the past isn’t important or that we’re not a product of history. I am not at all suggesting that. I’m just saying that we are more focused on moving forward.

QUESTION: So okay, recognizing that --

MR KIRBY: I knew something was coming.

QUESTION: -- does the Administration have a position on the Balfour Declaration – good, bad, indifferent?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: They sent a declaration --

QUESTION: You don’t know?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know if we’ve taken a position on the Balfour Declaration or the Treaty of Westphalia or --

QUESTION: I think you think that was good because that established the concept of sovereign immunity.

MR KIRBY: Sovereign states, yeah. I – yes, actually.

QUESTION: How about the Treaty of Worms? That one?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know.

QUESTION: I --

MR KIRBY: Now, see, if I had actually said that we did have a position on Balfour, then I would expect you to list every other treaty and ask me. But I’m saying we don’t have a position on this right now.

QUESTION: How about Versailles? Do you think that was a good thing?

MR KIRBY: Which one? Which one? 1783? We actually like that one a lot. In fact --

QUESTION: All right. I actually have a relevant – a question that’s relevant to the previous –

MR KIRBY: Really?

QUESTION: -- the previous question. Earlier --

MR KIRBY: That would be very interesting.

QUESTION: Apparently, earlier today the Jerusalem local planning committee authorized or gave the green light to the construction of 181 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts about that.

MR KIRBY: We do. We’re deeply concerned by those reports that the local planning and construction committee in Jerusalem approved permits for, as you said, 181 housing units and five community center infrastructure projects in Gilo, which is in East Jerusalem. Our policy on settlements, as I said before, is very clear. We strongly oppose settlement activity, which we believe is corrosive to the cause of peace.

These decisions by Israeli authorities are just the latest examples of what appear to be a steady and systemic acceleration of Israeli settlement activity. In just the past few weeks, we have seen reports of an entirely new settlement near Shiloh, a potentially new settlement outpost in the North Jordan Valley, and over 80 Palestinian structures demolished in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. As the Quartet report highlighted, these actions risk entrenching a one-state reality and raise serious questions about Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

QUESTION: So does that – well, is there any practical impact of the – of your opposition to these plans?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Is there any practical impact? Is there any consequence?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think --

QUESTION: I mean, the suggestion has been or the fear in Israel has been that the Administration in its final months is preparing to take some kind of --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- action or make some kind of statement to kind of – I don’t know – for lack of a better word, draw a line in the sand where it comes to actions that you say or you believe hurt the environment for negotiations for a two-state solution. Does this bring you any closer to making – not you personally. Does this bring the Administration any closer to making a decision on how to proceed?

MR KIRBY: I think – I mean, I don’t think it would be useful to talk about internal discussions that we’re having or get ahead of – get ahead of ourselves. What I would just say is right now we are focused on encouraging all sides to demonstrate with policies and actions a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. I think I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Are you confirming --

QUESTION: Do you have any comment --

QUESTION: -- that you are actually having – forgive me, Said – actually having internal conversations on whether you might take the --

MR KIRBY: We – I think you – shouldn’t surprise anybody that, as an administration, that we routinely talk about the situation in the Middle East and in Israel, and that, obviously, is something I think you know Secretary Kerry’s very focused on, so of course we have discussions about this. But I don’t want to get ahead of those discussions.

QUESTION: I meant specifically on what Matt was raising, which is the idea of parameters or a speech or --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I just don’t find it useful right now to speculate or talk about hypothetics right now.

QUESTION: The Wall Street Journal claims that the President requested the Secretary of State to prepare something. Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: I really – I’ve answered the question as much as I’m going to today.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On Monday, The Washington Post called on you to deal with issues like human rights and freedom of expression in Turkey in the same way that you deal with those principles elsewhere, like Russia and China. And yesterday the deputy secretary gave a speech that seemed to do just that. Does that speech mark some sort of shift in the U.S. approach toward Turkey along the lines that the Post suggested?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Can I get a follow-up question? Does it mark any change at all that --

MR KIRBY: No. I’m not trying to be glib, but we have been nothing but consistent and clear privately and publicly about our concerns over human rights in Turkey, and I think the deputy secretary’s speech last night – which, if you haven’t looked at it, I recommend; it was quite good – laid all that out.

QUESTION: I have it right here.

MR KIRBY: Oh, I’m sure you looked at it. I was actually speaking to everybody else.

QUESTION: I was there.

MR KIRBY: Were you? Oh, good. All right.

QUESTION: I was actually physically in the room.

QUESTION: Wow.

MR KIRBY: There’s the man right there.

QUESTION: Well done, Arshad. (Laughter.) Good for you.

MR KIRBY: So --

QUESTION: I read it this morning.

MR KIRBY: Did you?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: All right, good. Hands. Hands. Who’s read the speech?

QUESTION: I will read it.

MR KIRBY: Doesn’t count. All right. So look, we’ve got three people here that got --

QUESTION: Have you read it?

MR KIRBY: Yes, I did.

QUESTION: Were you there?

MR KIRBY: I wasn’t there, but I read it.

QUESTION: Ah-hah.

QUESTION: I win.

MR KIRBY: I knew what he was going to say before he said it, though. (Laughter.) But anyway, look, I’m not trying to be glib.

QUESTION: So did I.

MR KIRBY: I’m not trying to be glib when my – with my answer, but the – I couldn’t be more emphatic. No, this isn’t a shift; no, we’re not reacting to editorials that are written in the media. Everything the deputy secretary conferred last night – I’m sorry – conveyed last night is exactly where we have been as an administration and as a government on what’s going on in Turkey.

QUESTION: Well, both The Washington Post and New York Times on successive days – and I’m not suggesting that you were reacting to it, but maybe perhaps there was a reaction within the U.S. establishment to the same sort of events in Turkey and it was just becoming too much. And there was a perception that you were turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses in Turkey, because of the need to fight ISIS --

MR KIRBY: Perception by whom?

QUESTION: -- and the need for Incirlik.

MR KIRBY: By whom?

QUESTION: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Kurdistan 24.

MR KIRBY: Look --

QUESTION: The three pillars of (inaudible). (Laughter.) I’m being serious. I’m not trying to be --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Look, our concerns over human rights in Turkey and elsewhere are longstanding, and we have been nothing but clear about that privately and publicly, as I’ve said. It doesn’t mean that we don’t pay attention to what’s being written about or articulated in the media space; of course we do. I mean, I wouldn’t be up here every day if we didn’t take seriously what all of you do for a living, as well as those who write opinions and editorials. We obviously take that seriously. And we take it seriously when major outlets convey their concerns.

But I will tell you in this case, these are concerns that we have long held ourselves and that have been a – have been pillars of the policy that we have developed with respect to our relationship with Turkey. And nothing that the deputy secretary said last night is a change from how we’ve been trying to approach this relationship. Okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: Afghanistan, please.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: There is report from Foreign Policy that the ICC, international court of justice, have a plan or will be starting investigating about war crimes in Afghanistan, including the American service personnel. Do you have any comment about it? Although there is a peace process, so many people would like to participate at the peace process.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I’ve – I mean, I’ve seen reports about that. And I’ll let the ICC speak for itself. What I will tell you is that, speaking for the United States – and again, I don’t – I’m not comfortable talking military things, but I will in this case, because the question’s, I think, broader than just a military issue. But no government, no military on Earth takes its responsibilities in the way it conducts war more seriously than we do. And there is an extraordinarily robust judicial system, national judicial system – not even just talking about the military judicial system, but a U.S. national judicial system, which is robust, and energetic, and vibrant, and fair, and open. And we will, going forward, as we have in the past, rely heavily on that system. Okay?

QUESTION: So again, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar also would like to participate at the peace process. Do you know any effected or effort to the peace process --

MR KIRBY: In – who? I’m sorry, I can’t --

QUESTION: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar --

QUESTION: Hekmatyar, Hekmatyar.

QUESTION: -- the Islamic leader in Afghan --

MR KIRBY: In the peace process --

QUESTION: -- peace process.

MR KIRBY: -- for Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yeah. Based off the situation, do you think that peace process is still going to be successful?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, this isn’t – this needs to be an Afghan-led process, as we’ve always said it must be. And that means it’s up to Afghan leaders to make key decisions about what that peace process is going to look like going forward. So I – I think I’d leave it there. I’d leave it there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: This is about Haitians in the border. Do you have any information about the U.S. Government requesting from Brazil to take back the Haitians that are in the border with U.S. and Mexico? Do you have any knowledge that if the Government of the United States requested to the Brazilian Government officially to take them back in Brazil?

MR KIRBY: What I’ll tell you is this: That we routinely discuss a wide range of complex and complicated issues with Brazil, because we are committed partners. Irregular migration is one of those issues that we obviously discuss with Brazil on an ongoing basis. We believe it’s essential that we work with all of our partners in the hemisphere, including Brazil, to address regional challenges. In fact, back in September, Vice President Biden and President Temer pledged to work together to promote legal and orderly migration, and to advance good governance, security, and prosperity throughout the hemisphere.

And so what I can say is we’re going to continue to collaborate with Brazil going forward to help find humane solutions to this very regional challenge. But beyond that, I’m not going to comment on the specifics of our discussions with Brazil.

QUESTION: So when you said you don’t want to comment anything at this specific case of these thousand of Haitians that are trying to get into the United States, that are coming from Brazil, are you in any way in contact with the Government of Brazil to take them back?

MR KIRBY: We are in – we are, as I said, in ongoing conversations with Brazil about the challenge of irregular migration in the hemisphere regionally. And we know that it affects Brazil. So we are in regular contact with them about this issue. But I’m just not going to go into the details of that discussion right now.

QUESTION: Can we stay in the --?

QUESTION: What about – is the government, the U.S. Government in any way considering giving them asylum, or receiving them in the United States?

MR KIRBY: Again, sir, you’re asking me for a level of detail that I’m simply not going to go into today. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about Venezuela and Tom Shannon’s visit there. One, is he back, or is he still there?

MR KIRBY: I think he’s still there today. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. But he met with President Maduro yesterday?

MR KIRBY: He did.

QUESTION: Do you know if he raised the case of Josh Holt, the American who’s been in prison down there for a while?

MR KIRBY: Yes, he did. He did.

QUESTION: And?

MR KIRBY: And as before, we call on the Venezuelan Government to respect due process and human rights. He and our embassy have --

QUESTION: “He” meaning?

MR KIRBY: Tom Shannon, I’m sorry, and our embassy have repeatedly raised our concerns about Mr. Holt’s health, the conditions of his detention, and his treatment with Venezuelan authorities. So yes, it came up.

QUESTION: And you’re still – you’re just asking for a speedy trial? You’re not calling for his release? What exactly are you asking or demanding from the Venezuelan authorities?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, as I said, we call on the government to respect due process and human rights. We’ve requested that he be seen by a medical professional, and --

QUESTION: Are they denying medical care?

MR KIRBY: -- according to Mr. Holt, he was treated at a hospital on the 17th and the 24th of October. We do plan to send officers to attend his hearing, which is, as I understand it, scheduled for November 8th.

QUESTION: So then they are according due process.

QUESTION: November 8th?

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait.

QUESTION: I’m not done yet. Go ahead, Elise.

QUESTION: No, but, I mean, it sounds from what you’re saying that he asked for medical care and he got it. You’re asking for a consular officer to be present at the hearing or trial or whatever, and that’s --

MR KIRBY: We’re planning to send a consular officer.

QUESTION: And there’s no indication that they’re not allowed to. I mean --

MR KIRBY: That’s right.

QUESTION: -- I understand that you’re saying that you’d like to see due process be afforded in this case, but is there any indication that it’s not?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m just – I think I’m going to leave it where I put it --

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: -- which is that we’re going to – we obviously continue to raise his case and we continue to call for respect for due process and human rights.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, there are hundreds of Americans being held in prisons around the world for whatever crimes they’re accused of, whatever. The fact that you are raising this case at this high level with such a senior State Department official on --

MR KIRBY: Secretary Kerry raised it in his meeting with President Maduro.

QUESTION: Okay, so what is the problem with this case that demands such high-level attention?

MR KIRBY: I have – I’ve given you as much information about this as I’m able to do today, but I can assure you that we obviously continue to raise it with Venezuelan authorities, now twice with President Maduro himself.

QUESTION: Well, but again, to suggest – for Secretary Kerry to raise it with the president of a country suggests that there – that you’re concerned about either due process being afforded, but from what you just said --

MR KIRBY: Well, we wouldn’t – we wouldn’t raise our concerns about due process if we didn’t feel they were warranted. I --

QUESTION: So what are the concerns about lack of due process?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question as far as I can go today, okay?

QUESTION: My – and I know you won’t be able to answer this right now, but perhaps you could take the question. I mean, would you like to see him released? Forget about due – I mean, don’t forget about due process. Obviously, that’s – wouldn’t you like to see – obviously, due process is important, but wouldn’t you rather see him just released and returned to his family, sent home?

MR KIRBY: We want to see the Venezuelan authorities exercise due process and observe human rights in this case.

Yeah (inaudible).

QUESTION: All right. Wait a minute. But that does not mean immediately release him?

MR KIRBY: I’ve responded.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. First of all, are you – the Russians I think said today that the ceasefire or the cessation of hostilities continues for another 13 hours or something like this. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen reports on this. I mean --

QUESTION: But --

MR KIRBY: -- we’ll have to see what happens here. We’ve seen examples of this in the past, but these humanitarian pauses, which are really nothing more than what – that the Russians want to provide an opportunity for people to get out rather than – before they resume the bombing. So we’ll see where this goes.

QUESTION: Okay. So that’s my next question: Do you expect them to resume the bombing, maybe big-time --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: -- during the elections? I mean, there are a lot of speculations that the Kuznetsov, whatever, the aircraft carrier, getting close to the --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Syrian shores, and so on. Do you expect that we might at least see something like Grozny in ’99 or anything like this in Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: Said, I don’t know. I couldn’t possibly predict the future here. I don’t do a good job predicting future U.S. operations.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: I certainly am not going to be able to predict future Russian operations. All I can tell you is what we’ve seen in the past. They do these humanitarian pauses, no aid gets in, the pauses end, and people get bombed again. So we’ll see what happens with this one. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Are --

MR KIRBY: What I – but I – and also, with the naval deployment, again, we’re aware of it. But I’d point you back to what the Secretary said a week or so ago, that if their intention is to just reduce Aleppo to ruins so that they can sort of gain an upper hand in what they perceive might be negotiations in the future, or to bolster the Assad regime, or whatever the reason is, all they’re doing is prolonging the war. All they’re doing is attracting more extremists. All they’re doing is making the opposition want to fight that much harder. All they’re doing is delaying for who knows how much longer a peaceful solution and resolution to this civil war. But --

QUESTION: But are you having --

MR KIRBY: -- I don’t know that – what their intentions are.

QUESTION: I understand. Are you having conversations with them on this very issue, that – or are you warning them or are you telling them not to do this? I mean, could they take opportunity with the – let’s say, with the election happening next week, could they take an opportunity to go ahead and maybe attack Aleppo? Do you feel that way?

MR KIRBY: Well, I couldn’t possibly predict the future on that, Said. And as for discussions, they are a party to the multilateral discussions which are still going on in Geneva, and no, I don’t have an update today. But those discussions are ongoing and the Russians are a part of that. And I can assure you that the main topic in those discussions is a cessation of hostilities. It’s trying to get the violence to stop, which, in no small measure, depends on the Syrian regime and the Russian military from stopping the bombing of Aleppo.

QUESTION: Do they --

QUESTION: Can I have the last question on Austin. I mean, when was the last time that you knew what happened to him or his whereabouts and so on?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I don’t – I don’t know and --

QUESTION: But you suspect that he’s in government hands?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I don’t have information to share with you about his whereabouts or his condition. Obviously, we continue to try to gain as much information as possible – information, I don’t think it should come as a surprise to you, that it’s hard to get on this case – but we’re still very, very focused on it.

QUESTION: Can you – you said that the multilateral talks in Geneva are ongoing. Do the multilateral teams there meet every working day?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know what their battle rhythm is, so I can’t say definitely that it’s every day or twice a day or three times a day. But the talks are still in play.

QUESTION: Okay. I just – because --

MR KIRBY: But --

QUESTION: -- if one says they’re ongoing, it implies that they’re meeting on a regular, pretty much daily basis, right?

MR KIRBY: I – I mean, they’re ongoing. I can’t rule out the possibility that they might not take a break every now and then, maybe even for a day. I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean that the process has ended or stopped or been truncated.

QUESTION: And any recent conversations between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MR KIRBY: No, nothing to read out.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Abbie.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the seeming eviction of Amnesty International from their building in Moscow by the Russian Government?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, this just happened. I – we’ve only just seen press reports of this. I don’t really know a lot about it, Abbie. So I think we’re going to have to see how this develops over time before we can react to that. I mean, obviously, we’re concerned about it, monitoring it as best we can. But I just don’t think we’re in a position right now, since this is so fresh, to be able to have an official reaction to that. Okay?

QUESTION: It seems that they sealed off their office so that they couldn’t get in. They have all their computers, everything that is inside and so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. No, look, again, we’re concerned and we’re monitoring as best we can. I think it’s just too soon for us to know exactly what’s going on there.

Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s one other, unrelated. This is – I’m just wondering if the Saudi Government has reached out at all about the death of a Saudi student in Wisconsin on Monday during a --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that there’s – I know about the story, and I know local law enforcement is looking into this. I certainly wouldn't say anything to get involved or ahead of that. I do not know of any direct communication that we’ve had from the Saudi Government about this. So let me check on that, though, and see.

Okay.

QUESTION: No. I’ve got two wildly different ones, but they’re both – they’ll both be brief. First, we have a story today about disagreements between the U.S. and the EU over Mahan Air – this Iranian airline that’s linked to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Are you familiar with this?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: What exactly is the State Department doing to try to dissuade European countries from allowing it to fly? And are --

MR KIRBY: To lift their restrictions and sanctions. Is that what you mean?

QUESTION: To prevent them from --

MR KIRBY: Well, these are --

QUESTION: This is a company that still who you could secondary sanctions – sanctions can still apply in this case.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I’m aware of this issue and this apparent decision by the EU. It’s really for the EU to articulate and to characterize the rationale for doing this. I can – that’s one. Two, I’ll just reassert that our sanctions on Mahan Air remain in place, and I know of no intention to change that. And then the third point I’d say is that obviously whatever discussions that we might have with our European colleagues over this, I think we’ll keep those private.

QUESTION: Well, and that’s fine. Does it not bother you – well, it’s not fine, but I’ll accept it. Does it not bother you that an airline that’s linked to the IRGC and has been linked to supplying President Assad’s regime with weapons and equipment is flying freely into major European cities with the EU’s --

MR KIRBY: Yes, we are concerned about that, of course.

QUESTION: So what are you doing about it?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’d leave our diplomatic discussions with the EU and members of the EU in diplomatic channels and not talk about that publicly. But obviously we’re concerned. If we weren’t concerned about this, we wouldn't keep in place our sanctions on Mahan Air.

QUESTION: Well, forget about what exactly it is that you’re doing. Are you doing anything?

MR KIRBY: I – I think I’m going to leave our diplomatic discussions in diplomatic channels.

QUESTION: If you’re concerned, that would suggest that you would actually try to take some action to address your concerns. Are you – without getting into the details --

MR KIRBY: I’ll pass your – I’ll pass your tip up --

QUESTION: Without getting into the details of what specifically it is you’re doing, are you doing anything?

MR KIRBY: We remain engaged with our European partners about all matters related to Iran’s provocative activities in support for terrorism. I think those are conversations we obviously routinely have and will continue to have. But beyond that, I don’t have anything more to say.

QUESTION: Does that include Mahan Air?

MR KIRBY: As it relates to their support by, through and from the IRGC, of course. But I’m not going to talk about the details of diplomatic discussions.

QUESTION: All right, last one. I understand that your Ambassador Scot Marciel did in fact get to Rakhine state, I guess with the UN mission.

MR KIRBY: He did.

QUESTION: Do you have anything you can share about that?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I do. I just have to find it here.

QUESTION: E for EAP?

MR KIRBY: Yep, you’re right, and then B for Burma.

So the ambassador did conduct a two-day visit with an international delegation, including the United Nations resident coordinator and other chiefs of mission, to the – to Rakhine State, excuse me. Visited several villages in the northern part of the state where attacks occurred against police on the 9th of October, and subsequent abuses have been widely reported to have taken place against communities and residents, including the Rohingya.

He and other delegation members met with representatives from local communities in order to learn more about the situation on the ground in those affected areas. The visit was an initial step in what we hope will be a continued assessment of the situation in the area by the government and by the international community.

The ambassador took the opportunity to stress to government officials accompanying the delegation that a thorough investigation into allegations of abuse, protection of all residents, restoration of full humanitarian access are necessary. As I understand it – well, this note says the visit is still underway, but I think it actually might have concluded by now. I have to check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yes, thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.