Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 22, 2014
Index for Today's Briefing
CANADA
ISIL
CANADA
NORTH KOREA
ISIL
CYPRUS/TURKEY
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
LIBYA
IRAQ
NIGERIA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:14 p.m. EDT
MS. HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily briefing, everyone. I have just two items at the top, and then we will get to your questions.
First, we are following the active shooter situation in Ottawa near the National War Memorial and parliament. Canadian Parliament Hill and our Embassy in Ottawa are on lockdown. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We have full confidence in Canadian law enforcement officials. Secretary Kerry, who's on his plane on the way back from Berlin, has been briefed on the situation and is following it closely. Again, I know this is an ongoing situation that everyone's following. Don't have more details about that right now.
Second topper: Today General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are in London, where they met with UK Foreign Secretary Hammond, Lieutenant General Mayall, National Security Advisor Darroch, and FCO officials to discuss joint U.S.-UK efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. The United Kingdom is a valued partner in the fight against ISIL and continues to make vital contributions to coalition efforts. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk conveyed our appreciation for the Royal Air Force's strikes against ISIL elements in Iraq, and for the more than $36 million the United Kingdom has provided in humanitarian supplies in Iraq.
In their meetings, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk discussed coalition support for an inclusive Iraqi Government and military structure, including support for the Iraqi National Guard program. They also reviewed our shared efforts to support moderate Syrian opposition in the fight against ISIL and over the longer term in creating the conditions necessary for a political transition in Syria.
With that, Lara.
QUESTION: Yes, I apologize for being late.
MS. HARF: It's okay.
QUESTION: I didn't hear the two-minute warning. I don't know if you said this up top, but is the American Embassy in Ottawa on lockdown?
MS. HARF: It is.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: The embassy's on lockdown. And I also – the other thing I said at the top was the Secretary has been briefed on the situation on his plane and is following it closely.
QUESTION: And do you have any idea of what the motive of this attack is, or --
MS. HARF: Not yet. I know the situation's unfolding. Obviously, Canadian officials have the lead here. Don't have any more information to share at this time.
QUESTION: Possibly tied to the Islamic State or --
MS. HARF: I don't even want to speculate. It's way too early.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Just two things on that. In addition to the embassy being on lockdown, are all embassy personnel safe and accounted for?
MS. HARF: Yes, 100 percent accountability of all embassy personnel. We are currently restricting the movement of embassy personnel as a precautionary measure at the moment.
QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, have the Canadian authorities reached out to the State Department or to other U.S. agencies through the State Department for any kind of assistance here?
MS. HARF: I can check. I don't know. Obviously, this is unfolding as we speak.
QUESTION: Does it affect any of the other U.S. embassy – official buildings in Canada, or is just in Ottawa?
MS. HARF: Not that I've heard. I know that our embassy's in lockdown, but not that I've heard about anything else.
QUESTION: Marie, question from the U.S. Embassy Ottawa Twitter account. They had retweeted some statements from NORAD and NORTHCOM, and because they were retweeted by the embassy, it got some extra attention because, of course, it suggests a security response – it was specifically about aviation threats in Canada. Do you have anything you can explain as to why the embassy would be --
MS. HARF: I do not. I'm happy to check with them.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can we switch back to North Korea – from yesterday?
MS. HARF: Yep. We can.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were not able to provide any details regarding the circumstances that led to Mr. Fowle's release. Can you now share any of those circumstances, either regarding direct U.S.-North Korean contacts or indirect contacts through the Swedish protecting power?
MS. HARF: I don't have any further details to share with you and I won't.
QUESTION: Okay. So on – as you well know, Secretary Kerry commented on this in Berlin today, and there was a particular line in which he talked about how North Korea knows what it wants to do and that if it were willing to engage in nuclear negotiations that the United States would be willing to start the process of perhaps – and I can read you the quote, I have it here if you want – but to perhaps adjust its security posture in the region because the reasoning for the security posture would no longer obtain. Was that meant to float a new effort to get them back into talks or was it rather a reiteration of the longstanding U.S. position that over the very, very long term, if North Korea were to, as it were, change its spots, then the United States could take another look at its security posture on the peninsula.
MS. HARF: The latter.
QUESTION: Who is the – I'm not sure if you saw the comments that were made by the KCNA today that Mr. Fowle's release had come about as a direct result of an intervention by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, who said he was – replied to repeated requests from President Obama. Is that your understanding of the events?
MS. HARF: As I said, we're not going to have any more details to confirm, not confirm, discuss in any way about how this happened.
QUESTION: Can you explain why, by the way, that you feel it's so important not to?
MS. HARF: Because there's two Americans that are still in detention in North Korea, and we don't want to take any options off the table or do anything that would limit our ability publicly or privately to get them home.
QUESTION: So without confirming Kim Jong-un's or KCNA's statement about what – this was a decision by Kim Jong-un, you feel that could compromise the safety of the two Americans?
MS. HARF: We're just not going to get into the business of confirming these rumors one way or the other.
QUESTION: Do you have plans to debrief Mr. Fowle?
MS. HARF: As you know, he's home with his family in Ohio. They landed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base this morning. I don't – I haven't heard of any, but I'm happy to check with our team.
QUESTION: Would it be surprising if he were not debriefed?
MS. HARF: I don't – I just don't have any details on that for you. I don't want to speculate.
QUESTION: Could you check?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yes.
QUESTION: A follow-up question: Has President Obama ever gone beyond calling publicly for the release of these Americans and made in private specific request directly to North Korea, like sending a letter or something?
MS. HARF: Well, as I just said, I don't think I'm going to confirm one way or the other any of those rumors that are out there.
QUESTION: One more on Kerry – Secretary Kerry's remarks: He said if North Korea denuclearizes, U.S. is prepared to begin the process of reducing the need for American force and presence in the region. Can we take this as one of the long-term benefits North Korea can take from giving up its nuclear program?
MS. HARF: Well, he was restating our longstanding policy that we are focused on denuclearization of the peninsula. And obviously, as Arshad said, over the long term, is this part of the discussion? Yes, but he was not in any way going beyond what we've said for a very long time about what has the potential to happen here, was not indicating anything new.
QUESTION: Marie, so I understand, are there – is there a diplomatic outreach underway to get the remaining Americans out?
MS. HARF: We have many ways publicly and privately to actively work for their release.
QUESTION: So --
MS. HARF: We don't always outline the details of those publicly, if ever.
QUESTION: Right, but we know that the Swedes act as intermediaries for the United States.
MS. HARF: They're our protecting power there, correct.
QUESTION: Right, so they are relaying any requests or diplomatic outreach on behalf of the United States.
MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into more specifics than that. They serve as our protecting power there. You know what that means in terms of trying to get consular access to these people. Beyond that, I'm just not going to get into the details.
QUESTION: I understand there were several countries who were involved with the release for Mr. Fowle. Is it – without going into the details, is it fair to assume that those same countries or others – actually, is it just fair to assume that those same countries would be involved in negotiations for releasing the other two?
MS. HARF: I am not going to confirm that anyone else was involved and not going to speculate on what might be involved in a future case.
QUESTION: Can you say --
QUESTION: The Fowle family --
MS. HARF: I'm probably not going to have much more to say on this.
QUESTION: The Fowle family, in a statement this morning that was read out for them when he arrived back in Ohio, thanked former U.S. Ambassador Tony Hall. What was his role in this?
MS. HARF: I saw those. I think he might have been serving as an informal advisor to the family, but let – I was checking on this. Let me double-check on that, but I think that may have been the role he was playing.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Can I just finish what I was asking --
MS. HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: -- which was: Did this come up when Secretary Kerry and the Chinese foreign minister, when they spent the day together on Friday, specifically the case of Jeffrey Fowle and the other prisoners?
MS. HARF: I can check. I know the – I know DPRK was a huge topic of conversation during their meetings, primarily the denuclearization issue. We always talk about the American citizens. I can check if this case specifically did. I'm guessing it did.
QUESTION: How do you define "informal advisor"?
MS. HARF: I can check, guys. I don't have more details on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: And just one more, just slightly stepping out of it a little bit: I don't know if you saw also that Japanese diplomats are going to go visit Pyongyang and that will be the first time within about a decade, I believe, that such a delegation has gone across. Do you have a reaction to it? Is it a good idea? What would you hope would come out of such a contact?
MS. HARF: Well, I think they're going to talk about the abductee issue and certainly support their – the Japanese Government's efforts to resolve this issue in a manner that takes into account the interests of the abductees' family and the security interests of Japan, also its diplomatic partners in the international community. We have regular contact with Japan on DPRK-related issues, and they can probably speak more to the actual visit.
QUESTION: Would you ask them to intercede on your behalf also for the release of the other two Americans?
MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate on that.
QUESTION: In an interview today, former Ambassador Hall said that this signals that North Korea may want to open relations with the United States and other countries. He cited the recent trip to South Korea for example. Jo's asking about – the others were asking about the trip to Japan. Would you agree with that, that you believe --
MS. HARF: Well, he's a former government official, so – and obviously, he's entitled to his own analysis. What we're focused on is the other two Americans. Look, we said this is a positive development that they did allow Jeffrey Fowle to return home. But we're focused on the other two Americans, bringing them home to be reunited with their families, and our top priority is on the denuclearization issue. We have been very clear how important that is in our policy. As I said today, the Secretary was reiterating what we've said for a long time, that the Six-Party Talks, as we know, have been not active since 2008. The DPRK has made a lot of promises in that regard, but they haven't lived up to them. So the ball is in their court in terms of that, and we'll see what they choose to do.
QUESTION: But is it fair to say that the view of policy officials here at State is that there could be an opportunity to renew relations with Pyongyang?
MS. HARF: I don't want to go that far, no. What I think this is is a positive development on one case. But we need to see positive developments on the other cases, we need to see any steps towards denuclearization, which we haven't seen. So I don't want to go that far. I wouldn't go that far.
QUESTION: Let me put it this way: What is the official view of relations between the U.S. and DPRK right now?
MS. HARF: Well, as I just said, we are very focused on the issue of denuclearization, working with our Six-Party Talks partners to see if we can get DPRK to take a different path. They are in violation of numerous international community obligations, international obligations. They are in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. They need to live up to their own obligations. We will keep working with our partners, whether it's China, others, to help get them back in line here.
QUESTION: Kobani?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Turkish President Erdogan said today on Kobani and the airdrop operations, "It has emerged that what was done was wrong," referring to airdropping the weapons by U.S. And he said only some of the weapons that reached to PYD, while some ended up in the hands of ISIL. So do you think what was done was wrong?
MS. HARF: Not at all. And in his call with President Erdogan on Saturday, President Obama made very clear why we consider it urgent and essential to resupply the fighters in Kobani who are in a desperate situation. They are responding to repeated ISIL attacks on their city. And we'll let the Turkish Government speak for itself, but allowing ISIL to seize more territory along the border with Turkey could endanger more Syrian communities and threaten our shared interest with Turkey in defeating ISIL and strengthening the moderate opposition. So this is in all of our interests here. We believe and the President made clear to President Erdogan to make sure these people fighting ISIL on the ground have the supplies they need.
QUESTION: Can we assume that U.S. will keep doing these airdrops?
MS. HARF: No. I said we don't take any option off the table. We may, we may not. We just don't know if there'll be a need at this point.
QUESTION: Let's go back – let's look at it this way. The Pentagon confirmed today that not one bundle went astray, but two bundles went astray.
MS. HARF: They did.
QUESTION: And while they were able to destroy one, the other one did end up in ISIL hands.
MS. HARF: Could.
QUESTION: It did. This is what they're --
MS. HARF: No, I actually have their statement in front of me, Roz, and I can read it for you. "A second resupply bundle was not recovered and may have been seized by ISIL. It is therefore possible that the video yesterday could be that missing bundle. The allegations, though, that were made that there were American-made weapons here that were recovered is not true, because we did not drop any American-made weapons."
QUESTION: Well, that said, does that give any pause to the idea of reconsidering doing more drops on behalf of the Kurds in Iraq --
MS. HARF: Not at all.
QUESTION: -- to assist the fighters?
MS. HARF: Not at all.
QUESTION: Why not?
MS. HARF: And all military missions incur some risk. But the alternative of doing nothing, of not making sure the fighters pushing back ISIL on the ground in and around Kobani have the weapons and the ammunition they need and the medical supplies they need, we don't think is a viable option. And this is a small amount of risk in this case. Obviously, this was a very small amount that may have fallen into the hands of someone else. But we believe that the overriding national security imperative to take the step is important enough.
QUESTION: Marie, can I --
QUESTION: On a related point regarding the land bridge, the Kurdish parliament voted to basically deploy some of its Peshmerga to Kobani. But we are also hearing that there is extreme reluctance to actually carry out the deployment, one, because they're needed to try to protect Kirkuk, to try to help defend Sinjar, and that they don't feel that there is enough, and there is a real sense that Turkey, once again, ought to be doing more to actually try to protect Kobani and the border. What is the U.S.'s view of the situation?
MS. HARF: Well, we'll let the Kurds answer for where they deployed their forces from Iraq. Obviously, that's their decision strategically to make. We had welcomed Turkey's announcement that it would allow these fighters to transition through Turkey to go fight in Kobani. So I know we're having conversations with the Turks about when this can start happening, with the Kurds as well, so those conversations are ongoing. But we do know, I will say, that they face a number of challenges on many fronts, and there are some resource challenges here.
QUESTION: How ironclad is Turkey's decision to create this land bridge? What kind of assistance are they going to be providing to any Peshmerga who do deploy? And do you anticipate that the U.S. will be involved in that deployment assistance as well?
MS. HARF: I can check with our team and see if we would have any role to play, and they'll – the Turks will have more information on those specifics.
QUESTION: Marie --
MS. HARF: Said, yes.
QUESTION: -- do you think that Turkey is speaking out of both sides of its mouth? On the one hand, they say --
MS. HARF: Am I going to get asked this question every day?
QUESTION: No, because – well, because we're getting all these contradictory statements coming out of the president of Turkey. I mean, one day they're cooperative and so on. The next day, as today, they expressed that they are quite upset with your efforts and so on. So what is their policy?
MS. HARF: Well, they are a valuable partner in this coalition, Said. They have agreed to take numerous steps along various lines of effort here. They're a strategic ally. We share the same goal of ultimately defeating ISIL. We are continuing to have discussions with them about tactically and strategically what that looks like and what role they are willing to play and what role we will play. Those conversations are ongoing. They don't have to commit to do every single thing on a checklist to cross some sort of threshold. They are taking valuable steps that are very significant.
QUESTION: One gets the feeling that they harbor the same kind of enmity, at least, if not even more, toward the Kurds than they do towards ISIS. Do you agree?
MS. HARF: I'll let them speak for their own feelings.
QUESTION: What are the valuable steps?
MS. HARF: They've agreed to host part of the train and equip program on their territory, which is a significant step. They've allowed to open this land bridge to allow Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters to transition through their territory to go fight in Kobani. They're cracking down on foreign fighters. They're cracking down on terrorist financing. They're playing a very key role here.
QUESTION: Marie, do you think – are they getting anything in return? They stated four – sort of four conditions to participate. Are they getting anything in return --
MS. HARF: It's like Groundhog Day in here.
QUESTION: -- like a promise maybe to have a safe haven where they can train the opposition?
MS. HARF: We are in constant discussions with them about what role they can play.
QUESTION: Okay. There's also – The Washington Post today wrote about a plan in Iraq to – that will gradually sort of --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: -- up the ante, so to speak and --
MS. HARF: Let's just stay with ISIL, then we'll get – I'll get to all of your questions, I promise.
Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. I just wanted to ask you if you would comment on that plan.
MS. HARF: Well, I'm not going to get into any possible future operations. Obviously, we're committed to working with the Iraqi Security Forces through our joint operation centers, through our advise and assist teams to degrade and defeat ISIL. What that will look like in the future, I'm just not going to speculate on.
QUESTION: I guess my question is: Is the strategy to confront ISIL in Syria independent than the one that you would conduct in Iraq, or are they together?
MS. HARF: No. Well, they're – they – they're not exactly the same, as we've talked about many times, but we believe it's important to confront them in both places, and that's why that's what we're doing.
QUESTION: Okay, so – but they would – well, let's say the Peshmerga going to fight in Kobani and perhaps at one point maybe the Sunni tribe would go on to fight in Syria. Is that a likelihood? Is that a possible scenario?
MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate, Said.
QUESTION: Marie.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Would you characterize the result of this air drop operation as successful?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: And will you coordinate these efforts in the future, this – the supply efforts to Kobani fighters – will you coordinate these efforts with Turkey?
MS. HARF: Well, I don't know if we'll do any more of these.
QUESTION: Sorry?
MS. HARF: I don't want to speculate. But we obviously made very clear to them, to the Turkish Government before we took this action, that we were going to.
QUESTION: That corridor will be helpful to reach these supplies to Kobani fighters?
MS. HARF: We – to get additional fighters into Kobani from Iraq.
QUESTION: How about supplies?
MS. HARF: I'm assuming supplies would move along the same route, but I don't really know the specifics.
QUESTION: Supply – do you mean the air drops?
MS. HARF: I'm sorry. What are you asking? I think you're conflating a couple different things, Tolga.
QUESTION: These air drops, will you follow these air drops, or will you replace this air drops operation with the corridor?
MS. HARF: Oh, sorry. You're conflating two things. The corridor is for Iraqi Kurdish fighters to go fight in Kobani. In terms of U.S. air drops, I don't have anything to predict. We may, we may not need to do them in the future.
QUESTION: Because it was – these weapons and ammunitions was belonging to Kurdish authorities and the – to Peshmerga.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So if the Peshmerga fighters will use this route, would it be possible to reach these supplies through the same route?
MS. HARF: I can check. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question on the bundles?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There's something I don't understand, and maybe one has to ask this at DOD, but the – in the conference call on Sunday night, one of the briefers on the White House call said that 27 bundles had been dropped. Yesterday, the Pentagon said that one of those had gone astray and been destroyed.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What I don't understand is whether 27 is indeed the correct number of bundles that was dropped and in fact it was 25 that got to the Syrian Kurds and then a 26th that may have gone to ISIS and then a 27th that was destroyed. Is that correct, or was it 28 bundles?
MS. HARF: Let me double-check. I remember the numbers, too. Let me double-check on that. But it was – you're right – one that was destroyed and then this was an additional one that we think that could have ended up with someone else.
QUESTION: Okay. If you could check on the numbers, that would be helpful. Thank you.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, I will.
QUESTION: Did you see the reports that the IS has used some toxic gas in parts of Kobani to sicken the Kurdish fighters?
MS. HARF: I hadn't seen that. I'll check on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Obviously, we would take any accusation of that very seriously.
QUESTION: Marie, your comment on the three teenage girls that were sent back?
MS. HARF: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: The three teenage American girls that --
MS. HARF: I think the FBI is probably best equipped to speak to that.
QUESTION: But you have no comment on that?
MS. HARF: I don't.
QUESTION: Yes, please. The first question regarding this when you say the Turkey participation in the coalition, and you mentioned they would allow the corridor to pass. Is this principally or let's say agreed about it between U.S. and Turks, or it's just your – what you want to be done?
MS. HARF: Well, the Turkish Government has publicly said they would do this.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: They've come out and said this. It's not about what we want. It's about them deciding to do this.
QUESTION: Okay. And the other thing which is related to training forces that you are talking about, you are talking about training forces for – Syrian forces, right?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, the Syrian opposition.
QUESTION: Opposition forces.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So when you are talking about the coalition, you mentioned before or other people mentioned and from this podium, that at least from what I remember, that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are ready to train Syrian opposition --
MS. HARF: Correct, to host part of the train and equip program. That's correct.
QUESTION: And it seems that at least from the Turkish side yesterday published article from presidential advisor, he was like saying about that those forces are not to fight ISIL, just ISIL.
MS. HARF: That's correct.
QUESTION: They are to fight --
MS. HARF: Assad.
QUESTION: -- Assad.
MS. HARF: That is correct.
QUESTION: So do you agree with that principle?
MS. HARF: We do. We've always said the Syrian opposition is not just fighting a war on one front against ISIL; they're also fighting against the regime.
QUESTION: So regarding the issue of – I know it's FBI answered about some details about those three girls, but if you see the itinerary is like going to Europe to go Turkey and then through to Syria. Is still the issue is neighboring countries, are they allowing foreigners to come in Syria to join ISIL?
MS. HARF: Well, without speaking about that specific case, we know there's a foreign fighter challenge in the region. And there are a variety of ways they can transit from places in the West, Europe, or here, to end up in Syria or Iraq. So obviously, we know there are a number of different corridors we need to help get people to work to shut down, so there are a number of different ways. The countries know they need to do more and they've started doing more, but it's a tough challenge.
QUESTION: To those who are really not experts in understanding map and understanding details of this coming in Syria, from your understanding, what are those countries, I mean, neighboring countries allowing people after all this?
MS. HARF: Well, I wouldn't use the term "allowing." Neighboring – these borders are very long, some of them are very porous in places. It's a challenge to secure an entire border. So the neighboring countries, I wouldn't say they're allowing people, but they need to do more to crack down on their borders, to close their borders, and they know that that needs to happen.
QUESTION: So do these people ask United States – I don't know if you have the answer or not – to cooperate with them in safe or safeguarding or guarding their borders (inaudible)?
MS. HARF: Well, we're certainly working with countries in the region on that line of effort, yes.
QUESTION: Marie?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Syrian opposition is upset with the U.S. because you provided arms to the PYD in Kobani when they were in need, and they've been calling – the opposition has been calling for arms from the U.S. since the beginning of the uprising and you didn't provide them with the arms that they have asked for. What's your answer?
MS. HARF: Well, we have been providing them. We have a train and equip program for the Syrian opposition, so we are providing them with this assistance. We have consistently increased the scale and scope of our assistance to them consistently over this entire effort.
QUESTION: That means you answered their calls and you provided them what they've called for?
MS. HARF: Well, we're in a constant discussion with them about what's most appropriate at what point in time to provide, as we are in any situation. So we have continued to increase our support to them. We will continue to do so. And we are right now, as I just mentioned, leading a train and equip program for the Syrian opposition.
QUESTION: And --
QUESTION: But that program – the program hasn't started yet in Saudi or Turkey, has it?
MS. HARF: It's the – it's ongoing. The Department of Defense can speak best to where that actually is in the process.
QUESTION: But for four years you didn't answer their calls for arms.
MS. HARF: You're expanding this timeline. As I said, as we said last summer, we significantly expanded the scale and scope of what we were providing them last summer. That's continued. So we have worked with them as they have grown, as they have come together and become more cohesive. That will continue.
QUESTION: And now they are calling for help from the international community because they are in a bad situation in Aleppo. Are you ready to intervene to help them?
MS. HARF: What does that mean?
QUESTION: To provide them with arms as you did with Kobani?
MS. HARF: We are currently participating in a train and equip program. We can check with the Defense Department --
QUESTION: For the long term, but now they are in need for arms.
MS. HARF: And we are working with them now to see if we can get them what they need.
QUESTION: Conversely, was it, in retrospect, a bad policy or a failed policy to arm any of the Syrian rebel group, seeing how most of them have morphed into ISIS?
MS. HARF: I think you just said a couple things in that statement that aren't true. I would not say most of them have morphed into ISIS. The Syrian --
QUESTION: A number of them.
MS. HARF: -- moderate opposition that we work with is very opposed to ISIS, certainly. So our support for them is a very important part of our strategy here.
QUESTION: Who are these groups that are moderate?
MS. HARF: Well, primarily we work with the FSA, as you know; on the political side with the SOC. These are groups leading moderate opposition forces in Syria right now. They have been continuing to grow, continuing to coalesce. They have very significant challenges on the ground, but I think you're well aware of who these guys are.
QUESTION: You agree that your allies, whether from the Gulf Cooperation Council or Turkey, have basically armed and financed and equipped and allowed fighters to go through the borders that morphed into ISIS?
MS. HARF: Well, as we've said for a very long time, we have not had evidence that any country or government was supporting ISIS. That's been a very long-standing line from this podium. We know there are challenges in the region with financing, with foreign fighters. We know countries believe they need to do more and it's not a challenge that any of us can do on our own, and they certainly feel the same way.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Regarding the corridor to Turkey to go to Syria and fight for Kobani, is agreement or this, whatever, principally agreed does include any number of people or a timeline, or it's up in the air?
MS. HARF: I'll let the Turks speak to those specifics.
Yes.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Can we stay on (inaudible)?
MS. HARF: Well, hold on. Can I go to someone who hasn't had one?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: On the same subject?
QUESTION: Yeah, same subject --
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- about Erdogan's remarks. Actually, today President Erdogan said that, "I presented a proposal to President Obama for Peshmerga forces to pass through Turkey." Do you confirm that?
MS. HARF: I am not going to confirm any discussions we may have had, but we certainly support their announcement that they would do this.
QUESTION: Also, one more question about Erdogan's remarks. He also said ISIL took some of the U.S.-dropped weapons. "It is now clear who the support was for and why it was lent." What do you think about this one?
MS. HARF: I hadn't seen those comments and I'm not really sure what to make of them, so I don't want to comment on them.
Yes.
QUESTION: Marie, I have some questions on Cyprus if --
MS. HARF: Is there anything else on ISIL before we go to Cyprus?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: And then we can go to Cyprus. Go ahead, you're up.
QUESTION: Thank you. Okay, the prime minister of Turkey Davutoglu said, and I quote, "Turkey would continue its seismic surveys in order to search for oil and gas in Cyprus continental shelf. We have the right and we can use that right any time we want." I wanted to know, what is the U.S. position on this issue?
MS. HARF: Well, it's exactly what I said yesterday and what we've always said: that we continue to recognize the Republic of Cyprus's right to develop its resources in its exclusive economic zone; continues to support strongly the negotiation process to reunify the island into a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation; and continue to believe that the island's oil and gas resources should be equitably shared between both communities in the context of an overall settlement.
QUESTION: So you don't agree with Mr. Davutoglu that Turkey has the right to go to the Cyprus exclusive economic zone and to find oil or gas?
MS. HARF: I think I just made clear our position. I don't have more to add to that.
Said.
QUESTION: New topic?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian and Israeli conflict?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Kerry said that the current situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis is not sustainable. Could you explain to us --
MS. HARF: We've all said that. That's been said by many people many times.
QUESTION: I understand. Well, let me ask you, what does that mean? What does it mean that it's not sustainable?
MS. HARF: It means that the best outcome for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people is two states living side by side in peace and security, this is – through a negotiated settlement. The current status quo is not sustainable. Multiple Administration officials have said that.
QUESTION: But the Israelis probably beg to differ because they have sustained an occupation since 1967. Would you disagree?
MS. HARF: Well, we would obviously say, Said, that under some sort of negotiated settlement, that would provide more security to Israel. That's the point here.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me – the Palestinians are planning to go to the Security Council. They claim to have seven votes already. They are working to get two more so they can submit the proposal to the Security Council about mid-month or right after the election. Are you aware of that or you have any comment on that?
MS. HARF: I had – obviously, I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals, Said. I know there's been some rumors about this, but I would reiterate that we strongly believe that the preferred course of action here is for the parties to reach an agreement on final status issues directly, and have long made clear the negotiations are the means by which this conflict will need to be resolved.
QUESTION: And in response, it seems that the Israelis have a plan to actually annex Area C, which is 60 percent of the West Bank. It's a plan that was submitted by the Minister of Economics Naftali Bennett last year, and it seems now they have agreed to it, whereby they give some Palestinians in that area some citizenship and so on. Are you aware of that in response to --
MS. HARF: I haven't seen that. I don't have any comment on it.
Yes, Jo.
QUESTION: Just to get back to the UN Security Council --
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- resolution, I believe the Palestinians need nine out of 15 members for it to go through. Are you working actively, as the United States, as an Administration, to try and dissuade people from backing the Palestinian move?
MS. HARF: Well, we've been engaging with the Israelis and the Palestinians on this, as well as with other parties in the Security Council, and we'll continue to do so. I don't have a readout of those conversations to give you, but we've made clear what our position is, and believe the best way forward here is direct negotiations.
QUESTION: And I wanted to ask, last week when we were traveling, there was an article that came out in Haaretz about a phone conversation that the Secretary had with Prime Minister Netanyahu – I believe it was a very lengthy phone conversation – during which apparently, according to the author's sources, the Secretary asked Prime Minister Netanyahu whether he would be, in any shape or form, prepared to go back to negotiations based on the 1967 borders. Is that something that's correct? Was the basic premise of this article correct?
MS. HARF: Well, I didn't see the article. I'm happy to take a look at it. Obviously, we're not going to read out the conversations the Secretary has with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but he hasn't been shy about saying – the Secretary hasn't been shy about saying that eventually, if we can get back to the table, we'd like to.
QUESTION: But are there any active moves to try and get back to the table --
MS. HARF: I think --
QUESTION: -- rather than just the sort of "We want to do it," but are you actively trying to --
MS. HARF: I can check with our team, but we can't want it more than they do.
QUESTION: Yes, please.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Regarding this description or diagnosis of that the status quo is not sustainable, is U.S., as honest broker, mediator, peace partner, whatever you can describe yourself, planning to do anything, or just describing that the status quo is sustain – is not sustainable?
MS. HARF: I think you've seen what – the activity in this building over the past year aimed at trying to see if we can bring these two parties together and eventually get to a negotiated settlement here. I think that we can be accused of a lot of things. One of them is not inaction, though. So on this, we are very committed to it. We can't want it more than they do. But this remains a top priority of the Secretary's and of this Administration's.
QUESTION: I'm trying to figure out, I mean, to – just to know an – have an idea. It's – I'm not talking about the past, of the last year. I'm talking about, from now on, I mean the coming weeks, is there any intention or planning or at least wish to start something? And how you are trying to do something which is diplomatically acceptable or palatable to both sides?
MS. HARF: Well, certainly, what we've been focused on most recently is trying to get a long-term sustainable ceasefire in place in Gaza, given the recent conflict there. So that's been what we've been most focused on. But at the same time, as you heard the Secretary say in Cairo, long term, the way to resolve this is through a negotiated settlement.
QUESTION: Can I ask (inaudible), do you have any information about this car ramming that happened in Jerusalem today?
MS. HARF: We've seen the reports. We're concerned about them, obviously condemn any such acts. The Israelis are currently looking into the incident. We are in touch with them and we'll see what more information we can get, also urge all sides to exercise restraint and maintain calm. But we don't have more details on it.
QUESTION: Are you aware of – there are reports that apparently, the three people who were injured were Americans?
MS. HARF: I was not aware of that.
QUESTION: Okay. Could you check?
MS. HARF: I can.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Marie, on Libya, I've asked you yesterday about the Libyan Government decision or orders to the army to retake the capital after their advances in Benghazi today. Do you have anything on this?
MS. HARF: Well, we would reiterate that there's no military solution to Libya's problems here. And their problems are political, mainly, and violence won't solve them. As I said yesterday, to end the current crisis Libyans must immediately rein in militias, cease violence, and engage in the productive political dialogue led by their UN special representative. So that's the path forward here. That's what we believe needs to happen.
QUESTION: But the government says that it's fighting terrorism in Benghazi first, and then the militia in the capital second. Don't you support them?
MS. HARF: I think I've just made clear our position.
Yes.
QUESTION: Regarding Libya, what is U.S. level of contact with Libya? I mean, it's like – is there ambassador there or not? Is – for a while --
MS. HARF: Our ambassador is not in Libya. Ambassador Jones is based out of Malta.
QUESTION: Malta.
MS. HARF: She remains in many, many conversations with the Libyans from there. We have a whole team still focused on Libya, of course, there and in this building. The Secretary – Secretary Kerry met with the Libyans when we were in Paris last week as well.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Iraq --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and the last war? Four former workers for Blackwater were --
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- convicted today, three of manslaughter, one of murder. What message does this send to those in Iraq, those across the greater Middle East, about the U.S. being able to hold people accountable for their bad behavior overseas?
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly respect the court's decision in this case. And as you all probably know, but following the tragedy there, the Department took a number of steps to strengthen oversight of private security contractors, such as moving quickly to improve investigative policies and strengthening procedures for use of force and less-than-lethal force by security contractors. So again, aren't going to have more comment on the court's decision other than we respect it.
QUESTION: But in terms of the U.S.'s reputation, obviously, Nisour Square was a huge hit for the U.S.'s reputation. Is this verdict something that this building can point to when engaging with other countries on – look, if people do something wrong, they can and will be held accountable?
MS. HARF: Well, I don't think the verdict per se, but the process and the judicial process we have in this country that we believe gives everyone access to a fair trial; they are innocent until proven guilty. And without speaking to the specific outcome in this trial, I do think that that is a very important tenet of what we do here.
QUESTION: Has anyone from this building spoken to anyone in the Iraqi Government about the verdict?
MS. HARF: I don't know. I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: In the aftermath of that attack, the Iraqi parliament passed laws that limited the number of foreign PSDs that were allowed in Iraq and limited their weapons access, permits, all of that. Now that this verdict has come back, do you envision a scenario where the State Department could ask the Government of Iraq to loosen some of those restrictions?
MS. HARF: I can check, but obviously, it's a very, very different situation today.
QUESTION: It is, but I mean, there are still all sorts of NGOs, journalists who need PSDs and weapons --
MS. HARF: Let me check.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Scott, yes.
QUESTION: Do you know anything more than the maybe ceasefire in Nigeria with Boko Haram?
MS. HARF: Nothing new on that. No updates from our team.
QUESTION: You've explained that U.S. officials had no role in bringing about what might be a ceasefire. Is there any role now in trying to push it forward, like talking to authorities in Chad as a convening authority?
MS. HARF: Let me check on that. I'm not sure about. Let me check for you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) readout or give us, rather, the list of Secretary Kerry's phone calls?
MS. HARF: At the moment, I have none on the list from today.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: But I can check when I get back to my desk and see if any have happened while I was in prep or out here. Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:53 p.m.)
DPB #179
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
