• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 30, 2013

Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA
Polio / WHO Emergency Vaccinations
Secretary's Meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov
Trilateral Meeting / Special Representative Brahimi's Travel
Iranian Participation Under Discussion
Assad Regime and Influx of Foreign Fighters
IRAQ
Maliki Visit to United States / Military Equipment Requests
PAKISTAN
Review of Amnesty Report of Drone Strikes Ongoing / What Review Entails
AFGHANISTAN
Secretary Kerry - President Karzai BSA Agreement Negotiations
Jurisdiction / Loya Jirga Date
IRAN
Wendy Sherman in Geneva / Sanctions and Congressional Action
President Rouhani's platform / Experts Meeting in Vienna
MEPP
Settlement Activity / East Jerusalem Construction
DEPARTMENT
Joseph Kony / Rewards for Justice / al-Qaida Suspects
SYRIA
Ambassador Ford's Meeting with Former Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Jamil
Ambassador Ford's Travels
DEPARTMENT
Review of Surveillance Capabilities Underway
Meetings with EU Parliamentary Delegation / Ambassador Nuland and German National Security Advisor Heusgen
U.S. Open to Consultations with South Korea, Greece, and Range of Countries
EGYPT
U.S. Condemnation of Acts of Violence / Morsy Trial
Military Equipment / Protection of Sinai
AUSTRALIA
Embassy Canberra's Support of Film Festival

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:33 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. I just have one item for all of you at the top. I know many of you were asking about the reports of 10 confirmed cases of polio in Syria, so I ventured to give you a little bit of an update in an attempt to answer some of your questions.

The WHO is undertaking emergency plans to increase vaccination coverage among the affected populations and in neighboring countries. There haven't been – I believe, Lesley, you asked this question yesterday – specific requests from other countries, but that would be managed through the WHO, as would be expected, but not specifically to us through diplomatic channels at this stage, although they are obviously taking a proactive step here.

Broadly speaking, we donate to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative through the WHO – that's something we're committed to – and we have for a number of decades. And of course, as we discussed yesterday, we remain concerned, extremely concerned, by the outbreak of polio, especially in the – given the decline in medical services in the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

And one other – sorry, one other quick item for all of you that's marginally related: I mentioned yesterday that the Secretary had spoken with Foreign Minister Lavrov. He – they discussed, of course, ongoing plans for a Geneva conference. They also discussed the pressing humanitarian needs in Syria, particularly the WHO's finding of a polio outbreak in the country's north. The Secretary urged that the United States and Russia work in partnership to tackle this challenge, emphasizing that Russia can play an important role in encouraging the regime to allow humanitarian access and the delivery of essential aid.

QUESTION: On the conference, it's looking – the chances appear to be slimming from I don't know what to less than what, and I'm just wondering if you have any response to what President Assad told – or apparently told – Mr. Brahimi earlier about a political track being useless unless all foreign assistance to the opposition – he said the extremist opposition, but I take that to mean that all of the opposition, because he considers all of them to be extreme – unless that stopped, that really a conference or the political process is meaningless. Do you take that as a sign that the Syrian Government is less willing or unwilling to participate in Geneva 2?

MS. PSAKI: Well, broadly speaking on these comments, the Assad regime has deceptively, over the course of time, tried to portray itself as the protector of Syria from terrorists and extremists from the beginning of this conflict. That's patently false. They bear overwhelming responsibility for the violence that has taken the lives of more than 100,000 people and that has displaced millions of people inside Syria and outside the country.

Our focus, as you know, remains on pushing forward on a political solution. Part of the Secretary's discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday were on moving this process forward, which they both remain committed to. As has been the case for months, the Russians are the point of contact with the regime on getting them to a conference and reiterating to them the importance of why a political solution is the right step. Those efforts are ongoing.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: That has not changed.

QUESTION: Well, recognizing that the opposition is splintered but will be having this meeting soon --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- at which they may or may not decide whether to attend the Geneva 2 – recognizing that, it had been conventional wisdom that the Russians could deliver the Syrian Government --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Assad Government – they could deliver them to this conference, at least to attend. Are you at all concerned now that that is fading, that that conventional wisdom may not be correct?

MS. PSAKI: That remains our belief that the Russians can deliver --

QUESTION: That they can get them.

MS. PSAKI: -- the regime to a conference.

QUESTION: These comments notwithstanding, these --

MS. PSAKI: Notwithstanding.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: And as you know, we share a commitment and a belief that a political solution is the best path forward.

QUESTION: And when – and I just want to make it clear, when I'm talking about Geneva 2, I'm talking about Geneva 2 on the date that has been floated out there, recognizing that nothing has been confirmed and no – there are no – not been any invitations sent. Everyone was looking at this period around the 23rd of November. You still believe that that is doable?

MS. PSAKI: Our target remains November. We've never announced a date, as you just said, and as you know, and we've talked about a bit in here, Joint Special Representative Brahimi is traveling in the region. There are a number of upcoming meetings, including a trilateral meeting on November 5th --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- as well as a meeting of the coalition on the 9th.

QUESTION: But that trilateral meeting on the 5th does not include either the Syrian Government or the Syrian opposition, does it?

MS. PSAKI: It does not.

QUESTION: Right, so --

MS. PSAKI: It's a meeting between the United States, the Russians, and the UN.

QUESTION: Jen --

QUESTION: Oh, Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Let's go to Lesley and then we'll go to you next.

QUESTION: I want to make sure -- do you still believe that this conference can take place next month?

MS. PSAKI: Our target remains November. That continues to be what we're working toward. Of course, the trilateral meeting where these issues will be discussed is an important part of the process, as is the meeting of the coalition that will happen on November 9th.

QUESTION: Because from what it seems from our reporting out of the region, that the sides are still split over how you get these sides together. And when you look at what Assad's comments – after his meeting with Brahimi, he's saying that – he's putting down quite a few conditions that I'm sure the U.S. is not going to accept. How do you see making progress if your aim is still to have that meeting at the end of next --

MS. PSAKI: How will we go about making progress?

QUESTION: Yeah. How do you see closing these very large gaps by the end of next month if you want to – if your target is still the conference then?

MS. PSAKI: Well, clearly, the meeting on November 5th and the meeting on November 9th are important steps toward that process. The Secretary is in close contact with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Our officials are in close contact with the opposition. I mentioned yesterday the fact that Ambassador Ford had been on the ground in Istanbul just last week and he travels frequently to the region to continue to work toward that. The purpose of Special Representative Brahimi's visit to a range of countries in the region is, of course, to continue to bolster support for and plan for a conference.

Now, we know there are outstanding issues. We know that those need to be addressed and determined. There aren't easy answers. There are disagreements about them. But we remain focused on getting to a conference next month, and that remains our target date.

QUESTION: And would that include the Iranians as part of the conference?

MS. PSAKI: Well, our position hasn't changed on the Iranians in terms of whether they could participate. They have not yet embraced or endorsed the Geneva communique. That, to us, is an important component of anyone attending, and so that hasn't changed. That will naturally be a part of the discussion when the trilateral meeting happens next week.

QUESTION: Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- do you feel that President Assad is more and more powerful now or more in control than he was five or six month ago?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure what the basis of that point would be. Do you – are you asking me if I --

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you feel like he's more in charge, in power, more powerful now, he's controlling the situation better than he was five or six month ago?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't characterize it in any way like that. Obviously, we've talked about the situation on the ground, the impact of the influx of foreign fighters that has bolstered the regime over the course of the last several months through the course of the summer. But there is a recognition by a range of parties that this can't continue, that his – there's no future for him in Syria. And that's why we're pressing for a conference.

QUESTION: Based on what he said to Mr. Brahimi, will you ask your partners and allies in the Middle East to stop providing arms to the opposition?

MS. PSAKI: To the opposition?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Every country makes their own decision. We have obviously provided our own forms of aid to the opposition to bolster them. But I don't expect that we're going to be responding to his asks.

QUESTION: Any changes regarding your assistance to the opposition?

MS. PSAKI: There's no changes.

QUESTION: If you make the case that the influx of foreign fighters has helped the Assad regime, would you not also make the case that the influx of foreign fighters who are extremist elements fighting against the Assad regime bolsters the Assad regime's case that it is the protector of Syria?

MS. PSAKI: We would not echo that train of explanation.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: We're in this case because of the --

QUESTION: But it is just as --

MS. PSAKI: We're in where we are because of the Assad regime's actions.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: They bear the preponderance of responsibility. We are, too, concerned about extremists. But in terms of where we are on Syria, we place that blame on the Assad regime.

QUESTION: Right. But it's not the Assad regime's fault that foreign – that extremist elements are now fighting it, is it?

MS. PSAKI: But it is – they bear the preponderance of responsibility for where we are in Syria, which is in the middle of a civil war.

QUESTION: Well, okay. Well, would you say then that you – that the foreign fighters of any stripe, whether they're IRGC or Hezbollah or they're al-Qaida affiliates, are equally bad in this situation?

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, there are – we're concerned about any extremists. As you know, Matt, there are a range of extremist elements out there. I'm not going to do a ranking of them. But we've been clear about our concern about them as well.

QUESTION: Well, I guess I'm just saying foreign fighters of any stripe, whether they're fighting on the side of the regime or fighting on the side of the opposition, whether it's the moderate or the extremist al-Nusrah types, are bad, right?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: We've spoken out about our concern about the influx of foreign fighters across the board. Now, of course, they've helped the regime, and the influx has been predominately on that side.

QUESTION: Same topic?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, follow-up to Matt questions, in your contact with the Gulf countries, specifically Saudi Arabia and Qatar --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- did you raise any issue regarding their helping or sending arms to the opposition members?

MS. PSAKI: This is a regular topic of conversation, one that's been in countless joint statements and communiques that have come out of London 11 meetings, Friends of Syria meetings. And we continue to believe – and countries have agreed – that assistance needs to go through the SMC and through the moderate opposition. And that's something we've certainly been advocates for.

QUESTION: The other question regarding Brahimi --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- in the last few days, or at least for a while now, there are some doubts about his not readiness to solve the issue, but it's an issue of they can't have opposition trust him or not, he's taking the message to Assad or Assad message back to opposition. Do you still believe that Brahimi can play a role?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: And why?

MS. PSAKI: Because this is challenging, and we've never said this was easy. In fact, we've said quite the contrary. We're working with Brahimi and the UN, as are the Russians, to continue to take small steps forward toward a conference. He's spending a great deal of time and energy out in the region now trying to gather support for that and discuss expectations. And so we, of course, fully support his efforts to do that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, new subject?

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: Syria?

QUESTION: Do you expect him to visit Saudi Arabia?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the UN for details on his schedule. I just don't have those in front of me.

Syria?

QUESTION: Yes. The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, said two days ago that the opposition lost, that there is no military strike to help them, and that the military balance shifted to the benefit of the regime. Do you agree with him?

MS. PSAKI: I've, of course, seen those comments. We haven't spoken to every claim of that. We have said many times, and I'll repeat again today, that certainly there have been ups and downs. We've always said that that would be a part of what – we've always said that – over the past couple of months, that given the influx of foreign fighters and given the help that that has been to the regime, that that has bolstered them on the ground. In terms of specific analysis of it, I don't have anything further than that.

Go ahead, Moshi.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Maliki has talked a lot about how he needs --

MS. PSAKI: Are we done – one moment, sorry.

QUESTION: It's a Syria --

MS. PSAKI: Are we done with Syria?

QUESTION: It's a Syria question.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: They need Apaches and F-16s, both for fighting terror groups in his own borders but also because he's more and more concerned about people in Syria beginning to cross into Iraq and carry out attacks within Iraq as well.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Given that he's now saying, basically, there are the two threats, one domestic, one coming in from Syria --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is there more of an effort, do you think, to try to push some of the stalled sales, the Apaches, the F-16s? Will there be more of an effort to push them through Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, and I know there was a briefing right before this briefing with a very senior administration official who talked about his upcoming visit, so I'd point you to that and I'm sure we'll send out the transcript. He's going – he's in Washington now meeting with a range of officials. He'll be meeting with the President on Friday and senior officials there. A big part of their discussion is how we can enhance cooperation in the field and coordinate on a range of issues. Certainly we've seen what has come from Iraq in terms of their specific requests that will come about. We want to work with them and recognize them as, of course, an important partner, but I'm not going to get ahead of any specific decisions or announcements that would make – that we would make coming out of the trip.

QUESTION: Right. Not so much announcements about whether more sales have been approved, but more about trying to help unclog the system so those things they've already purchased, frankly --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that those actually get delivered to the Iraqis.

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly this will be a part of the discussion that's – they're having while they're in Washington. They're meeting with the President, they're meeting with a range of officials including, I believe, members of Congress. We certainly support that. We know they also have additional requests for more types of equipment. Beyond that, I don't have any other predictions for you.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: The Pakistani Defense Minister today released some figures on drone strikes. According to this in the last five years, there were around 317 drone strikes, more than 2,000 suspected terrorists were killed, and 67 civilians were killed. Are these figures similar to that of yours? Both the fact and figures match together?

MS. PSAKI: I have seen those. I don't have anything for you on those specific reports.

QUESTION: Nothing on the figures?

MS. PSAKI: I don't. I do not.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: Even the number of drone strikes? It says the number of drone strike has declined in the – 2010 there were 115 strikes; in this year, so far have been only 14. Can you give us a reason why they have been dropping, the drone strikes?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything further for you on it. I have seen the same reports you're talking about, though.

QUESTION: When – I'm presuming that the review of the Amnesty International report on drone strikes is still not complete? Am I correct in thinking that?

MS. PSAKI: Correct; still being reviewed.

QUESTION: One of the things that were able to say on the day that it came out, or the day after it came out was that the casualty figures you disagreed with.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The casualty figures in that report and that had been offered by them and other human rights groups are much higher than the --

MS. PSAKI: Those reports.

QUESTION: -- than the numbers that the Pakistanis are reporting today.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Would you say that your estimates or your knowledge more – comports more closely with the Pakistani number than with the human rights numbers? And if you can't answer that, can you say exactly what stage the review of the Amnesty Report is in?

MS. PSAKI: Well, by "review" we don't mean just reading. I know we talked about this yesterday.

QUESTION: I get that.

MS. PSAKI: I know you know that, but it's important. It means lawyers looking at it, it means consulting, and as I mentioned, we've met with representatives from both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So that's what the review entails. I know my colleague, Marie, did talk about our disagreement with the numbers. I don't – I'm not going to give a, "it's closer to one than the other," but obviously, our issues with the initial report was how high they were.

QUESTION: All right. In terms of the review --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- I asked you what stage of the review it was at, you said that you've met with people from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. When were those meetings? You said that yesterday as well.

MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check. I think they were earlier this week. It's possible they were late last week as well, so I can check if you need an update.

QUESTION: Okay, so – but what stage of the review – just having lawyers talk about it doesn't seem to be particularly revelatory in terms of what stage the review is in. I mean, when can we expect the Administration to respond to this report with something other than, we disagree with the figures that are in here but we're not going to tell you why or what our numbers are? When --

MS. PSAKI: When it's completed. There isn't secret named stages of the review, so --

QUESTION: Well, no. I'm just looking for some kind of – I mean, it's been more than a week now.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So I mean, is the review half done? Is it 60 percent done? Or is it really 10 percent done and it's not going to go anywhere beyond sitting down with people from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch to tell them that they're wrong, but not telling them why?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, it's ongoing. As soon as we have something to say, I'm sure we will shout it from the rooftops.

QUESTION: Really?

QUESTION: Some members – some severe victims of drone strikes on Pakistan are in town. They have testified at the Congress. Has anyone from the State Department met those victims?

MS. PSAKI: We are, of course, aware of – and I know somebody asked this the other day --

QUESTION: I did.

MS. PSAKI: -- of the scheduled Hill briefings. I'm not aware of any meetings happening with State Department officials.

QUESTION: Move over to Afghanistan?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is the October 31st deadline set by President Obama and President Karzai for a new bilateral security agreement still in place, or has that been extended? Where does the State Department stand right now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Lucas, I don't think you were lucky enough to travel on our around-the-world adventure a few weeks ago, but – (laughter) --

QUESTION: I think he was lucky enough not to have been. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Well, it depends. It's in the eye of the beholder, Matt.

QUESTION: I wish I was there.

MS. PSAKI: I had a great time. During that trip, Secretary Kerry and President Karzai resolved the major issues in the BSA agreement negotiations. That was obviously a couple of weeks ago, so those were resolved long before our timeline and they got general agreement on the text. From there, the next steps were a technical review on our end, which is ongoing. There's also on the Afghan side, they said at the time that they would like to bring – submit the text to the Loya Jirga. They have talked about dates out there in November, in mid-November and late November. That's something that we understand plans are underway for. So we're working toward that.

But remember, this is important here, that the major issues in the text were resolved between the Secretary and President Karzai just a few weeks ago. That is going through review on this end. That text, the basis of that text, will go to the Loya Jirga. So this process is moving forward at a pace that it was not prior to that step, and we're, of course, allowing it to move forward in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Right. So the deadline is moving forward also?

MS. PSAKI: It's not – look, it's a deadline, it was a target timeline, but we did resolve the negotiations and the major issues in that time. The most important piece here is we're moving towards, on both sides, doing the final pieces here, which on our end is a legal and technical review, and on the Afghan side is bringing it to the Loya Jirga.

QUESTION: I think that one of the major sticking points yet to be resolved is this idea of where our soldiers will be tried if crimes were committed --

MS. PSAKI: Jurisdiction.

QUESTION: Jurisdiction. That's the word, yeah. Any more on that, jurisdiction?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, that was one of the issues that was in the text that was – the basis of the text that was agreed to when the Secretary was in Afghanistan. So that text will go to the Loya Jirga. They'll go through the process there. We're doing our own technical review. So there's not necessarily an update. The next step here is really the conclusion of our technical review and the Loya Jirga in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But would – just lastly – just we're not going to expect tonight or tomorrow just a – we have it all figured out, then?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it's not that anything needs to be figured out. There are steps that have been laid out, which we're moving toward – forward on. We're completely comfortable with the pace of the process, we resolved the major issues, and it's moving forward on each end.

QUESTION: Just to put a fine point on this, do you know exactly when – has it – and I think it has – the date for the Loya Jirga, has it been set? I'm – I can't remember what it is.

MS. PSAKI: I believe there's been a couple of different dates out there around the third week of November, so 19th, 20th, or 20th, 21st. I'm not sure what the latest specific date is.

QUESTION: And then just to make it completely precise, you are saying – and it was our understanding at the – well, not exactly at the time, because the press conference left a little bit to be desired, but afterwards, shortly afterwards, you --

MS. PSAKI: The extensive briefing by senior officials.

QUESTION: -- exactly – that the issue of jurisdiction has, in fact, been resolved in this agreement that the Secretary agreed to with President Karzai, but that it now needs from the Afghan side the approval of the Loya Jirga and Parliament. That's correct?

MS. PSAKI: That's right.

QUESTION: That is not part of the – the legal review that you're talking about that's going on here, you do not expect them, the lawyers who are reviewing it or whoever is reviewing it, to want to make any changes to the jurisdiction element of the agreement?

MS. PSAKI: The broad scope of the major issues, no. Sometimes there are, as you know, because it delays things, technical words that need to be changed, but obviously, that's part of what they're looking at.

QUESTION: But what the Secretary came away with in – from Kabul --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is broadly acceptable to the United States in terms of the jurisdiction issue?

MS. PSAKI: Right.

QUESTION: Okay. And then my last one: If you have to hazard a guess, which review --

MS. PSAKI: Uh-oh.

QUESTION: -- do you think will be completed first – (laughter) – the legal and technical review of the BSA, which would involve keeping American troops in harm's way in Afghanistan, or the review of the Amnesty International report on drone strikes in Pakistan, which involves U.S. military drones actually killing Pakistani civilians in large or small or whatever numbers?

MS. PSAKI: Both will be completed when you're on vacation – (laughter) – and we'll be releasing them to Reuters. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: All right. Thank you. And we – I appreciate the honesty.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: And one more on Afghanistan (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: One more on Afghanistan? Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. Ambassador Cunningham gave a press conference in Kabul today in which he said that without BSA it will be difficult for U.S. to continue training the Afghan forces, security forces. Can you tell us what happens, what kind of relationship you will have with Afghanistan without BSA? Because there have been – this is the third time some similar kind of statements has come --

MS. PSAKI: And the Secretary said something similar when he was on the ground as well. That's why, obviously, we're making every effort to conclude BSA negotiations. This is an issue where having a BSA is vital to having an ongoing presence, and that's why we're working so hard to conclude it. So he was reflecting what the Secretary also said, and what many other officials have said, about the importance of these negotiations.

QUESTION: And one more on Afghanistan.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In London, the Prime Minister of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Britain are meeting for trilateral talks. Do you have anything on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don't. You said it's a meeting in London --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- between – tell me again, who – what --

QUESTION: Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Britain.

MS. PSAKI: And the U.K.?

QUESTION: U.K., yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Well, it sounds like you should check with one of those countries. And we're not invited to that trilateral meeting, so they may have more details than we do.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I just want to -- So given that the deadline is over now, effective, I think tomorrow, right, is there anything that the U.S. – I mean, we know that Jirga has to approve this, but how much time is the U.S. prepared to give them to consider this if there is not a decision by the Jirga? Because I understand it can also drag out.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we're probably not going to get in a – into a hypothetical on that front. That's the next step here. Obviously, our hope and desire is for it to conclude as quickly as possible. We are completely comfortable with where we are in terms of the pace. Let's not forget the context here, that a couple of months ago we talked about an October timeline, and in advance of that we resolved the major issues, right? So there are certain steps that need to take place that you've referenced. We're taking this one step at a time. As we said at the time, resolving it as quickly as possible is beneficial not just to the United States and our presence but to our NATO allies, to any country that is planning their ongoing presence in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: If – as far as your understanding, is the language on the jurisdiction still in the report going to the Jirga?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. The text that was agreed to is the text that --

QUESTION: It hasn't been changed since?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of. But it was – that was the text that was agreed to, and that is what the President will be taking to the Loya Jirga.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, one last question.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Why is it so important for this agreement to go ahead sooner rather than later? We know about the election --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that's coming up.

MS. PSAKI: And not interrupting, but not – kind of overlapping with election planning.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: But the other piece is just planning for our presence and for the presence of our NATO allies and what that's going to require in terms of personnel, in terms of equipment, things along those lines. And so that is part of the planning process. It's beneficial for it to be concluded sooner rather than later.

QUESTION: Does any delay affect the way the U.S. – or does it undermine anything that the U.S. or the Afghans have with negotiating with the Taliban? A longer delay would surely make things uncertain with the Taliban. It would probably be better before the election to have the deal done and give the Taliban the confidence to coming to talks.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I will let you do your own reporting on the various pieces and how they fit together. We certainly do feel that resolving this sooner rather than later for the planning purposes to resolve it before the elections is important for a range of reasons.

QUESTION: And would this delay be, say, beyond 21st – 31st October could also push forward your outline of 31st December 2014 of complete withdrawal by a few weeks or few months? Or that is – there's no change in that?

MS. PSAKI: That timing has not changed. We are very close here to the next step. And again, I know everybody likes to focus on deadlines, but the important – if we would take a step back here, the important context is that we have resolved the major issues, we're moving forward in the steps in the process. Our team on the ground is – remains in close contact. Our lawyers are doing the technical review. So each of these steps are being taken.

Any more on Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Well, is it understandable that journalists might live by deadlines? You do understand that, right?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I live by your deadlines as well, it turns out. It has an impact.

QUESTION: On Iran.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. On Iran.

QUESTION: Yes. Susan Rice and Wendy Sherman met with – among others, met with Jewish leaders at the White House yesterday on Iran. Secretaries Kerry and Lew will be meeting with folks on the Hill tomorrow at 4. There is a position that is being relayed to these people on how the Administration --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- feels about new, additional sanctions on Iran at this time.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: That position is being relayed by those people that you're in conversations with to media outlets. Can you just make clear --

MS. PSAKI: Say what our position is?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. And just one contextual piece: When Under Secretary Sherman and our delegation was in Geneva, one of the things we talked about that was important to the Secretary and Under Secretary Sherman was consultations with Congress, talking to them about where we are, how the negotiations went, where we go from here. That is part of the briefings as well. So – and that takes up a great deal of time, of course, in them.

On sanctions specifically, as we have said in the past, we believe that congressional action needs to be aligned with our negotiating strategy. So as we did in advance of the first Geneva conversations, we asked for a pause to provide flexibility of new sanctions. We have not rolled back any existing sanctions and we're not doing anything to impact our core sanctions. We haven't made any decisions about changing sanctions, but this is about putting new sanctions in place to provide flexibility for the negotiations to proceed. So that is the ask which we've been communicating since Under Secretary Sherman returned from Geneva.

QUESTION: Can you – on this?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Because I know I asked about this when you said this from this podium, what, earlier this --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Was it – or was it last week? I can't remember. Can you explain exactly how it gives your team flexibility in negotiations, a pause?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we believe it's important to take into account progress we feel we have the potential to make diplomatically. Of course, there's always a discussion about what the appropriate steps are. Should we pause, shouldn't we pause? The decision was made by the team that this was the right step.

QUESTION: But I guess I'm looking – I mean, the argument has been made by numerous people who say that a pause is unwise that it was the tough sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table in the first place.

MS. PSAKI: We agree with that.

QUESTION: I know. So if it was the tough sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table in the first place, why not? Why is now not the time to put more pressure on them so that you will get more at the negotiating table? I – and I don't – I'm waiting to hear the argument or the – at least a convincing argument that this somehow, a pause, gives the team flexibility. It would seem the other way around.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we understand there are a range of opinions out there, and people can state whatever their view is. Of course, there's discussion before decisions are made, like asking for a pause. We're trying to create the conditions to move the diplomatic process forward and see if it's possible. We don't know yet. And this was the decision made that this was the best way to do that.

QUESTION: Right. But is – but is that because you believe that the – that Zarif needs to be – needs to have something in terms of a confidence-building measure to take back to Tehran with him to show the Supreme Leader, hey, this is worthwhile doing, staying in these talks and potentially meeting the concerns or addressing the concerns of the international community, because look, I got the Americans not to go ahead with additional sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't --

QUESTION: Is that the reason?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't go that far, Matt. We're talking about pausing temporarily and --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- obviously, these discussions will be ongoing. We could decide tomorrow if it warranted, or next week, whenever, that we want to put a whole slew of new sanctions in place. I mean, that is an option we certainly have in our back pockets --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- and we've been communicating that to Congress.

QUESTION: Well, right. So I'm not sure I – but I mean, if Congress passes a law that puts – I mean, it still requires the President's signature, doesn't it?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly.

QUESTION: So, in fact, the law, if Congress went ahead and put additional sanctions on or imposed additional sanctions, they wouldn't actually – as I understand it, it would just give you authority to do so, but it still requires the President's signature. He could not sign, and then it wouldn't happen. And I mean it just seems to me that Administration could deal with this – the Executive Branch of the Administration could deal with this the – in its own way without telling Congress that they shouldn't do what so many of them clearly, on a bipartisan basis, so – what many of them clearly want to do.

MS. PSAKI: Well, isn't it better, though, to work with Congress and explain to them our negotiating strategy and why we think this is an important step for now --

QUESTION: Sure, if you think you can convince them. But --

MS. PSAKI: -- and see if we'll agree to that? That's our strategy.

QUESTION: Well, and so far, how do you think that's gone? Or is tomorrow going to be the big test, with Secretary Kerry and Secretary Lew?

MS. PSAKI: These discussions have been ongoing since Under Secretary Sherman returned from Geneva.

QUESTION: Just two quick follow-ups.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There seems to be an impression that not adding additional sanctions is somehow a loosening of current sanctions regime. Have the current sanctions sort of done their damage, or is there more damage to be done from what's already been put – being implemented?

MS. PSAKI: Well, no sanction – we have made no decisions about changing any of our sanctions that are in place.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So none of them have been weakened or changed in any capacity. So I don't know that damage --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: I mean, the fact that they're still in place and ongoing means that they will continue to have an impact on the Iranian economy, and that's one of the reasons why we're here – because Rouhani ran on a platform of helping reform, helping boost, helping grow the economy, and this is obviously a significant hindrance to that.

QUESTION: Right. And when the Administration uses the word proportionate in terms of different steps that they can take in the negotiations process --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- if the Rouhani administration were to do – were to take (inaudible) steps, can you give any example of that, that doesn't affect the sanctions regime?

MS. PSAKI: I can't – it would be fun for us to negotiate --

QUESTION: It would. It would.

MS. PSAKI: -- but I would be in very big trouble. I can't give you any specific examples. Obviously, that's part of the discussion that has been underway and will be underway next week.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Iran?

QUESTION: Can I go to Iran, please?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any update for us or – on what's going on in Vienna at the moment on the expert-level talks?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any --

QUESTION: Any kind of insight?

MS. PSAKI: I have a little bit. Let me see if this helps you at all. The experts meeting – meetings are happening in Vienna today and tomorrow. We – as we've said before, but just as a reminder, the delegation is made up of scientific, nuclear, and sanctions experts. I don't have any specific readout from what's happening on the ground. I'm not sure that we would, given they're at the technical level, so we – it would be hard to do that without getting into specific details.

QUESTION: And what kind of outcome or what were you looking from these talks to move the diplomatic relations forward in the next stage?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, when Under Secretary Sherman was leaving Geneva and when the other P5 members were leaving Geneva – or actually when they were – when the talks were ongoing, one of the kind of specific takeaways was that this is challenging, even on a technical level, and that there needed to be a lot more technical work done to see how we would move forward before there was another round of diplomatic meetings. So the hope is to have that discussion, see if progress can be made in addressing some of those issues. Whether they are or aren't, I don't know yet.

QUESTION: So you're not seeking an agreement from these talks, it's narrowing technical differences or where they are --

MS. PSAKI: Discussing the technical issues of how any steps would work. And so that's – you have some of the foremost experts from these countries, and they're having conversations at that level.

QUESTION: Does it make a difference to you that the Iranians came out today and – denying that they have stopped – that they've actually – they've said we've not stopped the production process?

MS. PSAKI: There've been a range of reports, conflicting often, so we don't expect – nor have we ever expected – for there to be resolution in a day or a week or two weeks. We don't know that there will be resolution. So our focus is on looking ahead to next week and seeing where we land after that.

QUESTION: The Iranian Oil Minister today said that they might drop off from the multibillion dollar Iran-Pakistan pipeline. We know the U.S. has been very critical of this gas pipeline.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So is this statement from Iranian Oil Minister welcome news from you?

MS. PSAKI: I'd have to take a closer look at that. As you referenced, we've expressed concerns about it and how it impacts the sanctions issues in the past. So let me take a closer look at it after the briefing.

Iran? Or --

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we move to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Oh, another on Iran?

Okay. Go ahead. We'll come right back to you.

QUESTION: Just one last follow-up. There was a bipartisan group of senators that stated in a letter to the President that they would agree to suspend any further progress on a new sanctions bill if the Iranians agree to freeze all – it's a freeze for freeze --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is what they're calling it – freeze all Iranian enrichment. Is that something that you would – you sympathize with, you'd like to see happen, and is it something that you expect?

MS. PSAKI: I haven't taken a look at the – it was to the President, not to the Secretary?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I haven't seen the letter. Obviously, it didn't come to our building, but these conversation will – are ongoing. I'm sure they will propose what they think should happen when the Secretary and Secretary Lew meet tomorrow with a group. And they've already started those conversations for the last couple of weeks. In terms of a specific response to the letter, I would leave that to the White House, but still can't get into any specifics of the back and forth.

Any more on Iran?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: Okay, let's go to the front and then we'll come around to the back, if that works. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, Middle – negotiations.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the fresh announcement by Israel to build 1,500 new homes in East Jerusalem? You have probably seen the comments by the Palestinian President's spokesman who said that it destroys the peace process. If we could have an update on the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And the prisoner release as well.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. So a couple questions in there. And just remind me if I leave any out, which I'm sure one of you will. We do not consider continued settlement activity or East Jerusalem construction to be steps that create a positive environment for the negotiations. At no time in the course of pursuing negotiations toward a two-state solution have we condoned settlement activity or East Jerusalem construction.

The reason why it's so important for both parties to continue to proceed – and they are and they've committed to a nine-month timeline of commitment – is to resolve these outstanding issues. But we continue to oppose any – these actions, and certainly express that as appropriate.

In terms of the prisoner release – Matt, I think that was your question, right? We've talked about this – the last – the first round of it, of the prisoner release. But the release of prisoners is a difficult but necessary step to help ensure the success of talks. There are steps that have been taken by both sides in that regard. The talks are continuing, and both sides remain committed to the nine-month timeframe.

QUESTION: Can you – when this project in East – or projects – these projects in East Jerusalem were first announced --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- you will probably recall that Vice President Biden was in Jerusalem.

MS. PSAKI: That's right.

QUESTION: And it caused a significant rupture --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- or deterioration in U.S.-Israeli relations. The response today to the same construction or this same construction moving forward is, I would have to say, kind of perfunctory. And I would – and so I'm just curious as to why was it such a big deal that caused Secretary – then Secretary Clinton to get on the phone for a very heated conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and today it's kind of like, well, we think it's a bad idea but --

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't categorize it that way at all. We have expressed – the Secretary had expressed his concerns and his issue with settlements and construction in East Jerusalem on many times in the past to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I'm sure he will in the future as well. But the reason why we want to have talks and the reason why it's so important they move forward is to resolve these types of issues.

Right now the talks are three months in. We've provided some updates along the way. I don't have any today for you. But that certainly is a difference than where we were a couple of years ago.

QUESTION: Are you at all encouraged by the rather mild reaction from what one might call hardline Israelis to the prisoner release and the rather mild reaction from the Palestinians to this East Jerusalem construction announcement? Does that – do you – does Ambassador Indyk or any of his team or the Secretary regard this as a possible sign that the two sides are maturing and that they're actually ready to or and able to get into the deep issues that they need to if their negotiation is to succeed?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any particular response or reaction from the building to the reactions. I think the fact that they remain at the negotiating table, that they remain committed to the nine-month timeline, that those negotiations have intensified in recent weeks, is what we would point to.

QUESTION: Well, has it been noticed in this building that whereas events like these two events – prisoner release on the Israeli side followed by another announcement of construction – seems to have passed without the normal furor or the usual major outcry? Has that been noticed at all?

MS. PSAKI: We certainly monitor and watch all of these events closely but don't ascribe more meaning to it than that.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Yeah. The UN Secretary General came out with a statement today on the settlements and said any measures that prejudge final status issues will not be recognized by the international community. What does that mean to you, and how do you interpret the word "prejudge"?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you – I don't know if I want to do – not that I don't know. I don't want to do – (laughter) – an analysis of his statement. I can only state what our positions are as the United States. Broadly speaking, I think there is agreement that these issues do need to be resolved through final status negotiations. That's why we're having them and why we're pressing for them. So I'm not sure if it was a reference to that, but I would point you to them for further explanation of what they meant.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you mentioned that there was a $5 million reward for the arrest of Joseph Kony, and I was just curious why you have that reward.

MS. PSAKI: Why we have that reward? Well, you're familiar, I believe, with our Rewards for Justice program. You are familiar with Joseph Kony, as there's been an extensive amount of coverage of him and his involvement with atrocities there. But did you have any other specific --

QUESTION: I did. Well, $5 million puts him on par with other al-Qaida – well, with al-Qaida suspects, al-Qaida terrorists, as well as al-Shabaab terrorists. And I was just curious once again why, if you're offering a $5 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Joseph Kony, why you're not using that same mentality with the suspects, as first reported on Fox a week ago, the al-Qaida suspects in Benghazi?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything new for you on the al-Qaida suspects from Benghazi. I think we're all familiar with Joseph Kony's atrocities and what he's been involved with on the ground, and I don't have any curtain --

QUESTION: He never killed Americans, though.

MS. PSAKI: -- to peel back for you on decision making.

QUESTION: Jen, he did not kill an ambassador. He's not responsible. So that's a high bounty, and all for that. That sounds like a great program. But these guys are not on the list because you never considered them. That's what I think.

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any update for you, Lucas.

QUESTION: But have – did you ever consider – have you ever considered putting those suspects on the Rewards for Justice program, yes or no?

MS. PSAKI: I appreciate your persistence. I don't have any update for you.

QUESTION: Maybe it's a problem with the website, perhaps? And that would be understandable. (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, you wrote that one down. You were ready to use it today. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can I just --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- go back to Syria very quickly --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on something about the meeting between Ambassador Ford --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and Vice Premier Jamil?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We're reporting that during the meetings coming from senior officials in the Middle East that the meeting – that during a meeting Jamil put forward what Ford apparently regarded as unworkable proposals on the Geneva talks. Was there discussion – I mean, were there proposals put forward by him, and were they his own or were they part of a broader something from the Assad government?

MS. PSAKI: Well, he was representing himself and representing a political party during the meeting. I know some people asked about this yesterday, so let me just answer it proactively. He did request the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Geneva and discuss planning moving forward. So I'm certain they did discuss details of that. It's not for us to decide or determine in some sort of separate effort what the process or what the agenda or what the proposals will be. I mean, that's part of the discussion we're having with the UN and the Russians. So I know, obviously, Ambassador Ford was happy to listen to him. But beyond that, I don't have any other specific readouts of what he may or may not have proposed.

QUESTION: And then did he try to win U.S. backing to be included in the opposition groups that the U.S. and others are vetting at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: We're not going to speak for him or his plans or his intentions or anything along those lines. I know he has spoken publicly; he may again. But beyond that, we don't have any further readout from here.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Is Ambassador Ford back or still in Turkey, in Europe? Where is he now?

MS. PSAKI: I believe he's back. I'd have to check on it for you to be certain, though. He was in Turkey last week.

QUESTION: New subject?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: It was reported that the U.S. intelligence has been operating 80 special collection services, including Asia listening posts in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Chengdu, Hong Kong, and Taipei. Is that report true or false?

MS. PSAKI: I know we've talked quite a bit about reports of intel gathering. I don't have anything new. I'm not going to speak to every report out there. As you know, there's a review underway, both an internal and external review. That will be completed by the end of the year. As part of that effort, we're looking at the program and we're looking at making sure that it's meeting our foreign policy needs. We're addressing reports out there related to heads of state and we're not focused on keeping our gathering up with technology that's available. So those are all pieces that are being looked at.

QUESTION: And can you tell us if the U.S. Embassies and consulates in those cities, are they involved in any kind of espionage activities?

MS. PSAKI: I just don't have any more for you on a range of reports, many of which are – we speak to every day.

QUESTION: You might not recall this because it was before your time at this podium --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- but there was a bit of a stink with the Chinese about something that the Embassy in Beijing was doing in terms of funny little instruments on its roof which had to do with collecting air quality samples and then reporting them out on its website and by Twitter. Is that still going on?

MS. PSAKI: I don't even remember that report, so I will do a Google --

QUESTION: Well, it was a bit of a – there was a bit of kerfuffle about it some years ago. I'm just wondering if --

MS. PSAKI: Let me provide one update for all of you just on this. I know people were asking about different EU delegations, so let me give you a little more on that. There are actually three European parliamentary committees in Washington right now for meetings with congressional counterparts, the Administration, and other stakeholders. Those are previously scheduled trips, of course. Those committees are the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

At the State Department, the delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs met with Under Secretary Sherman and as well as Assistant Secretary Nuland, who you are all familiar with. During their meetings they discussed – they underscored our appreciation for a very strong partnership with Europe. They also discussed a range of issues including relations, U.S.-EU relations, Iran, Syria, Egypt, all the global issues we work together on.

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs is meeting this afternoon with Ambassador Danny Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy. That's quite a mouthful. Those topics are self-explanatory by his title. NSA was one of many topics discussed, but far from the focus, as I mentioned all the other issues.

And then I know some have asked also about the German delegation, so let me just give a little update on that. Today at the White House, as a part of that – as a part of an ongoing dialogue, a senior German delegation – government delegation, including German National Security Advisor – I'm going to butcher his name – Heusgen and German Chancellery Intelligence Coordinator Heiss --

QUESTION: "I'm going to butcher his name" Heusgen? (Laughter.) That's very interesting.

MS. PSAKI: H-e-u-s-g-e-n – just so you get the spelling accurate – is meeting with National Security Advisor Rice, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Monaco, Director of National Intelligence Clapper, Deputy Director of the National Security Agency Inglis, and other U.S. officials.

Ambassador Nuland also met with German National Security Advisor Heusgen on October 30th – so that's today – to reaffirm our strong cooperation with Germany. Deputy Secretary Burns is also scheduled to meet with him later today.

QUESTION: There was no – or was there any State Department involvement in this White House meeting, or they had --

MS. PSAKI: We had these separate meetings.

QUESTION: Separate.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But there's no one from State at the White House for --

MS. PSAKI: I don't believe so, because we had these separate meetings scheduled.

QUESTION: Jen, regarding spy tape by NSA, did the State Department receive any official letters from South Korean Foreign Ministry or other agencies?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of. But just like any other country, if South Koreans have a desire to have a discussion and dialogue, we will – we're happy to have that, hopefully alleviate their concerns and strengthen our partnership on these issues.

QUESTION: As far as I know that South Korean Ambassador in Washington, DC, he sent a letter to maybe here or other agency, and also government sent letters. So did you response anything?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not aware of the letter. We typically respond to letters. I'm happy to check and see if that's something we've received.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let's do one more and any other final cleanup.

QUESTION: Jen, I have one.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: The former foreign minister of Greece revealed yesterday that Greece spied on two U.S. Ambassadors. I'm sure you know the story. At the same time, according to Spiegel, you spy on Greeks. Can you – first of all, do you have any comment from – on the revelation by Mr. Pangalos, the foreign minister of Greece, that they spy on you?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any specific comment, other than to say that we have an ongoing dialogue with Greece about a range of issues, including cooperation on intel gathering. That, of course, will continue. And as you know, we have a review that's underway where we will look at all of these issues.

QUESTION: But did you protest to the Greeks or the Greeks protest to you on this scandal?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything specific on that. If there – there is, of course, a dialogue going on on a range of issues on the ground. But if they have a desire to have a higher level or a different kind of meeting, I'm certain we'd be open to that.

Okay?

QUESTION: On Egypt, do you have any reaction to the arrest of Muslim Brotherhood leader Essam el-Erian?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- on the clashes in Al Azhar University between the police and the students?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Well, we've been clear that the interim government should ensure that all Egyptians are afforded due process, transparency, and open trials, with civilians tried in civilian courts. We have consistently called publicly and privately for an end to all politicized arrests and detentions. We'll continue to do so.

In terms of the reports at the university – I believe is what you're asking about – we condemn, consistently of course, all acts of violence, call on all Egyptians from all sides to exercise restraint. Violence hinders Egypt's democratic process, their ability to make progress, and of course, their economic recovery.

QUESTION: Were you in touch or in contact with Mr. el-Erian before his arrest?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything specific for you. We're, of course, in touch with a range of officials on the ground. We can check if there's been any recent contact.

QUESTION: On Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Okay, go ahead and then we'll go.

QUESTION: It is decided that on 4th of November is going to be the trial of former President Morsy.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about that? Do you have any reaction to that? Especially, there is a call to make more strikes and more demonstrations around this date, which is 4th of November.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we'd certainly be concerned about any incitement of violence from either side, so that continues to be the case. I know that's upcoming. If there's anything more specific about it, we can talk about it again tomorrow.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary of State planning to (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any travel announcements for all of you. We are still working that through for the coming weeks, or coming months, I guess I should say.

QUESTION: On Egypt.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Egyptian military has, in the past, used Apache helicopters in their offensives against militants in the Sinai Peninsula.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: We have suspended delivery of Apache helicopters. Are you – do you have any response to critics who fear that the offensives in the Sinai are being affected by that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as we – as the President and the Administration underwent this review, they weighed a range of issues, including our relationship, our strategic and security interests. As you know, we have continued some of the aid that serves those purposes. I know it's for other types of equipment, but all of those issues were weighed and discussed as part of that process. It's a pause, not a complete end, and obviously, we're watching closely and we are in touch with the government.

QUESTION: Is that to say that the sacrifices were weighed, or there are no sacrifices and that was the conclusion made from the review?

MS. PSAKI: It's just to say that a range of issues were weighed. But of course, maintaining our important security and strategic relationship and protecting the Sinai was a part of that consideration process. That's why we've continued some of the aid and delivery of some of the equipment, while not all.

QUESTION: Sorry. Jen, just correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that spare parts for those – for helicopters that the Egyptians already had and funds for maintenance for those helicopters were actually exempt from --

MS. PSAKI: Were --

QUESTION: -- that they continue; they are not affected by (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: I believe – I don't have this in front of me; I believe that's correct. I think you're talking about new?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean that – but their helicopters that they have now --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that they're using in the Sinai still – that maintenance and spare parts for them continue, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Right, as part of the windup that we've talked about as being an essential part of maintaining security. I think you were talking about new delivery. But – okay. Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: No, wait, wait. No, I have one more.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, sorry.

QUESTION: Were you able, or anyone else able, or did anyone care, to try and find out from the Embassy in Canberra what they were doing by giving away tickets to Dirty Wars? And is this a – I mean, I guess on one hand one could argue that it is laudable that the Embassy would want to promote divergent views of things, but on the other hand, it seems a little bit self-defeating since it's highly critical of the Administration.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as always, context is important, in this case and many.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. PSAKI: As you know, we have public diplomacy and outreach programs around the world, including in Canberra. Many of those programs around the world promote independent films, promote Hollywood films. That's something we're doing here. There's a film festival going on where they're showing, as I understand it, dozens of movies, including 16 U.S. films. We've provided some funding for that, funding for kind of the venue hiring and staffing.

The movies, they're a range of tickets that we have at our Embassy for, I believe, more than a half-dozen movies that we are providing. We believe in freedom of speech. We're not judging or advocating or endorsing any of the movies, but we are just simply encouraging people to participate in the film festival.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:34 p.m.)

DPB # 180