UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 20, 2014

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S TRAVEL/DEPARTMENT
TURKEY/SYRIA /ISIL/IRAQ
CUBA/EBOLA
IRAN
LEBANON
QATAR
NIGERIA
AFGHANISTAN/QATAR
UNITED NATIONS/HUMAN RIGHTS
BAHRAIN
JAPAN
HUNGARY
WEST AFRICA REGION
YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA
SOUTH KOREA
TURKEY/HUMAN RIGHTS
UKRAINE/RUSSIA/GERMANY
IRAQ/IRAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:32 p.m. EDT

MS. HARF: I have a couple items at the top, and then I will be happy to open it up for all of your questions. A trip update for the Secretary: Today he is in Jakarta, Indonesia for the inauguration of its seventh president. We congratulate Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy, and its largest Muslim majority country on the inauguration today. The delegation was headed by Secretary Kerry. He also held a round of bilateral meetings with Asian leaders during his time in Jakarta. He goes onto Berlin tomorrow for an event commemorating the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and bilateral meetings as well.

Second, another travel related topper: Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL John Allen and Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk will travel to the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman from October 21st through 31st to meet with a wide range of government officials, regional partners and multilateral institutions in support of the international coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. We'll provide further information about those stops in the coming days.

And I think we have two groups of visitors in the back if I'm correct. The first is students from Cedarville University in Ohio. Am I correct? Wave. I'm from Columbus, so always good to see fellow Buckeyes here. They're interning in Washington, D.C. And also a group of Afghans are here as part of a diplomat training program who I think are in the row in front of you. So welcome. I hope the briefing is interesting and everyone's nice today, given that it's Monday.

Lara, get us started.

QUESTION: So let's start with Turkey.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: I'm hoping you'll shed a little light on some of the diplomatic conversations this weekend with Turkey, especially in light of the weapons and ammunition drops that are being provided. As you know, as recently as last week, Turkey said that it would oppose any kind of weapons being transferred to the Kurdish fighters that are allied with the PKK, as those who are fighting in Kobani are. What is it now that was said or offered or discussed in any way that is – that would have given Turkey – basically made Turkey say, "Okay, this is fine with us," after so many days of it – oppose it.

MS. HARF: Well, I'll let the Turkish Government speak for itself. It's fully capable of doing that. President Obama did speak to President Erdogan on the 18th – that was Saturday, I believe – to discuss the situation in Kobani, to discuss steps that could be taken to counter ISIL advances there. Also expressed appreciation for Turkey hosting over an a million refugees, including approximately 180,000 from Kobani; discussed, of course, also the air drops that we would be taking. Secretary Kerry spoke with the foreign minister on October 17th to discuss this issue as well. So we made clear why we believed it was important to take these air drops to support the fighters pushing back against ISIL in and around Kobani, made clear why that was important to us, and don't have much more readout for you than that.

QUESTION: Let me ask you this way: Did they need convincing, or did they just say, "That's fine, go ahead"?

MS. HARF: I'm not probably going to read out more specifics to the conversation.

QUESTION: What about this idea of a land route through Turkey. There was some discussion over this was still under negotiation. Can you bring us up to speed on that?

MS. HARF: Well, we continue to discuss with the Turks on a variety of levels ways we can work together on fighting ISIL. Broadly speaking, we made clear in these conversations why we believed it was important, beyond the airstrikes we had already taken – over 135 now in and around Kobani – to support the fighters on the ground with these air drops. I know there were also some announcements out of the Turkish foreign ministry today about steps they were willing to take as well which we welcomed. So those conversations are ongoing.

QUESTION: So going to those steps today –

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Turkish side, one of them was to say that they would allow Peshmerga fighters now to go into Kobani –

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- crossing the Turkish border.

MS. HARF: That's – and we welcome those statements from the foreign ministry.

QUESTION: What do you think has persuaded them to change their strategy? Because, of course, before they weren't allowing the Kurds to do that.

MS. HARF: This is an ongoing conversation with them. I think as we've all seen ISIL pour more resources, more fighters into Kobani, this situation has become increasingly serious. Obviously, it's been serious for a while, but as we've seen ISIL really focus on it, focus its resources on it, we believed we needed to take additional steps, and I'll let the Turks speak for themselves.

QUESTION: But can I just –

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- kind of to put a finer point on it, I mean it seems as if the kind of back-and-forth that's made it into the public domain between you and Turkey would suggest some kind of major disagreement on how this can be –

MS. HARF: And that is – it's no surprise that the public account of these discussions often doesn't match the reality. I would disagree with that notion very strongly.

QUESTION: But it's not public account. The –

MS. HARF: The public discussion as you just mentioned.

QUESTION: Right, but Erdogan basically said that he would – he does not support the U.S. giving aid to the Kurds inside Syria. He said don't expect him to support it at any time.

MS. HARF: I think –

QUESTION: And Secretary Kerry said it's irresponsible not to support them.

MS. HARF: And I think the president and the Secretary both had productive conversations with their Turkish counterparts over the weekend, and again, we welcome the statement out of the foreign ministry today, and we'll keep having the conversation with them. But I would disagree with the notion that there's some split between us on how to fight this threat. Overarching goals here are exactly the same. We have constant conversations about tactics and strategy and how we should go about that.

QUESTION: But I mean, it does seem – while I agree that the strategic goal may be the same, but certainly there's a big difference on tactics. And how do you overcome that given that what you need – feel that you need to do right now in Kobani, for whatever reason, is contingent upon helping the Kurds?

MS. HARF: Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way. I think we continue to have conversations where we have different ideas about tactics. But I would disagree that there's sort of a big split in terms of that area. I just don't think that's the case in our discussions with them.

QUESTION: So one of the things – a DOD team had been in Turkey --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Had a lot of that planning been during – I mean, just coming back to Lara's questions about the stuff that evolved over the weekend, was that the planning of this? I mean, were they – was that the discussion that was going on with their team?

MS. HARF: I can check. I don't have a full readout of their meetings.

QUESTION: And is Turkey still against using the bases – for the U.S. using their bases?

MS. HARF: Aren't going to get into operational details about those kinds of discussions.

QUESTION: Can you say how long the Obama-Erdogan call was?

MS. HARF: I'd leave it to the White House to do that.

QUESTION: Can you talk about --

QUESTION: What about Kerry's with the foreign minister?

MS. HARF: I can check on that. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the --

MS. HARF: I can check for you though.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the weapons? I know the Defense Department put out a statement saying that they were Iraqi-Kurdish weapons.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. That is correct.

QUESTION: But like, can you talk more like how and why did --

MS. HARF: More specific?

QUESTION: -- why did you send your own weapons?

MS. HARF: Well, I don't have any analysis of that. These were resources from the Iraqi Kurds. It included medical supplies, weapons, and ammunition. I don't have much more detail on it than that for you.

QUESTION: And for that, did you need to talk to Baghdad to get their, kind of, consent, coordination? Or you just went ahead and --

MS. HARF: I would leave it to the Pentagon to discuss that – I don't have those details – but it was Kurdish equipment and supplies. The U.S. forces provided the ability to airlift it to these forces on the ground.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) weapons you're talking about?

MS. HARF: We aren't, for operational reasons.

QUESTION: Can you also talk about – I mean, we know Turkey had a demand before agreeing for any sort of, like – to participate in the fight against ISIS, one of the major demands was a buffer zone to be created in Syria. Did the United States make any promise to the Turks that that could be a possibility --

MS. HARF: Our position --

QUESTION: -- at some point?

MS. HARF: -- on that has not changed. We are not considering implementing that at this time. That's not part of the military strategy here. We know this has been an ask of the Turkish Government for some time. We consider asks they make and we talk about them with them, but this has been an ongoing conversation and will continue to be.

QUESTION: So can you say that the United States went ahead with arming the rebels in Syria without seeking the consent of the Turks?

MS. HARF: Well, it's not about consent. We notified them – the President and the Secretary did – of our intent to do this and had discussions with them about why we believe this is an important thing to do in this fight against ISIL around Kobani.

QUESTION: They might --

QUESTION: Well, do you feel that you are – I don't want to say forced; I don't mean forced – but do you think that the Turkish reluctance to aid the Kurds themselves has kind of caused a need for you to increase your support to the Kurds inside Syria?

MS. HARF: Well, I think this is a place where we had the ability to airlift these weapons and ammunition and medical supplies, especially given our ongoing relationship with the Kurds in Iraq who supplied this equipment, so it was a place where we could help. We saw a way we could do that, and that's what we did.

QUESTION: But if the Turks were doing it themselves, you may not have had to do that.

MS. HARF: Well, there's a lot of hypotheticals we could go down, but this is a place where we saw we could assist and we thought there was a need on the ground given how many resources ISIL was putting into Kobani.

QUESTION: Just one more question. I know Secretary Kerry said that the PYD – the political party in Kobani and other Kurdish cities in Syria is an offshoot of the PKK, which is designated --

MS. HARF: That's not what he said.

QUESTION: He said it.

MS. HARF: That's not what he said. I have his transcript --

QUESTION: He said it's one and the same.

MS. HARF: I have his transcript in front of me. The PYD is a different group than the PKK legally, under United States law.

QUESTION: But he said that he saw them as one and the same.

MS. HARF: He said he's aware of the history and the sensitivities.

QUESTION: Actually --

MS. HARF: Do you have a question. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure if I – I think I saw that saying --

MS. HARF: I can check on – I have his transcript in front of me --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: -- and I can check on the specifics, but what's your question?

QUESTION: So you believe the PYD is not the same as the PKK?

MS. HARF: They are not the same under United States law. No.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: That's a fact.

QUESTION: When did you inform the Turks to do that?

MS. HARF: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: The – when did the U.S. side inform the Turks to --

MS. HARF: When?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: They President spoke to President Erdogan on Saturday, and Secretary Kerry spoke to the foreign minister on Friday.

QUESTION: Did Secretary inform the Turks on Friday when he talk?

MS. HARF: They discussed in general the issue. I don't have more details for you than that.

QUESTION: He said that – help us to get the Peshmerga or the other groups in there who will continue this, and we don't need to do that. During his conversation with the Turkish foreign minister on Friday, Secretary Kerry gave any option to Turks to either open a corridor or U.S. will --

MS. HARF: I'm not going to read out the call any more than I already have.

QUESTION: No, I'm just trying to clarify the remarks of Mr. Secretary actually.

MS. HARF: Okay, sorry. Maybe I misunderstood your question.

QUESTION: No, was that option for U.S. that they gave the Turks, before this operation, either you will open the corridor or you will drop the – the people drop this --

MS. HARF: As I said, I'm not going to read out the conversations we had with them. We've been talking to them about a range of options that we could all help around Kobani, given that ISIL has put so many resources there. But I don't have specifics for you on exactly what that conversation looked like.

QUESTION: What about the --

QUESTION: Since the Turks opened that corridor today, do you think there will --

MS. HARF: Well, we saw the announcement --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: -- from the foreign ministry, and we welcome those statements, certainly, that they intend to facilitate the crossing of Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga into Kobani. We'll keep working with them on this.

QUESTION: If this corridor will be opened, do you think there will be need any air operation such that – such an air operation in the future?

MS. HARF: I don't have anything to predict for you on that.

QUESTION: I want to go back to Erdogan's comments.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: He said, "There has been talk of arming the PYD to form a front here against the Islamic State. For us, the PYD is the same as the" --

MS. HARF: This is Erdogan, though.

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: No, this is Kerry.

QUESTION: No.

MS. HARF: No, you said Kerry --

QUESTION: No, you said --

QUESTION: No, I said Erdogan.

MS. HARF: No, you didn't.

QUESTION: No, you said Kerry.

MS. HARF: You said – that's why I'm like, I don't think he said that. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, you said Kerry here.

MS. HARF: You did.

QUESTION: Oh. I'm sorry. (Laughter.) I meant Erdogan.

QUESTION: But he's basically --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: It's one and the same. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: I'm like, did I miss what the Secretary said?

QUESTION: It's one and the same.

MS. HARF: Because I don't think I heard that.

QUESTION: But he – but basically, Erdogan is saying that it's one and the same --

MS. HARF: Well, as the Secretary himself said today in Jakarta before his meeting with the Philippine foreign Secretary, that we, of course, understand the fundamentals of their opposition to this, we understand the challenges they have faced with the PKK, and we understand the history and the sensitivities. So he made that clear. We also, though, made clear to the Turks that we believe it's incredibly important to support groups like the PYD, these Kurdish fighters and a small number of non-Kurdish fighters on the ground pushing back against ISIL.

QUESTION: So you make the distinction between the PYD and the PKK?

MS. HARF: Well, their distinction – there is a distinction, yes.

QUESTION: Can I go back to --

MS. HARF: Sorry, you scared me there, Elise. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can I get back --

QUESTION: I was following up on him, and he --

MS. HARF: I know. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: We'll blame it on him, okay?

MS. HARF: Gets you in trouble. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: If you can't tell us for operational reasons what kind of weapons you were dropping, are you able at least to give us an indication of the amount, the extent, tonnage, something like that?

QUESTION: And the length of how long this will go on?

MS. HARF: I don't have anything to preview in terms of that whether there will be additional strikes – excuse me, drops. There will be additional strikes, I'm sure. I don't want to rule anything in and out there. Let me check with our Pentagon colleagues and see if they have more details about that.

QUESTION: And obviously, I mean, I know you guys have incredible intelligence, but I'm just wondering if there's any kind of concern that some of these drops could have landed in the wrong side of this conflict and could actually get into the hands of the ISIL fighters, the very people you're trying to defeat?

MS. HARF: I think that's always a possibility, certainly, but the United States military is pretty good at doing this. And I know they're doing an assessment right now of where the bundles landed and who they might have ended up with.

QUESTION: Let me clarify something that you said a few minutes ago.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: You said that the President called President Erdogan to inform him of the United States intent to do this. In other words, it was not a, hey, are you okay with this? It was not asking permission?

MS. HARF: Well, it was a discussion. I'll let the White House read out the call further if they'd like to, but it was a discussion about it.

QUESTION: Can you characterize the discussion in any way?

MS. HARF: I'm not going to. I leave it to the White House to do that.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: Well, what about the one with Kerry and the foreign minister?

MS. HARF: I don't have anything more from that one. Obviously, the key call here was the President's. But if there's any more details, I'm happy to get them for you.

QUESTION: How can you balk, citing operational imperatives, at describing even vaguely the nature of the weaponry being provided when the same Administration has been so detailed in showing us the kinds of weaponry that has been brought to bear in airstrikes and throughout this campaign? Why suddenly can we not --

MS. HARF: I don't think they're the same thing. And what do you – what detail about airstrikes are you talking about? What kind of aircraft we use?

QUESTION: We've known the kind of airplanes. We've --

MS. HARF: That's totally different.

QUESTION: We're releasing the videotapes where there's a ton of data associated with the use of the weaponry.

MS. HARF: But James, that's categorically different from airstrikes being taken by airplanes in the air than weapons that are being used on the ground by these forces. They're just different types of things.

QUESTION: Is part of the caution because these are not weapons that came from the Iraqi Kurds as opposed to your own weapons?

MS. HARF: That could be. I know there are just operational reasons that we will not be doing so.

QUESTION: And just broadly, what do you understand to be the state of Kobani right now as we stand here?

MS. HARF: Well, it is still under very serious threat. That's why we believed it was necessary to take additional action. Coalition airstrikes have been successful in eliminating hundreds of ISIL terrorists, destroying ISIL military equipment, and disrupting supply lines and communications. We have had success against ISIL's stronghold in Kobani; and as we've had that success, the less able they are to focus also on other areas of Iraq and Syria. But it did become clear recently that the forces on the ground were running low on supplies necessary to continue this fight. That's why we decided now to authorize this. And our support will continue to help them repel ISIL. That said, there's still a possibility that Kobani will fall.

QUESTION: Is it possible that some of the weapons that the Pesh are giving to the Kurdish fighters in Syria are actually weapons that the U.S. transferred or gave or sold to --

MS. HARF: To them?

QUESTION: -- to the Pesh initially?

MS. HARF: It could be. I can check. I'm not sure exactly the historical chain on some of these or all of these weapons.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: It could be possible. I'll check.

QUESTION: And it would be a misapprehension on the part of anyone, any citizen anywhere who were to assume that Kobani is the only active theater in this campaign right now, correct?

MS. HARF: Absolutely. We have repeatedly said this despite the intense media attention on Kobani. ISIL is active in many parts of Iraq and Syria. We're focused on many parts. We've taken strikes in many parts.

QUESTION: Is there – are there ground battles involving allied forces presently outside of Kobani?

MS. HARF: Well, we are – in terms of allied forces, the United States has been taking airstrikes in support of the Iraqi forces on the ground in other places in Iraq, if that's what you're asking.

QUESTION: Right. And – but are there any other cities that are being actively contested right now the way we see in Kobani?

MS. HARF: I can check with our team and get a battlefield update, if I can share one.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what's happening in Anbar, since we're talking about Iraq?

MS. HARF: Not much new on Anbar right now. The situation remains very fluid. They are – there is a severe threat there. Our assessment of Baghdad has not changed at this point, as we've talked about several times in here. But in terms of Anbar, it remains challenging. CENTCOM announced earlier today, I think, that near Fallujah they struck a large ISIL unit, destroyed three ISIL vehicles. So we are continuing active engagement with airstrikes in Anbar to help the forces on the ground.

QUESTION: Do you have an assessment on --

QUESTION: Can I just go back to Kobani for one question?

MS. HARF: Let's just work our way around.

QUESTION: Just very quickly --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- and I also want to go back there. But do you have an assessment on Abu Ghraib and the presence of the threat there, whether it's widespread, or if its sleeper cells or --

MS. HARF: I don't. I don't.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Marie.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh?

QUESTION: Turkey has a long border with Kobani. And when you see the United States kind of having to pick up the weapons from KRG from Erbil and then airdropping them through a parachute, that's like – that shows how Turkey was not willing to cooperate. Why didn't you just deliver through land, like through Turkey?

MS. HARF: Well, we have a very close relationship with Turkey and we are talking to them about a variety of ways they can assist in this coalition. Their participation in the coalition is not defined by any one action they are or aren't taking. That's just not how we view this.

In this case specifically, we had a capability we could bring to bear with weapons that were provided by the Iraqi Kurds, and we had the airdrop capability to do so, and that's why we did.

QUESTION: Why did you – okay. Why did you reach out to the Kurds? Or did you talk to the Kurds about their weapons to Kobani? Why not your other allies?

MS. HARF: Well, we've been --

QUESTION: Is it just because, like, also Iraqi Kurds are ethnically the same as Syrian Kurds?

MS. HARF: I'd have no idea why we reached out to them. Obviously, they have weapon supplies.

QUESTION: They are a non-state actor. You have Turkey, which is a state actor. It's international – an international (inaudible) --

MS. HARF: I understand that you're trying to ask why everyone is doing things and Turkey is not; I understand that's your line of questioning. But what I have said overall, on all of your questions, is Turkey is playing a key role in this coalition. They are taking --

QUESTION: What is their key role?

MS. HARF: They are taking a number of steps. They've cracked down on foreign fighters, they're looking at anti-financing, and they've agreed to host part of the train and equip program. So that's a pretty significant number of steps they've taken, and we constantly talk to them about what more they could do. So I don't think it's fair to look at any one thing they are or are not doing and judge their participation in this coalition. In this case, the Iraqi Kurds had weapons that could be used by the Kurds and others fighting around Kobani. We had the ability to airdrop them. And that's what happened.

QUESTION: Can you say you have one coherent policy towards the Kurds in general regardless where they are?

MS. HARF: I don't have any idea what that question is in reference to.

QUESTION: Like --

QUESTION: On --

QUESTION: Marie --

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just coming back to the weapons, I don't understand. Why did you not want to use U.S. weapons?

MS. HARF: I can check with the Pentagon and see if there's a specific reason. I actually don't know the answer.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. done this before where it's flown other people's weapons into a war zone? I don't --

QUESTION: Mali, I think.

MS. HARF: I can check on the history.

QUESTION: Mali?

QUESTION: Didn't they do something like --

MS. HARF: I can check on the history. That seems like an excellent question for our historians.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

MS. HARF: I don't know the answer.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have another one?

QUESTION: No, go for it.

QUESTION: There was an interesting CBS report about Americans that have gone to Syria and maybe Iraq to join the anti-ISIS movement, to fight against ISIS. I'm wondering, given all you've done about foreign fighters and the UN resolution, I mean, what is your position on Americans going to combat ISIS?

MS. HARF: I can check on that. Private citizens, you mean?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I can check.

QUESTION: I mean, is that --

MS. HARF: I'm not sure if we have one, though.

QUESTION: Would you – I mean, I understand the Travel Warnings in effect. Those notwithstanding, is this --

MS. HARF: Right. It's clearly a very serious, dangerous place to go.

QUESTION: Yeah, yes. But, like, is that something you would frown upon? Do you consider that akin – because some of these groups that they're working with, like, in particular, Nusrah maybe, are --

MS. HARF: Well, certainly anyone fighting with al-Nusrah would be fighting with a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: Okay, but if – could you check if your kind of rules and regulations regarding foreign fighters --

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- does that apply to Americans that are going to fight against ISIS?

MS. HARF: Or if we even have a policy on it. Yep, I'm --

QUESTION: If you even have a policy on that. Yeah, thank you.

MS. HARF: I'm taking a lot of questions today.

QUESTION: Turkey, Kobani?

MS. HARF: Yes, Samir.

QUESTION: You said they dropped also medical supplies?

MS. HARF: They did.

QUESTION: Were these from the U.S. or from the Iraqi Kurdistan?

MS. HARF: Let me see if I have that in front of me. I'm not sure I do. If those are ours or theirs, I'm not sure about that. I can check on that piece with the Defense Department for you.

Yes.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: No. Turkey.

QUESTION: Turkey, Kobani.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I have couple of questions. The first one is: Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu today stated that, quote, unquote, "We agreed with the U.S. to only arm FSA groups," so saying that the --

MS. HARF: I didn't see that comment. I'm not going to comment on something I didn't see.

QUESTION: Well, then, is it true?

MS. HARF: I have no idea what he's referring to.

QUESTION: Well, what he – I think what he's getting at is what – that's the reason that you're not actually funding Syrian groups. You're just helping facilitate the transfer of someone else's weapons, which would mean that you're not really aiding Syrian Kurds; your aid specifically is only going to FSA.

MS. HARF: Well, technically, that's true. But I am not going to confirm, (a) because I don't know, and (b) because I'm not sure that's the full quote. I didn't see it in context that that was part of the discussion between the Secretary and the foreign minister.

QUESTION: Do you – okay. But you facilitated the transfer of these Peshmerga weapons to --

MS. HARF: Correct. We airdropped them, correct.

QUESTION: Do you have a blanket policy against not giving U.S. aid to these Syrian Kurds? Do you foresee a situation where that – are you ruling it out that you won't give U.S. aid to them?

MS. HARF: I can check. I can check.

QUESTION: Can I – new topic?

QUESTION: Military team from CENTCOM and EUROCOM last week finished their meetings in Turkey, and it looked like they did not have announced any kind of agreement, further agreement. And they --

MS. HARF: They had very productive discussions about how we can work together going forward.

QUESTION: President Erdogan also said that U.S. has not asked anything specific regarding Incirlik Air Base and, "We don't know what exactly they want. If they let us know what exactly they want, we can respond." This is what Erdogan --

MS. HARF: Well, I'm not going to get into those kinds of discussions from the podium.

QUESTION: So you are claiming that you have told Turkey what exactly you want about Incirlik?

MS. HARF: No, I said I am not going to get into those kinds of discussions from the podium. I don't think I just said anything, actually.

QUESTION: One last one on Syria --

MS. HARF: To be frank. (Laughter.) Yes?

QUESTION: In the meantime, as the U.S. airstrikes and the coalition airstrikes have been protecting Kobani, as you know, Assad's forces have pulled back not only from that area but other parts of northern Syria that are under Islamic State control. Just wondering – I assume this is an unintended consequence of this battle, and I'm wondering if the State Department views this as a positive development.

MS. HARF: I haven't seen all the specifics of those reports. Let me check with our team and see how we view that.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: Just one last one?

MS. HARF: Taking a lot of questions today.

QUESTION: Turkey didn't play any role in this airdrop operation, right?

MS. HARF: I will let the Turks speak for themselves, but this was a U.S. airdrop operation using Iraqi Kurdish materials.

QUESTION: There are some press reports that some of these aids passed through Kobani – to Kobani through Turkey. Can it be true?

MS. HARF: I don't think it'll be surprising to say that not all press reports about this are accurate. This was a U.S. airdrop operation.

QUESTION: On that, I find it interesting or hard to believe that the U.S. hasn't told Ankara that it wants to use Incirlik as a launching pad for attacks.

MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into the details of those kinds of operational conversations.

QUESTION: It's just been widely reported that that's what the U.S. has wanted.

MS. HARF: Well, sometimes that's what happens. But I'm not going to confirm or deny or any way those kinds of details.

QUESTION: Marie, a new topic?

QUESTION: One last one. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: One last – we can't just go back and forth. One last one.

QUESTION: Sorry about that.

MS. HARF: It's okay.

QUESTION: President Erdogan, again, on the way back from Afghanistan, he said that there are four condition now, not three conditions, to join the anti-ISIL coalition, and the extra one is that now Assad regime may be toppled. So according to President Erdogan, right now Turkey's not joining ISIL coalition. Is that a fair assessment? Turkey's not --

MS. HARF: Well, I think I was just very clear that they've played a role in this coalition. They are a close NATO ally and partner. They are taking steps to fight ISIL in a variety of ways, and we view them as a very, very close partner. That's why the President's had conversations, the Secretary, General Allen, our military planners who were just there last week.

New topic. Margaret. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: New topic. Thanks, Marie.

There was, as I'm sure you know, a big conference in Havana today about Ebola, and Raul Castro publicly said that Cuba is ready to cooperate with any country in the world, including the U.S. I'm wondering if this is a comment that you welcome, and if there is a response that the U.S. is indeed willing to work with Cuba on this.

MS. HARF: Well, you heard Secretary Kerry last Friday in his comments about Ebola recognize that Cuba has dispatched hundreds of health care workers to the region as part of the UN mission for the emergency response here, and said that this is a significant contribution to the overall international response. We have recognized and appreciate this contribution, as we do from other countries as well. But the fact that such a small country is providing so many resources – more than many other countries, quite frankly – is a significant contribution.

I saw some of those comments. I don't have more analysis of how we might have discussions with them in the future. You know we do have discussions with them from time to time on certain issues, but I don't have anything to preview for you.

QUESTION: But does that – in recognizing what they've done, that doesn't seem the same thing as saying you're willing to cooperate. Are you ruling that out?

MS. HARF: I'm not saying we're not. I'm just saying I don't have any more for you on those comments and I can check with our folks and see if we have more to say tomorrow.

QUESTION: On a policy clarification – like you said, I mean, there are a lot of countries who aren't sort of shouldering the burden here.

MS. HARF: Pulling their weight, yeah. That's right.

QUESTION: Right. But Cuba is actually sending doctors into the field.

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: They're one of the few countries besides the U.S. that's doing it.

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: I mean, only other NGOs are. So is there anything that would prevent the cooperation policy-wise in the field --

MS. HARF: Well, I don't want to --

QUESTION: -- in such an unusual circumstance?

MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate without checking with our folks and make sure I know where our policy is on this. But I will say that this is a global issue that countries need to step up and help confront in any way they can. And the Secretary very publicly and openly said that we thought this is a significant contribution by the Cubans to do this.

QUESTION: Should we interpret those comments as saying we're not closing the door to cooperation?

MS. HARF: I think you should interpret them as they were written and said, and we can see if there's more to share with you. I just don't know what the facts are.

QUESTION: The Secretary said that every country has a role to play.

MS. HARF: He is absolutely right.

QUESTION: So, I mean, I don't understand why you wouldn't – I mean, why is, like, Cuba such a political issue that you can't welcome those comments --

MS. HARF: Is that a --

QUESTION: -- and say that we look forward to further --

MS. HARF: I just welcomed their contributions.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, why can't you say that you look forward to as much – if you need, like, worldwide help on this, like, what does it matter where it comes from?

MS. HARF: Well, no, absolutely, and I would of course welcome additional support and resources and contributions from the Cubans. The question, I think, was about whether we will work together, and I just don't know the facts. But of course, we would welcome them doing more, absolutely.

QUESTION: Well, if the --

QUESTION: Will you announce policy-wise if there anything that would prevent --

MS. HARF: I can't --

QUESTION: -- because we have personnel and they have personnel – can they help each other?

MS. HARF: Absolutely, and we talk on issues like migration --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: -- we have postal talks. So I know that – I understand the question, and I just don't know the answer.

QUESTION: I just feel as if the U.S. wants to be the leader in this worldwide effort and is the leader, that why would it not work with Cuba?

MS. HARF: I don't disagree with you, but I need to check with our team.

QUESTION: Perhaps just a different construct on this would be to ask you: Is it possible that Mr. Castro's remarks can provide the opening for some improvement of ties between the United States and Cuba at this juncture?

MS. HARF: Well, let me check with my team on that, James, but what we have always said is that we have taken steps under this Administration to do things like increase family remittances and increase family travel, do things to help people-to-people contact, to help communications, family ties. Those things are important to us. We've always at the same time, said, though, that the Cuban Government needs to take certain steps in order for the relationship to improve, while we talk about other issues like migration as well.

QUESTION: Different subject --

MS. HARF: So I'm certainly not ruling it out. I just want to check with our experts.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MS. HARF: Different subject?

QUESTION: I have one more on Ebola, I'm sorry.

MS. HARF: Okay. Uh-huh.

QUESTION: For countries that are constrained for one reason or another by – from actually putting personnel on the ground, what are some ways in which you could see countries being able to contribute? Is it providing protective gear?

MS. HARF: Money.

QUESTION: Money?

MS. HARF: Let's start with money. There's a huge UN appeal for this that is woefully underfunded. When you have heads of private companies giving more than some countries have given, I think that shows we have a way to go – a ways to go here. So let's start there.

QUESTION: Anything else?

MS. HARF: There are doctor – there are other ways you can contribute with experts if they can't, for some reason, be forward-deployed, but doctors, health workers – there are a variety of ways we can here have other countries help.

QUESTION: Can I just ask – there's been – so Mr. Duncan's family is mostly out of quarantine now. They've passed their 21-day period. There hasn't been any reporting of new cases or new potential cases for several days now. Is there a feeling perhaps among the Administration that some of the measures that you've put into place could be working and that the United States might be spared any additional kind of isolated cases or potentially more cases?

MS. HARF: Well – right. I don't want to predict that. Obviously, that would be a prediction I would have no way of making, but we – what we do know is that based on the science, there are ways with certain procedures, with certain policies that are put in place to contain this disease. Now obviously, it's a challenge, right. Even here, it's a challenge, but we know there are ways to do this, and that's why we've – the President and the team there and the CDC have put in place procedures to try and really contain this disease here in the United States.

QUESTION: And I guess you – maybe it's not – you're not the right person to ask on this, but since the screening was put into place at the airports, the five airports in the United States, have you heard of any cases of anybody who's been turned away?

MS. HARF: I'm probably not. It's probably either DHS or CDC.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: P5+1. Thanks to the unregulated ministrations of our friend and colleague David Sanger, the policy of the Obama Administration may, to many eyes, appear to be somewhat uncertain right now, so we would appreciate your help in clearing this up. (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: Always happy to help, James.

QUESTION: To wit, does the Obama Administration regard that it requires congressional approval in order to be able to lift or temporarily suspend some of the U.S. --

MS. HARF: Those are two different things, though. Suspend and lift are – we use those terms differently.

QUESTION: Okay, good.

MS. HARF: So let me --

QUESTION: Let's take them in turn.

MS. HARF: Can I just say a little bit about the story? Let me just say a little about the story and then you can follow up.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: So I would say first, the premise, starting with the headline of the story, was not correct; it was, in fact, wrong. The Administration believes Congress has a very important role to play on Iran's nuclear issue. The story conflated two separate issues, when and how congressional action will be needed to suspend and/or lift. So when we say "suspend," we mean suspend temporarily; lift – you could say also "terminate." You can use those words interchangeably – and whether we believe they should take an up-or-down vote on the deal. So the story really conflated those two ideas. They're really separate.

On sanctions, we have made absolutely clear publicly in testimony and in private discussions on the Hill that in the first instance, we would look to suspend sanctions. And then only if and after Iran has upheld its end of the arrangement would we look to lift or terminate sanctions, and this is for a very good policy reason that the Hill, I think, agrees with: that suspension makes it easier to snap back the sanctions into place if the deal isn't upheld.

It's obviously way too early, I think, to speculate on which sanctions would require legislative versus executive action to suspend or to lift. But suffice to say, if we get a comprehensive agreement, it is absolutely true that the sanctions regime we put in place cannot be undone without congressional action. Now what – which requires congressional, which requires executive, it's too early to tell, right. There are many, many sanctions on the books. But the notion that we are somehow trying to avoid congressional input and consultation is, I think, just preposterous. This is probably the topic that we have talked to and consulted with Congress more on than any other one since I've been here.

QUESTION: There was a suggestion that you wouldn't want Congress to have to vote the deal up or down.

MS. HARF: Right, and that – we have been very clear for months now, which is why I was a little surprised this was news, that we don't think that that's necessary, given the kind of agreement we're talking about, given what's at play here. There are many ways Congress can play a role in these negotiations and discussions. We have had multiple, countless briefings with experts and negotiators; hearings, phone calls with members of Congress. So we've been clear that we don't believe they should take an up-or-down vote, but there are many, many other ways. And that's why I wanted to tease out the two.

Congress will – in the final agreement, at the end of the day, to ultimately terminate these sanctions, if everyone upholds their end of the bargain – have to take some action, and we've said that very publicly.

QUESTION: But that's years away in your view --

MS. HARF: Well, we don't know yet.

QUESTION: -- at best. At best.

MS. HARF: Well, those are details that're being worked out in the negotiating room.

QUESTION: Marie, as far as I understand here from what we were – when we were talking in Vienna last week around the talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif, there are plans being drawn up with annexes attached to each political decision that needs to be made --

MS. HARF: That is true.

QUESTION: -- and one of the issues is sanctions.

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: And I believe a senior State Department official said that there have been some movement in isolating which sanctions are nuclear-related and which are human-rights-related.

MS. HARF: Right, we've – because we've always said that in any comprehensive agreement, nuclear-related sanctions would be on the table, but obviously, human rights, terrorism – those sanctions would remain on the books.

QUESTION: But our understanding is that the paperwork, if it ever comes to fruition, is incredibly detailed. So --

MS. HARF: It is. That is correct.

QUESTION: -- are you not saying here that the sanctions that will be suspended in the first instance will not be identified in that document?

MS. HARF: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's too early at this point to say in the first instance, when we suspend, which – what requires what kind of action to suspend that and then ultimately to lift. They're just very complicated.

And quite frankly, in the conversations we've had with Congress, they agree that we need to make sure Iran lives up to its obligations if we get to a comprehensive agreement. And in a suspension situation, you can snap those back in much more quickly than if you've terminated sanctions.

QUESTION: So is it your --

QUESTION: You will be laying out – sorry, James.

QUESTION: Please.

QUESTION: You will be laying out which of the sanctions you intend to suspend in the document that's made finally.

MS. HARF: If we get to that point, yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: So I could understand why some in Congress could say if you're saying which ones you're going to suspend, then you're committing them to ultimately lifting them, aren't you? In an agreement – this is an agreement between the P5+1 and Iran.

MS. HARF: In an agreement – well, obviously, in an agreement, yes. Yes, if we get – this is a high-class problem. If we get to a comprehensive agreement where we all agree on all of these issues, yes, we will be very clear about what nuclear-related sanctions – how that relief will look.

QUESTION: So are you not tying Congress' hands by that, then?

MS. HARF: I don't know how we would be.

QUESTION: Because you're saying which of the sanctions will be suspended then, ultimately, lifted.

MS. HARF: No.

QUESTION: And so you're saying to Congress if they have to have a – if they have to play the role in lifting these sanctions, this regime that you've put in place painstakingly over the years --

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and you're laying it down in paper this is what --

MS. HARF: Congressional action will be required at the end of the day.

QUESTION: But aren't you saying they'll have to take the action that you've committed them to?

MS. HARF: Well, yes, but under the agreement we reach with – if we can reach one --

QUESTION: If you reach one.

MS. HARF: Well, yes, that is true. But that's why, throughout this entire process, we have had multiple conversations with them at the staff level, at the member level, with our experts, with our negotiators, to talk through these issues. And all of these, I think probably down to a Senator, have been on the record saying sanctions are not an end in and of themselves. They were intended to get Iran to the negotiating table to get a diplomatic agreement. So we're having the conversation, but I guess if you tease it out --

QUESTION: It will be a fait accompli though, wouldn't it?

MS. HARF: -- down the road.

Well, we're having a conversation. And Congress, obviously, has the prerogative to act as it will. But that's why we are having these conversations with them now, because we know it's important to do so. But the notion that somehow we aren't having them or that there won't, at the end of the day, be some Congressional action needed – I can't give you a breakdown of what that will have to look like.

QUESTION: It sounds like --

MS. HARF: It's just preposterous.

QUESTION: It sounds like you already have in mind a breakdown of those sanctions that can be temporarily suspended without congressional ratification of some kind.

MS. HARF: Those are all issues we're – there's so many sanctions. Those are all issues we're working through right now.

QUESTION: Can I change --

QUESTION: Wait. But no --

MS. HARF: All of those are issues we're working through right now.

QUESTION: Please. So but in other words, if I'm correct, if I understand your rebuttal to David Sanger correctly, you're telling us that you have the power without congressional involvement to negotiate to have some sanctions suspended, correct?

MS. HARF: I don't – I think you're conflating a couple of things. As the Executive Branch, we obviously are the negotiators in the room to negotiate an agreement. That is a true statement. What was the second half of that?

QUESTION: Okay. And part of the things you're negotiating is which sanctions will be suspended temporarily in an early, sort of, confidence-building stage --

MS. HARF: Well, part of what we're negotiating is --

QUESTION: --and you have the ability to --

MS. HARF: -- the schedule and the timing for suspension and lifting and when – what happens in response to what actions the Iranians take. Those are all things that are being negotiated.

QUESTION: All right. But you're telling us that Congress only really gets involved once it's time to lift sanctions, correct?

MS. HARF: That's not – no, that's when I said congressional action will be needed.

QUESTION: At all points along the way.

MS. HARF: Well, we don't know that yet. It's too early to – that's why I said it's too early to say what that package will look like of sanctions relief if and when we get to a comprehensive agreement and when executive action will be needed, when legislative action will be needed. So that's – it's too early to say that, James.

My point was that separate and apart from that issue, which was wrong in the story – but separate and apart from that, we are having consultations with the Hill as the negotiating team on this issue because they play such a key role in it, and we value their opinions in it.

QUESTION: So it is conceivable that the Congress could be called upon to play some formal role prior to November 24?

MS. HARF: Prior to November 24th?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I don't – in terms of what?

QUESTION: Well, agreeing that certain sanctions could be --

MS. HARF: If we were to get a comprehensive agreement next week? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, it's your time frame, not mine. But --

MS. HARF: But no – I mean, I – we are having constant consultations with Congress about this issue. Those have been going on for months. Those are ongoing now. I'm sure there are some happening today.

QUESTION: What we're talking about is your – is the Administration's authority to agree to certain terms with Iran, along with its negotiating partners, right?

MS. HARF: Right. As the Executive Branch responsible for foreign policy and under the commander-in-chief, that is our authority. However, we believe it's important to consult with Congress, who played a key role in putting the sanctions architecture in place.

By the way, I would remind people in a comprehensive agreement there aren't just U.S. sanctions. There are EU sanctions. There are UN Security Council sanctions. There are a number of sanctions that are being negotiated inside the P5+1 as part of a comprehensive sanctions relief package.

QUESTION: Okay. And to follow-up on that and as the last line of inquiry on this subject matter, Director Amano of the IAEA indicated to his agency today that he still cannot confirm that Iran's nuclear activities are purely peaceful in nature. And all along, briefers at this podium have emphasized that there cannot be any P5+1 deal unless IAEA is satisfied that its piece of these negotiations are also resolved satisfactorily about the possible military dimension.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yeah. They must be resolved as part of any long-term comprehensive agreement.

QUESTION: And so should we infer from the director's statement today that IAEA now regards that that's not going to be possible by November 24th?

MS. HARF: No, not at all, and there was nothing new in Director General Amano's statement today. We've urged Iran for some time to cooperate fully and without delay with the IAEA to resolve these issues. That process is going on at the same time the P5+1 negotiations are ongoing. They're obviously related in many ways, but this is nothing new. We still believe there is time before November 24th to get to a comprehensive agreement. That's what we're focused on.

QUESTION: So – can I change the subject?

QUESTION: Can I ask a quick question on Iran, unrelated to P5?

MS. HARF: You can, and then Elise can change the subject.

QUESTION: Great. Today, Iran's defense minister said that it was ready to shift defensive materials to the Lebanese army.

MS. HARF: I saw that, yes.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if you know what kind of materials we're talking about and if you have any comment.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, we've seen those reports. We are not aware of any further details at this point that would lead us to believe that Lebanon has accepted the offer. We will continue to monitor the situation. Obviously, continue to view Iran's support for Lebanese Hezbollah as unacceptable. We have been very supportive of the Lebanese Armed Forces, but again, nothing to indicate this is actually going to happen. We'll keep monitoring it, though.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yep. Elise.

QUESTION: This is on the Huangs in Qatar. Today, they were – continued to be remanded to the country. It seems as if the defense was not able to cross-examine witnesses, there was certain evidence that they weren't allowed to present, and what you think of the fact that they're still being held in Qatar.

MS. HARF: Well, today was the final court hearing, and a final verdict, we understand, will be issued on November 30th. We were disappointed that the court had delayed judgment and set the final hearing date for October 20th, four months after the first appeals hearing on June 16th, and have strongly urged the Qatari Government to immediately lift the travel ban and allow them to return to the United States on a humanitarian basis to be reunited with their children and family. We've continued to monitor this case closely. We've called on them to bring it to an expeditious and just conclusion, and we continue to raise it at high levels with the Qatari Government.

QUESTION: Do you feel that due process has been afforded in this case? Because it seems as if continually throughout the trial and now again at the hearing, there's been a kind of preponderance of evidence that has been questionable --

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the defense has not been able to question witnesses.

MS. HARF: We have been concerned that not all of the evidence was weighed by the court, and as we've said in the past, have been concerned that cultural misunderstandings may have led to an unfair trial.

QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that evidence was fabricated?

MS. HARF: Not in front of me, but I'm happy to check with our folks.

QUESTION: The family today said that they have absolutely no hope in the Qatari court system and are saying that they feel that the only recourse now is for the U.S. Government to get directly involved in negotiations or pressure --

MS. HARF: Well, we've been directly involved, and we've been talking --

QUESTION: Well, they feel the court --

MS. HARF: -- and raising this with the Qatari Government.

QUESTION: They put no faith that the court will release them. They're almost certain that the Huangs will be wrongly convicted and are asking for direct intervention beforehand.

MS. HARF: Well, we have raised this at the highest levels on multiple occasions with the Government of Qatar. We will continue to engage Qatari officials on this, and I don't have much more for you on that. But we have raised it and will continue to very directly.

QUESTION: Do you have any faith that the Qatari court system will overturn their conviction that they believe is wrongful?

MS. HARF: I don't have a prediction for you, but we've made clear our concerns with this case and the way it's been handled.

QUESTION: Do you think that if the Huangs are not released, that this would impact the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar?

MS. HARF: I don't have any analysis of that for you.

QUESTION: Marie, can I go to Nigeria?

MS. HARF: Yes, and then we'll go to Elliot. Yes. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can I go to Nigeria?

MS. HARF: You can.

QUESTION: Given the fact that the United States has had military advisors on the ground in the hunt for the girls who were kidnapped early this year by Boko Haram, I wondered if you might be able to give us your understanding of the reports that there's been some kind of ceasefire deal over the weekend, which included the release of these girls. It's a little bit – obviously, they haven't reappeared yet.

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: So could you tell us what you understanding is?

MS. HARF: We can confirm reports that a ceasefire has been announced, appears to have been put into place. We would welcome that ceasefire, call on all parties both to implement and maintain such a ceasefire, and hope that such a ceasefire would herald the return of peace to the northeast. This is a region that has had far too little of that. It's our understanding that negotiations about a deal to release the girls continue. Obviously, would join the world, I think, in hoping that these girls would be reunited with their families as soon as possible, but it's our understanding those negotiations do continue.

QUESTION: So you can confirm that there's been a ceasefire deal, but you said the negotiations for the girls are still continuing?

MS. HARF: Correct. That's our understanding. That's the latest from the ground.

QUESTION: Was there any kind of American involvement in the talks, in the discussions?

MS. HARF: I don't believe so, but let me check. Not that I know of. But never say never; I'll check.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that two senior Taliban members, Anas Haqqani and Qari Abdul Rasheed Omari, have met with the Taliban Five in Qatar?

MS. HARF: I'm sorry. Who has met with them?

QUESTION: Two senior Taliban members, Anas Haqqani and Qari Abdul Rasheed Omari --

MS. HARF: These are the two that are in Afghan custody? Anas Haqqani and Hafiz Rashid are in Afghan custody.

QUESTION: The Long War Journal first reported that the Taliban has released a statement that these two individuals recently met with the Taliban Five, and, yes, they are now being held by the Afghans.

MS. HARF: I had not heard that about the Taliban Five, as you called them. I had not heard that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I know they're in Afghan custody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: But I had not – I honestly hadn't heard that.

QUESTION: And it is still your understanding that the so-called Taliban Five are under Qatari custody?

MS. HARF: That they are in Qatar under the procedures put in place from their release from Guantanamo Bay, yes. I would remind you that they were not all, as you called them, members of the Taliban.

QUESTION: New topic?

MS. HARF: Yes, yes. Elliot, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. Is there any truth to this New York Times report that the Administration is considering reverting back to a policy on torture that views U.S. facilities overseas as exempt from the UN Convention?

MS. HARF: I hadn't even seen that report. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: I think it came out over the weekend.

MS. HARF: But I think the President has made crystal clear his feelings about interrogation techniques. One of his first executive orders when he came into office was ending some of those techniques he felt were not in line with U.S. values. So he's made very, very clear his thoughts on that.

QUESTION: Can you say categorically that the U.S. will continue to interpret the UN Convention Against Torture as applying to all U.S. facilities, including those overseas?

MS. HARF: I'm not a lawyer. I just was trying to listen and follow what you just said. I'm happy to check with our legal team.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

MS. HARF: But again, he's made his views on this very, very well known.

Let's go to Scott who hasn't had one yet. Sorry.

QUESTION: On Bahrain.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: On Thursday, Jen called on authorities in Bahrain to drop charges against the activist Nabeel Rajab.

MS. HARF: I would echo those calls.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any reaction to judicial authorities yesterday ignoring those calls and carrying on with the case?

MS. HARF: Yes, the trial did begin yesterday. An Embassy Manama official did attend the hearing. We do not agree with the prosecution of individuals for crimes of peaceful political expression and again urge the Government of Bahrain to drop the charges and release Mr. Rajab. Obviously, we believe he has the right to freedom of expression. It doesn't mean we agree with everything he tweeted, but certainly agree he has the right to do it.

QUESTION: Do those concerns also extend to Zainab al-Khawaja?

MS. HARF: Yes. We obviously follow the reports of the continued detention, have called on the Bahraini officials here to ensure equal treatment under the law, advance justice in a fair and transparent way. It's something we've continued to follow and are also concerned, as you know, about the health of her father as well.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: This is on Japan.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So Prime Minister Abe reshuffled his cabinet last month and had appointed five females to minister-level positions. But of the five, two have just resigned. So is the State Department worried about this in any way?

MS. HARF: I saw those reports. I haven't heard that we are, but let me check again with our team.

QUESTION: Is this – do you have any comments on whether maybe the State Department is worried that this could be a sign the government isn't pushing a more gender-equal country?

MS. HARF: I can check and see if we have any analysis on it.

Yes, Elise.

QUESTION: There's an Associated Press investigation that looks at former --

QUESTION: Nazis.

QUESTION: -- Nazis, very good.

QUESTION: Everybody loves a Nazi --

QUESTION: Everyone loves a – (laughter) --

MS. HARF: The first row is full of teamwork today.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: I just want to point that out to everyone.

QUESTION: Every – that basically, it was dozens of expelled Nazis from the United States are – throughout Europe and are receiving Social Security report – Social Security checks --

MS. HARF: From the U.S. Government?

QUESTION: -- from the U.S. Government --

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and --

MS. HARF: I would probably refer you to the Social Security Administration. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah – no, but part of the report was that the State Department had serious problems with the Justice Department's kind of Nazi-hunting and felt that that should be – and actually encouraged them to leave the country so that --

MS. HARF: I have not seen that report. Let me check. I'm taking a lot of questions today.

QUESTION: Could I – yeah, and so we have – I have a couple of questions about this.

MS. HARF: So let's just pile on here.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, if you're going to take the questions --

MS. HARF: Yeah, on this story.

QUESTION: -- you might as well.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: So basically, we – the AP reported that if a person is expelled from the U.S., they can still collect Social Security benefits as long as they are not deported. And so for example, if they are told to leave and they do so voluntarily or they flee from the country, for example --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- as long as they're not deported, they can still --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- receive Social Security benefits.

MS. HARF: I can check.

QUESTION: So wondering if this – what is being described as a loophole has ever been used in cases for people who are not Nazis, wondering if we notify the receiving country in advance. In other words, does the United States say, "We want this person to leave but we're not deporting; they're fleeing," or "they're voluntarily going back"?

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you please check on that?

MS. HARF: I will take this.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I go to Hungary?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: I know we don't talk about Hungary very often, but apparently, the U.S. has issued entry bans on several Hungarian Government officials.

MS. HARF: We have.

QUESTION: We reported this over the weekend. And it comes, I believe, just as the foreign minister, whose name I'm afraid I can't really pronounce – Szijjarto – is due to travel to Washington on Tuesday. He's going to be having several high-level talks. And I just wondered if you could confirm (a) who he's meeting, and (b) why these entry bans were put into force, if they were put into force, and against whom.

MS. HARF: They were. This was – I think happened last week. It happened a few days ago. We have applied Presidential Proclamation 7750 to certain current and former Hungarian officials. It provides authority to deny visas to current or former government officials who have engaged in public official corruption. We don't comment on the specifics on who are on these, as you remember, probably, from visa bans in other places as well.

QUESTION: So we could assume that this doesn't apply to the foreign minister, since he's --

MS. HARF: I think that's a fair --

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So basically, you're denying them because they are accused of corruption?

MS. HARF: Corruption, correct. And look, Hungary is a close friend, ally. We have an ongoing dialogue with its government about democratic principles addressing corruption, so I'm sure that will be a topic of conversation on --

QUESTION: Have they protested the visa ban?

MS. HARF: I do not know. Let me check. And I don't know who's meeting.

QUESTION: You don't know. Could you find out who he's meeting?

MS. HARF: I can, yes.

QUESTION: I would assume that perhaps he's going to meet with Victoria Nuland, but --

MS. HARF: I would guess, but I will check.

QUESTION: Or the Secretary?

QUESTION: -- who apparently has been highly critical of Hungary and the corruption level, so --

MS. HARF: Well, it's certainly something we're very concerned about.

QUESTION: So if you could give to us who he's meeting with, that'd be --

MS. HARF: Yes, yes. Thank you. What else? James --

QUESTION: Another --

MS. HARF: -- and then I am going to go around the room.

QUESTION: Another visa question on Ebola.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Very quickly, has the State Department been tasked with developing a legal opinion as to the President's authorities to restrict visas for citizens who come from a country that is having a public health emergency?

MS. HARF: Well, I don't know if we've been tasked with a legal opinion. What I can say is there are no plans to suspend visa operations at this time. We can't control this epidemic through the visa process. If you end legitimate means of travel out of West Africa, it could result in people-smuggling and illicit ways of people traveling, which would just make it harder for us to track sick people, to prevent them from crossing borders. That would actually be much less effective, according to the experts on this.

QUESTION: The White House made clear on Friday that they are keeping an open mind about this kind of policy and --

MS. HARF: We don't rule things out --

QUESTION: Right, and --

MS. HARF: -- but there are no plans at this point.

QUESTION: -- that if the President felt that it would be the most effective approach, he would employ it.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. He has no philosophical objection to it.

QUESTION: That's what they said, and --

MS. HARF: Remarkably on message.

QUESTION: -- the question I raise, therefore, is that there's no perceived lack of presidential authority in this realm, correct?

MS. HARF: I don't know if it would be presidential or if it would be at the State Department, because a visa – because we issue visas. I don't know who would have the authority statutorily to do that.

QUESTION: Any idea?

MS. HARF: I just don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS. HARF: I mean, you're assuming it's presidential authority. For example, if someone wants to revoke a U.S. citizen's passport who's gone to fight with a terrorist group, that's a Secretary of State authority. So I just don't want to assume it's a presidential authority.

QUESTION: So are you saying to me that no exploration in this building has been made of the question of authority to restrict visas of --

MS. HARF: Not at all. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying from a – I don't know. The answer is I don't know. But from a policy perspective, at this point right now, we are not planning to suspend visa operations. There are other ways, while permitting legal travel – legitimate travel – to screen for this, things that can be put in place, procedures, ways to keep sick people from not traveling.

QUESTION: Last in this line of questioning – and from me for the briefing, I promise – is --

MS. HARF: It's okay. I wore flats today.

QUESTION: -- is the fact that a foreign national hails from a country that is experiencing a public health emergency one of the standard categories on which basis a visa can be denied or revoked?

MS. HARF: I do not know that answer, but I – the answer to that question. But two other points, though, that I think are relevant: One is visa issuances in these West – small West African countries are very few, just to put it into some context here. And then I do have one other point on this: The State Department has the legal authority to revoke a visa when there is evidence the holder is no longer eligible for one under the provisions of the INA that they received it, but there is no authority to, quote, "temporarily invalidate" a visa, which I think has also been talked about publicly as well.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Marie --

MS. HARF: Yes, Michel.

QUESTION: -- Yemen. The Houthis are gaining more ground in Yemen, and today they are controlling most of the crossing points with Saudi Arabia. How do you view this development?

MS. HARF: Well, we know there's substantial Houthi presence and military activity in certain parts of Yemen. We've, as I have many times, called on all parties to abide by the terms of the September 21st agreement that they came to and cease efforts to take territory by force. We continue to watch it closely.

QUESTION: Do you view any Iranian hands in what's going on in Yemen?

MS. HARF: Well, I know we're all aware of the reports of Iranian possible activity or support to the Houthi, but not much more analysis for you than the reports we've all seen.

QUESTION: And do you think that these gains threat Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries (inaudible)?

MS. HARF: Well – I'm sorry?

QUESTION: The gaining on the ground poses a (inaudible) threat?

MS. HARF: I think this is primarily an internal Yemeni security challenge, and we've stood very closely by them in helping them.

Yes.

QUESTION: I have one quick question on – do you have anything on the upcoming schedule for U.S. and South Korea 2+2 ministerial meeting?

MS. HARF: We are in discussions with the ROK on holding a 2+2 later this week, possibly on October 23rd. We'll have more information for you later in the week. Nothing is finalized on the schedule yet.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Two questions on Turkey. One of them is, more than a year ago, there were Gezi protests in Turkey, and tomorrow there will be another trial for 26 people being accused of overthrowing government via these protests. And there is another trial, actually, against 35 people. It is the – one of the country's footballs team's fan club. So do you have any reaction to these trials?

MS. HARF: Well, I think you've probably heard me say this before, but – look, we've looked to Turkey to uphold fundamental freedoms of expression, of assembly, including the right to peaceful protest, and don't have much more comment on this than that.

QUESTION: So during the protests, repeatedly you defined these protestors as – majority of these protestors are peaceful and asking for freedoms and all that. After more than year and half later, this building has very valuable analysis on Turkey. Do you detect any kind of coup? Because the accusation is coup, overthrowing government. It is not any kind of lightly --

MS. HARF: I don't – our position has not changed in any way on this. I have nothing more to add.

QUESTION: And other question is there is a draft bill right now with the parliament. This gives Turkish police sweeping new authorities. Some call it as police state. Have you had a chance to look at this draft bill?

MS. HARF: Well, I – we understand the proposed bill has yet to be discussed in the Turkish parliament. We don't have the full details on it yet. We've made clear in the past we remain concerned about due process and effective access to justice in Turkey.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Sounds like you --

MS. HARF: Let's go to Abigail first, who hasn't had one yet.

QUESTION: Just to follow on Turkey, it just seems like more and more like you and Turkey don't espouse the same values. I mean, I understand that Turkey is an important military ally, but politically, it definitely seems as if, whether it's the protests or whether it's the situation in Syria – I mean, more and more I think people are questioning whether the U.S. and Turkey share similar interests and values.

MS. HARF: Well, I would disagree with that notion that we don't. I think one of the great things about an alliance like this is there are all these places where you work together and you agree – and right now when we're talking about fighting ISIL, that's certainly one of them – but that when you have disagreements about things, you can raise them openly and honestly like friends do. And that's, I think, what has defined our relationship with Turkey: that we are close allies, we are close friends, and when we have disagreements, we will make very clear that we do.

QUESTION: Do you agree with the --

MS. HARF: Last one, and then I'm moving on.

QUESTION: -- notion that Turkey is becoming more authoritarian lately?

MS. HARF: I don't think I have anything for you on that.

Yes.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any comment on reports the death of U.S. citizen Serena Shim in Turkey may be more than just a car crash, following her reports that ISIS militants are being smuggled across the Syrian border?

MS. HARF: Yes. We can confirm that she died in Turkey on October 19th and extend our deepest condolences to her family and friends. Officials from the U.S. Consulate General in Adana are in contact with her family and providing all possible consular assistance. For any details or information about the investigation, I think local authorities in Turkey are handling that.

QUESTION: But I mean, the question was whether you believe that her death had anything other than to do than a car crash.

MS. HARF: I just don't have anything further for you than that.

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

MS. HARF: I can, but I don't think I'm going to have anything further.

Yes.

QUESTION: I needed just a clarification about this Kobani thing. Sorry for going back to Kobani, but you – the CENTCOM press release also didn't name any group in the press release on these airdrops.

MS. HARF: Right. This isn't about any one group. This is about a group of Kurdish fighters and a small number of non-Kurdish fighters pushing back on ISIL in and around Kobani.

QUESTION: But you didn't coordinate these airdrops with anyone on the ground, any groups on the ground?

MS. HARF: I don't have more details for you on the logistics of the airdrops. I'm sure the Pentagon would be happy to answer your questions.

QUESTION: And (inaudible) – I mean, the quote of the Secretary, actually, that no one mentioned, there are – they are a offshoot group of the folks that our friends, the Turks, oppose. This exact quote what Secretary said about --

MS. HARF: Yes, and he said we are – also said we are aware of the history, we're aware of the sensitivities. Yes.

QUESTION: Do you believe PYD is the offshoot of PKK?

MS. HARF: We're aware that they have had ties. We're aware of the history and some of the linkages. Yes.

QUESTION: But they are not designated?

MS. HARF: PYD is not a designated terrorist organization. That is correct.

Elliot.

QUESTION: Can I ask on Ukraine?

MS. HARF: You can.

QUESTION: Have you seen the Amnesty International report that finds both sides in the conflict responsible for extra-judicial killings?

MS. HARF: Well, we have seen the report. We have called on both sides to respect international human rights norms. Obviously, if there's ever an incident that we believe we need to speak out about, we will. We haven't had a chance to look over it in a detailed way yet, though.

QUESTION: So do you – I mean, you keep in very close contact with Ukrainian authorities, obviously.

MS. HARF: We do. We do.

QUESTION: What has been their response from them on this issue?

MS. HARF: I can check with our folks. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

QUESTION: Can I ask just on that as well? There was a report in Der Spiegel over the weekend that German intelligence believes that the passenger jet, the Malaysian Air jet that was downed, was shot down by weapons or a missile that had been captured by the pro-Russian rebels from the Ukrainian army. Do you have any – not from the Russian – it wasn't supplied by the Russians. It was captured from the Ukrainian army.

MS. HARF: Okay. I can look into that. We made clear at the time where we believed it came from, how we believe it got there, and where we believe it was fired from. But I can check.

QUESTION: This is a German intelligence apparently to Der Spiegel, and I just wondered if you had any kind of --

MS. HARF: Okay. I can check. We believe we know what happened, though.

Yes.

QUESTION: Two on Iraq.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: One, Mount Sinjar again seems to be under siege, or at least the IS is starting to advance on it again.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that your assessment as well?

MS. HARF: I hadn't heard that, actually. Let me check.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: And then secondly, more of a political question with Baghdad.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The new minister of interior --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- is somebody who is linked to the Badr Brigades. I'm sure you're familiar with that – what that is.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: In the past, the United States has been – has refused to work with or give weapons to the Sadrists, for example, for fear that they could be used against other Iraqis or even U.S. forces at the time. I'm wondering if that same kind of prohibition is going to be viewed in light of the MOI Badr Brigade minister.

MS. HARF: Well, I think just a couple points on this issue: that it's important to note that the cabinet positions filled over the weekend – defense, interior, and finance – reflect a broad range of the Iraqi political system; and that the prime minister worked with a variety of Iraqi leaders to ensure that these appointments enjoyed the broadest possible base of support to assure the effectiveness of their ministries. We look forward, as we said in the statement this weekend, to working with the Iraqi Government. We have been obviously, but now this is, I think, the first time in some time that they have a full cabinet that has been approved by the parliament in place. So we think that's a good thing.

QUESTION: Are you concerned, though, that the emergence of a --

MS. HARF: First time since 2010.

QUESTION: Are you concerned, though, that the emergence of a minister from the Badr Brigades might see a resurgence of these Shiite militias? There have been several reports in the last few weeks about how Shia militias are --

MS. HARF: Yes --

QUESTION: -- actually working against the kind of reconciliation in the country --

MS. HARF: And we have been concerned about those reports. But I would really de-link the two. We're looking forward to working with all of the ministers in this new government.

QUESTION: Well, wait. So just to clarify, the U.S. would consider giving weapons to ministry security forces that are headed by a member of the Badr Brigades?

MS. HARF: I can check. I don't – I have heard nothing to indicate that our assistance to the Iraqi Security Forces writ large will change based on this in any way. But I also don't know exactly what, if anything, we give to the ministry of – I just would need to check. But I have heard nothing will change.

QUESTION: Would it include – the CT services are under MOI, I believe?

MS. HARF: I can check. But I have heard no indications that this position – the appointment of this position in any way changes our plans.

QUESTION: Okay. So if that is the case, then the question has to be: Why not?

MS. HARF: Okay. I can check.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Because we support the Iraqi Government. No, I mean, but --

QUESTION: This guy was an – he was part of a group that was a death squad.

MS. HARF: Okay, but – okay. Prime Minister Abadi has gone to great lengths to put together a cabinet that reflects all parts of Iraqi society across the political spectrum. He's done so in a way for the first time since 2010 to have a full cabinet approved by the parliament. He's done so in a way that has been inclusive. So I understand there's some history here with some people, but we think this is a good thing.

QUESTION: But you really don't think that like a minister that's associated with the Badr Brigade would alienate --

MS. HARF: I have no idea if he is still is though.

QUESTION: But --

MS. HARF: I'll check --

QUESTION: -- who was at one point --

QUESTION: He is associated with the Badr Organization, which is the political wing --

QUESTION: -- would – who would --

MS. HARF: Right. No, I understand that, yes.

QUESTION: -- the one thing you're trying to do in all this – the main thing you're trying to do in terms of repel ISIS is bring over the disaffected Sunnis. How does this appointment do that?

MS. HARF: I think that – I think that all of the appointments and the way that Prime Minister Abadi has put his cabinet together lead to the fact that this is a government that will govern inclusively.

QUESTION: Do you have any concerns about his appointment?

MS. HARF: And it's not about people's history. It's not about people's affiliations. It's how they govern in office, and it's how they bring all parts of Iraqi society together to fight this threat.

QUESTION: Does it raise any red flags?

MS. HARF: Let's see what he does when he's in office.

QUESTION: Did you raise any red flags?

MS. HARF: I don't know, Elise. I don't know.

QUESTION: Were you aware of this appointment ahead of time?

MS. HARF: I don't have any more details for you on this appointment. I'm sure the Iraqis can speak about it more.

Last question.

QUESTION: Are you concerned --

MS. HARF: Second to last question.

QUESTION: -- about the prime minister's visit to Iran today?

MS. HARF: No. Are we concerned about it? No. There's, obviously, a very long border that Iran and Iraq share. They've long had relations, and I think this is a routine visit by the prime minister to a neighboring country. Should not be surprised that Iraq has relationships with its neighbors.

Okay. Two more, guys. Seriously.

QUESTION: Marie, can you share anything --

MS. HARF: Abigail will get the last question.

QUESTION: -- in terms of an update as to the deployment of the 3,000-plus U.S. military personnel to Africa --

MS. HARF: I don't have anything --

QUESTION: -- in terms of the building of the medical facilities.

MS. HARF: I don't have anything new on that. Let me check with my colleagues at DOD and see if there's an update. They will have the most up-to-date information.

Last question.

QUESTION: Would the U.S. be at all concerned about the participation of a cousin and former aid of Muammar Qadhafi in the discussions with Libyan groups, as facilitated by the UN?

MS. HARF: I can check with our team. I have no idea who you're referring to, but I will check.

Anything else, everyone? You made our guests sit through a very long briefing today.

QUESTION: It feels long every day.

MS. HARF: It felt longer today. I think because it's a Monday.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:39 p.m.)

DPB # 177



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list