• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 12, 2014

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
ISRAEL
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
IRAN/RUSSIA
IRAN
RUSSIA
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION
EGYPT
YEMEN
SYRIA/IRAN/REGION
DEPARTMENT/FERGUSON
INDIA
TURKEY
NIGERIA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:15 p.m. EST

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. All right, just a couple of things for all of you at the top. On Tuesday evening and for most of the day yesterday, Secretary Kerry joined President Obama and other senior U.S. officials in bilateral meetings with the Chinese. On Tuesday evening, he joined President Obama for dinner with President Xi. This was followed by further meetings and a state luncheon earlier today in China, so much before we are meeting here right now. These meetings resulted in the U.S.-China joint announcement on climate change; an agreement on the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement, ITA; an agreement on military-to-military confidence-building mechanisms – CBMs – to increase transparency and predictability and to reduce risk of unplanned encounters.

Security Kerry also handed back the first 10-year validity visas to a group of Chinese businesspeople and five-year validity visas to students at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing earlier today. When meeting with the visa recipients and with members of the U.S. Embassy consular team, Secretary Kerry highlighted the many ways the reciprocal visa validity extension will benefit the people and economies of the United States and China.

As you know, Secretary Kerry is on his way right now to Amman. President Obama is continuing his trip in Asia, and he'll be arriving – he arrived, I should say, Wednesday evening in Nay Pyi Daw, Burma, where he attended the gala dinner at the East Asia Summit.

With that --

QUESTION: Wait, I'm sorry, I was – I thought he – where is the Secretary right now?

MS. PSAKI: On his way to Amman, Jordan.

QUESTION: Okay. And he's going to be doing what there?

MS. PSAKI: While he's in Amman, he will have – the schedule – this was just added over the last 48 hours given the events on the ground and the tensions on the ground in the region. So he'll be meeting with King Abdullah. He'll have a private dinner with him. He'll also be meeting with President Abbas. Obviously, the schedule is still being finalized, but that's what we have at this point in time.

QUESTION: Okay. Does that mean that there's a possibility that he might meet Prime Minister Netanyahu or some Israeli official?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again – I mean, if there's something added to the schedule, we will certainly let you all know. But I would remind you that he speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu probably almost every other day, and he'll continue to do that.

QUESTION: Right, but I mean, you guys have made a big point out of – for the – over – since the tensions began --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that – saying that all sides need to exercise restraint, all sides need to do more.

MS. PSAKI: You're right.

QUESTION: And so if he's only meeting with the king of Jordan and the president of the Palestinian Authority, that would suggest that you think that they are the ones that need to do more.

MS. PSAKI: It's actually not suggesting that. That's why I mentioned the calls, because he doesn't speak with President Abbas as frequently on the phone. He and Prime Minister Netanyahu tend to speak frequently on the phone. As you know, President Abbas has a home in Amman, Jordan, so it's pretty easy to reach him there. But if anything changes in the schedule, we'll let you all know.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you --

QUESTION: What's the timing of the meeting with Abbas? Is it today, tomorrow?

MS. PSAKI: It's still being scheduled. They don't land for a few hours there. It's later there, so tomorrow is the most likely option.

QUESTION: Can I just ask if – you probably saw the announcement in Jerusalem today of 200 new housing units in East Jerusalem. I'm – I assume that your position has not changed on this kind of activity, but could you remind us of what your position is? And also, does that have anything to do with why there isn't any – yet any meeting with an Israeli official on the Secretary's agenda?

MS. PSAKI: No. Just to address the meeting question first, this just came together in the last few days given tensions on the ground. And I'll just reiterate again that he speaks frequently – almost every other day – with Prime Minister Netanyahu. So – and President Abbas has a home in Amman. That's the reason where the – for why the schedule stands where it does.

In terms of the settlements, we – or the announcement, I should say, of new housing units in East Jerusalem – we are deeply concerned by this decision, particularly given the tense situation in Jerusalem as well as the unequivocal and unanimous position of the United States and others in the international community opposing such construction in East Jerusalem. These decisions to expand construction have the potential to exacerbate this difficult situation on the ground, and they will not contribute to efforts to reduce the tensions. So we will certainly continue to emphasize privately, as I just said publicly, our concerns.

QUESTION: Okay. That was an interesting semi-slip of the – are you exasperated with the Israelis?

MS. PSAKI: I said "exacerbate," the potential to --

QUESTION: I know, but you started to – sounded like you started to say "exasperate." But anyway, I'm just wondering if you – are you exasperated with the Israelis for continuing to make these announcements when you say that they will cause the tension or have the potential to cause the tension to rise?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we feel they will exacerbate the difficult situation – the announcement of this construction, building will. That's our concern about them. So certainly, we will continue to express to both the Israelis and the Palestinians our concerns and the need to do more.

QUESTION: Leaving aside whether you are exasperated or not – forgive me – are you not frustrated that the current Israeli Government repeatedly, continually, consistently flouts your advice on this, flouts your calls to cease this kind of activity, ignores or flouts your --

MS. PSAKI: It's not just our view, Arshad. It's the view of the --

QUESTION: I know, but I'm not talking --

MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. It's our --

QUESTION: Well, wait. But I'm not talking to the whole international community here. I'm asking you.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, but I think that's relevant context.

QUESTION: But I'm not – I don't care whether other people are frustrated about it.

MS. PSAKI: But it's relevant.

QUESTION: I'm interested in whether the U.S. Government is frustrated about it. I can ask other people what they think. Are you frustrated that the Israeli Government repeatedly flouts your request that they cease this activity?

MS. PSAKI: As I stated, we're deeply concerned by these announcements. I would – I referenced the international community not about who is exacerbate – like, you know what I'm saying; I'm not even going to try that anymore – who is --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: -- frustrated or not, but to make the point that this is a view held by many in the international community, not just the United States. That's important context. Of course, we continue to raise these issues, but most importantly, they're contrary to Israel's own stated goal of achieving a two-state solution because they make it more difficult to do that.

QUESTION: I think, Jen, one of the reasons why Arshad and I are directing this question to you is because unlike other members of the international community, who you cite many of who agree with you, the United States Government has leverage with the Israelis in a way that the Europeans, for example, do not.

MS. PSAKI: We also have an important security relationship with Israel --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- and we are one of the greatest providers of security assistance to them as well.

QUESTION: So – right. Exactly. So – and no amount of announcements of new housing units or new settlements in the West Bank is going to have any impact on that security relationship, right?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. So you basically cede your leverage.

MS. PSAKI: I didn't suggest that. I think our word means a great deal in the international community.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Quickly follow on this, do you agree that --

QUESTION: Do you think it means much to the Israeli Government?

MS. PSAKI: I think it does, Arshad. And I think that's why we have an ongoing dialogue with them and why the Secretary's speaking with them regularly.

QUESTION: If it means something to the Israeli Government, why do they continually not do what you ask them to do?

MS. PSAKI: Why don't you ask the Israeli Government that question.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you, do you agree that this year has seen really accelerated settlement activities that, in fact, threatens the future of whatever initiative that you might have in terms of achieving or restarting the peace negotiations, correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think as I just stated in response to Arshad's question, obviously the ongoing construction announcements do fly in the face of the stated goal of achieving a two-state solution, because it predetermines or pre-decides where construction should be, where buildings should be, in other areas where settlements should be.

QUESTION: Okay. So the extent of your concern would basically be the statements that you just made, correct? We are not likely to see any action from the United States that can actually impact Israel's decisions. Are we likely to see that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – Said, I think every country is going to make their own decisions. But obviously, I don't think the Israelis want to see the tensions and the violence on the ground right now. They've stated they want to see a two-state solution, and certainly there are steps that need to be taken to achieve that.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on Matt's question, that you have leverage. Now other countries such as France, other European countries, where – they are recognizing the Palestinians. Will you follow suit? Ultimately, if they – if all the community in which you agree with – as you stated, this is an international position – if they one by one, if they go ahead and recognize the Palestinian state, will you do the same thing? Or will you sort of not counter any effort at the United Nations to pursue --

MS. PSAKI: Said, as you know, we support Palestinian statehood. We believe that it should be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties that resolve the final status issues and end the conflict.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: That has consistently been our position.

QUESTION: I understand. But you support a Palestinian state within certain boundaries, correct? Within certain – on certain territories (inaudible) --

MS. PSAKI: We believe it should be negotiated, Said, between the parties.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Regarding Secretary Kerry trip, I think it was mentioned yesterday he's going to UAE after this Amman trip.

MS. PSAKI: He is no longer – he's not going to the UAE.

QUESTION: Okay. It's canceled now?

MS. PSAKI: It was never – it was --

QUESTION: It was announced as a --

MS. PSAKI: I understand that, but he's not going.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Can I follow up just to --

MS. PSAKI: I believe it was a note that went to the traveling press and may have been sent --

QUESTION: Or it was statement that maybe --

MS. PSAKI: Okay. He's no longer going. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: There's a difference Oman and Amman, but they can kind of get confused sometimes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Can I just ask you, in terms of – and I realize --

MS. PSAKI: No, I don't think that was the issue. I think there was a note that went that he was going to the UAE. He's not going to the UAE.

QUESTION: Ah.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just --

QUESTION: So when is he – sorry. Sorry, Matt. When is he planning to be home? Or does that depend on the talks in Amman?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any update on that, Jo. Obviously, he'll be in Amman tomorrow and I'll refer to the traveling team to update – the team traveling with him on what his plans will be.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just – and I realize that the traveling people – the people traveling are a better place and the Secretary himself better place to get this, but would you expect the Secretary in his meeting with President Abbas to raise the issue of incitement that the Israelis have complained about – about the letter, the condolence letter that he sent to the family of the alleged (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I expect they'll focus on de-escalating tensions, particularly surrounding Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount and the importance of maintaining calm. They'll also likely discuss developments in Gaza, including reconstruction efforts. So I expect they'll discuss a range of issues, including the increasing tensions on the ground.

QUESTION: Is it still the case that you're not satisfied with what the Palestinians have done to try – or what the Palestinian leadership has done to try --

MS. PSAKI: We believe both sides can do more and continue to believe that.

QUESTION: And he would make the same case with Prime Minister Netanyahu --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- or other Israelis --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- if he had the opportunity?

MS. PSAKI: And he will because he speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu practically every other day.

QUESTION: I know. But there's a difference between a phone call and/or a secure video call and actually being there on the ground and, say, coming out for a photo op or a press availability and saying directly to the leader's face, whether that is President Abbas or Prime Minister Netanyahu, "Look, we think you need to do more." There is a difference.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can assure you that point has been made to both sides and we'll continue to make it.

QUESTION: Did you agree that – yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of Arafat's death, and on that occasion, many Israeli politicians and ministers issued statements saying that Abbas is much worse than Arafat, that he was really a clever embodiment of evil, he incites all the time. Do you agree with any of these assessments? Do you believe that Yasser – I mean, Abbas intentionally provokes and incites against the Israelis?

MS. PSAKI: The Secretary continues to believe that President Abbas is not only a close friend – he doesn't just believe that, he actively partakes in that friendship – but also he believes he is – continues to be an important partner for peace.

QUESTION: He actively partakes – (laughter) – okay. That's --

MS. PSAKI: He doesn't just believe they're friends; he is a friend.

QUESTION: And by extension, he also believes that Prime Minister Netanyahu is?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that's correct.

QUESTION: Okay. But the – with – the two sides don't see each other that way. You acknowledge that that's a problem?

MS. PSAKI: Agreed. But we continue to believe that they both can be partners for peace.

QUESTION: But does the Secretary believe that his personal friendship with each person can somehow bridge the divide?

MS. PSAKI: That is not at all what I said and wasn't what Said's question was.

QUESTION: I know. But that's what I'm asking you.

MS. PSAKI: I think the Secretary believes it's up to both leaders, it's up to both the Palestinians and the Israelis to make choices needed to get back to the table.

QUESTION: Did you see there was some --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) negotiations are so hopelessly frozen – sorry, Jo. Is there any effort or any new initiative that – or we are likely to see, let's say, in the next few weeks, in the next months?

MS. PSAKI: I expect they'll continue when the Secretary has meetings with King Abdullah and with President Abbas. They'll certainly discuss broadly the need for a two-state solution and the importance of that path. But no, I don't have any new initiatives to preview for you.

QUESTION: I wondered if you had a reaction to the torching of a mosque in the West Bank today by some Jewish extremists.

MS. PSAKI: Let's see. The United States condemns the attack against a mosque in the West Bank. We believe that such hateful and provocative actions against a place of worship are never justified. We look to law enforcement officials to quickly investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack. We encourage local authorities to work together with the community to reduce tension, to defend religious freedom, and to work against incitement.

Do we have any more on this topic?

QUESTION: Well, this is related to Israel, but it's not on this issue.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: And I realize that this had a confidentiality, whatever, privacy written all over it, but it has become an issue.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There are reports that the State Department denied the renewal of an Israeli basketball player who was – the Indiana Pacers were trying to sign or to – I understand that that's not correct, that it wasn't denied, but I'm wondering if you can explain what the problem was that led to him being not allowed to play for the Pacers.

MS. PSAKI: Well, as is true of almost – most of these cases, which you referred to in your question, I can't speak to specifics. I can convey, though, that the Department of Homeland Security handles, among other responsibilities, requests for petitions and extensions and adjustments of status. And often when individuals are requesting for an extension of a stay, that is where their case would go. So that would not be the State Department.

QUESTION: Okay, but – so in other words, the State Department had nothing to do with this case? Is that what you're saying?

MS. PSAKI: Well, my understanding is that this case – cases like these sit in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security.

QUESTION: And that is – even just an extension of a visa is with DHS? Or is it only a change in status if the applicant is changing – a change in their status?

MS. PSAKI: Well, extensions, adjustments of status, requests for petitions, which I believe these particular reports pertain to, are applicable, too.

QUESTION: Well, okay. So are you saying, then, that in this case, the State Department didn't have anything to do with it? Is that what you're saying?

MS. PSAKI: My understanding, Matt, is this is in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security.

QUESTION: Okay. And there is nothing – this case is not being handled – or let's say: Is it correct that this case is being handled the same way other similar cases of foreign athletes are being handled and there is not any difference simply because this guy is Israeli?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. Obviously, every case is adjudicated individually, just like when we handle visas, but --

QUESTION: Right. But his citizenship to a particular country is not involved in it?

MS. PSAKI: No. But I would --

QUESTION: Because – but you remember earlier this year there was a lot of concern on the Hill about tourist visas and other things for Israeli citizens being delayed or rejected. This has nothing to do with that?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to DHS, Matt, but there's – I don't have any more information on this particular case.

More? In the front.

QUESTION: Change the topic, perhaps?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we go to Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There – so the NATO chief has come out today and sort of also backed up what you were saying yesterday about more convoys of trucks and so on, and they're going into eastern Ukraine from Russia. And the Ukrainian defense minister now is warning about there might be possible new fighting, and that they're gearing up their forces for combat operations and preparing their reserves as well. Is there a fear in this building that we're on the brink of some kind of all-out fighting again in Eastern Europe – in eastern – sorry, in eastern Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we've been concerned for months now, as you know, since the beginning of this conflict about the impact of the illegal actions of Russian-backed separatists and those who are going into cities and towns around Ukraine. I would note, as you noted, General Breedlove – I think who you were referring to – has indicated a NATO – that NATO has seen the same developments reported by the OSCE, that large military convoys of Russia-supplied heavy weapons and tanks have moved to the front lines of the conflict in recent days.

Obviously, our preference would be to see a ceasefire continue. And what we've seen is ongoing, continuous, blatant violations of the Minsk protocol by Russia and its proxies. Now, it remains the case that Ukraine has the right to defend itself and its territory, but certainly the reason we supported the Minsk protocol is because we wanted to see a peaceful resolution. I'm not going to get ahead of where we are now because, obviously, we've seen these reports. I don't have anything new from the U.S. Government in terms of confirmation, though we certainly stand by what the OSCE and NATO have said about where the convoys are.

QUESTION: What is the United States actively trying to do to de-escalate the tensions in that region? There was a meeting in Beijing between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. And Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov today as well. They talked about Iran and the P5+1 negotiations, but they also talked about Ukraine and our ongoing concerns about escalating tensions there, the need to abide by the Minsk protocols, and we'll continue to press these issues and discuss with other counterparts in the world what our concerns are.

QUESTION: But is there any kind – is there any move to try and bring the sides together in a negotiation at the moment? I mean, it's all well and good to say that you're concerned about it, but it does seem that there's no diplomatic --

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, Jo, in the past that hasn't – the United States hasn't been a party to those. In terms of how it would proceed in the future, obviously, handling things diplomatically is always our preference. I don't have anything to preview for you in terms of the OSCE and what they may or may not be doing or working on, but obviously our objective is to get back to the ceasefire and the agreements made under the Minsk protocol.

QUESTION: Jen, it seems as though both sides – both the U.S. and Russia, or at least through what you just said about Secretary Kerry and then what the Russians are saying about Foreign Minister Lavrov – both – you're both saying the Minsk agreements needed to be abided by. And yet, you're saying that the Ukrainians are abiding by it and the Russians aren't, while the Russians say the exact opposite. I mean, is there a point to these conversations when they're just talking past each other?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: You can't even agree on this – you can't agree on the facts.

MS. PSAKI: Matt, the challenge with the account of the Russians is that NATO and the OSCE both conveyed that a large military – that large military convoys of Russian-supplied heavy weapons and tanks have moved to the front lines of the conflict in recent days. That's a clear violation of the Minsk protocols. So we're talking about actions and what's happening on the ground. We certainly agree that the Minsk protocols need to be abided by, but the actions of the Russians and their proxies is not backing up their rhetoric. That's our concern.

QUESTION: Well – but do you think that there's a fundamental misunderstanding by one party or another as to what the Minsk agreements actually call for?

MS. PSAKI: There should certainly not be. We've been pretty clear they include everything from the release of political prisoners to moving back military to moving back from the border. And obviously these are things – these actions that have been taken are contrary to it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: They're very clearly stated out.

QUESTION: But you don't – and you don't see anything that the Kyiv government is doing as being in violation of Minsk? Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure what the Russians are referring to. Did they get specific about what they convey as the violation?

QUESTION: Well, they're talking – I mean, they talk about shelling of civilian buildings in Donetsk and other places in the east. I mean, if the Ukrainians are doing that, isn't that a violation of Minsk?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Russian-backed separatists – there's been intensified shelling around the Donetsk airport as well as Debaltseve where separatists appear intent on moving forces well beyond the lines agreed in Minsk. So again, this is a case where there are Russian-backed separatists aggressively going into land that is owned by Ukraine and is Ukrainian land and conveying that the Ukrainians can't take steps to defend themselves. And we just don't agree with that.

QUESTION: Okay. But you – so you don't – do you see no validity at all to Russian arguments that the Ukrainian army is also violating Minsk?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I have not heard any specifics that warrant – that would qualify as a violation.

QUESTION: Could you say anything about the Security Council this afternoon? There is a call for the Security Council to move --

MS. PSAKI: You're right. Samantha Power – Ambassador Samantha Power will be speaking later this afternoon. I believe the meeting starts around 2:30.

QUESTION: 2:30?

MS. PSAKI: So she'll speak shortly after that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a few questions about that one?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Why did you feel the need to call for a Security Council meeting on this? And second, did the Secretary convey to Foreign Minister Lavrov in private what you from the podium and many other U.S. Government officials had publicly that further Russian violations of the ceasefire agreement would lead to Russia paying an increasing – would raise the cost to Russia of its behavior?

MS. PSAKI: We have definitely conveyed that privately to the Russians just as we've conveyed that publicly.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary do that? Do you know?

MS. PSAKI: On their recent call it was certainly expressing our concerns about the situation in Ukraine. I think it's – they know what the consequences will be should they proceed down this path.

What was your second question?

QUESTION: The other one was why you felt it – why you felt it necessary to call for the Security Council meeting for Ambassador Power to speak at on Ukraine.

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, we're concerned about continuous blatant violations of the Minsk Protocol and we're certainly concerned about tensions on the ground and reports over the past couple of days about the developments seen by NATO and the OSCE. As you know, there have been meetings in the past – several over the past several months about this – and I expect Ambassador Power will speak to this in the next hour or so, if I'm doing my time right.

QUESTION: Can I start a new topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: One more on Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: One more on Ukraine? Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. I mean, it just seems like an appropriate day, Jen, given the statements from NATO today and whatnot – could you remind us a little bit about what these consequences will be beyond just saying we don't agree, we don't agree? Is there actually something being seriously discussed in this building with regard to perhaps increasing sanctions, leveling new sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I will say that, one, we continue to work closely with the EU to look at how we can jointly impose more costs on Russia for its unacceptable behavior. We and our allies and partners would be prepared to broaden and deepen existing sanctions. But I would also remind you that because there are so many executive orders or the European versions of that in place, I think Chancellor Merkel referenced the openness to adding people or entitles. So that's really what we'd be talking about. I don't have anything further to preview other than to convey that's – continues to be where we stand and we'll continue to coordinate and discuss exactly those issues.

QUESTION: Does it feel more likely today than, say, three days ago before there were Russian heavy armor and troops moving across the border that we might be moving closer to what you just described, adding individuals? Does this move closer today?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Guy, with every additional aggressive action it increases our focus and increases our level of discussion.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to ask you a couple of questions on Iran on the prospect of a nuclear deal.

MS. PSAKI: On Iran? Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday we heard that Russia signed a nuclear deal with Iran and to build nuclear reactors. Do you have any reaction to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, just broadly speaking, civilian nuclear cooperation is not prohibited by UN Security Council resolutions. As you know, Russia has in the past built or had similar deals, and this is separate, technically speaking, from our negotiations with the P5+1, of which Russia continues to be a part.

I can assure you that through our work with the P5+1, including Russia, we take into account all the possible pathways to a bomb, including any possible enrichment pathway.

QUESTION: So are you saying it will have no impact whatsoever on the nuclear deal (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it's separate. We look – it's technically separate from the negotiations over a nuclear deal.

QUESTION: But it will, like, make Iran's hand stronger in the negotiations Iran with the West?

MS. PSAKI: I don't – we don't believe it will make their heads --

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Did you say heads stronger?

QUESTION: Hand.

MS. PSAKI: Hand stronger. Hand stronger. No.

QUESTION: Sorry for that pronunciation. It's --

MS. PSAKI: No, no, not a problem. Just wanted to state what you said correctly.

QUESTION: So one more question on – like while everybody, like, agrees that President Rouhani doesn't have the final say on any nuclear deal with the West – it's, rather, Ayatollah Khamenei – but many people in the Middle East, or at least in Iran, believe that it's kind of the same here in America as well, that President Obama doesn't have all the power that he should have on this issue. It's the Congress that constrains him hugely. Do you --

MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure Congress would appreciate that comparison – (laughter) – but go ahead.

QUESTION: And do you also believe that, like, we can say that it – it's the same here, President Obama is equally constrained by other institutions?

MS. PSAKI: No, I would disagree with that. I think every country has their own politics. Iran certainly has their own, and you've seen some of the public comments they've made over the last several months that speaks to that. Obviously, for us, we've been working closely with Congress to keep them abreast of these discussions and negotiations, and we continue to encourage any member of Congress to look closely at whatever final contents of a deal are before they make judgments. But there is certainly a different relationship, and I don't think there's a comparison to be made.

QUESTION: Can Congress kill a deal with Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Can Congress kill a deal with Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we believe that the negotiators are the ones who need to have the freedom to make the decision. We've been – our position on whether or not there should be new sanctions legislation put in place has been consistent throughout this process because we feel that would be damaging to the negotiations.

QUESTION: Congress has the last say-so.

QUESTION: Then I'm curious. If you say that you encourage any member of Congress to look at the final deal but wait for the final deal, isn't – I mean, isn't that too late? Are you saying that if you do reach an agreement, you won't actually sign it until after you weigh in with members of Congress?

MS. PSAKI: Not what I was suggesting. We've been keeping Congress abreast throughout. I'm certain we will do that in the final weeks as well.

QUESTION: Right, but if you've been keeping them abreast throughout, including up to this point right now, today, and they're still opposed to it and still think it's a bad deal, aren't you suggesting, then, that by saying that you encourage members to look at a final deal, before they take --

MS. PSAKI: Well, there isn't a deal yet, Matt, so they haven't been briefed on a deal since there isn't a deal yet.

QUESTION: Well, okay, but what you've briefed them on so far, they don't like. Is that inaccurate?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think some – there are some members who have some views and some who have other views, but they haven't seen the content of what a final agreement would look like because there isn't a final agreement yet.

QUESTION: Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anyone in Congress saying, "Wow, I think this is a great deal," or that this is going in the right direction.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they --

QUESTION: Maybe there are, but I haven't seen them. Certainly --

MS. PSAKI: There are some who are making evaluations without having all the details, because the details aren't knowable yet.

QUESTION: Right, okay. But you're saying that they – before they weigh in, they should wait for a final agreement. Doesn't that mean that if – that it's too late at that point if they're not – I mean, it's too late for --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I will – without giving you the exact briefing schedule of how we will keep Congress abreast, I can assure you that throughout the coming weeks, we will be keeping key committee members, key members of Congress, key individuals who have a stake in this abreast of how the progress is proceeding.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, do you understand what I'm getting at? I mean, if – you're saying that they should hold off on any comments until they see what the final deal is.

MS. PSAKI: I said hold off on making a judgment.

QUESTION: Right. If they should hold off on making a judgment until they see what the final deal is, doesn't that mean that they're going to be presented with a fait accompli? Or are you --

MS. PSAKI: That's actually not at all what I said.

QUESTION: Or are you saying – okay, then explain – then are you saying that once you get a deal – if you get a deal with Iran in Vienna or wherever else it might be, that you will not sign it, that you will come back here, brief --

MS. PSAKI: Not what I said either, and that's – no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I said we will be keeping Congress abreast throughout this process with briefings.

QUESTION: So if --

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we don't have a deal yet. When we have a deal, we'll continue those discussions. I'm not going to lay it out more further than that.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. But you're saying that you would go ahead – even though you're telling Congress that they can't make a judgment because they won't know all the details until a final deal is reached, you're saying that a final deal is going to be signed off on and then you're going to brief Congress about the results?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to get into more details about our briefing of Congress.

Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: But you know any deal will finally involve lifting all the sanctions, all of the sanctions. And Congress can only do that, correct? So – and in fact, they do have --

MS. PSAKI: That is not correct, Said.

QUESTION: That is incorrect? Congress would not – Congress would --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Samir. No, that's not correct. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Did Deputy Sherman leave Muscat, or are they still there?

MS. PSAKI: She did. She's on her way back.

QUESTION: To Washington, right?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm, yes.

QUESTION: To Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Iran? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. Can you describe us or, let's say, let us understand what was achieved in the last three days in Muscat, at least in your words? What was achieved?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we're in the final weeks here, as you know. The deadline is two – in about a week and a half, so this is obviously a key time in the negotiations. Typically with negotiations, the key decisions, the key moments happen in the final days, and we believe that will be the case here as well. Technically speaking, the meetings in Oman have concluded. There were two full days of trilateral meetings, with Secretary Kerry meeting with Baroness Ashton and Foreign Minister Zarif, followed by a day of meetings among the P5+1 political directors. They'll be reconvening next week, as has already been previously announced. So we're continuing to chip away and have tough discussions about these challenging issues. We can't read out and tick-tock exact progress and exact moments because that would be harmful to the negotiations.

QUESTION: So the next step is Vienna 18th, right?

MS. PSAKI: Correct, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And without going in details or talking about the steps that you are taking with the Congress, just like if – are you updating the Congress now – at least it's something going on from now till 18, or it's going to be updated later after 18 or after 26?

MS. PSAKI: We've had ongoing discussions with a range of members of Congress for months now.

QUESTION: So Jen, just – Senators Kirk and Menendez put a statement out. You might have seen it. It was a little while ago, but it's been sent to me again here. They say – and they are no slouches on this issue, having been the sponsors of the legislation that the Administration eventually supported that put these tough sanctions into place --

MS. PSAKI: That President Obama and Secretary Kerry were the driving forces on – but go ahead. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, right, but I mean, they supported it in – on the Hill.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: But anyway --

MS. PSAKI: They supported it.

QUESTION: -- this statement says, "We believe that a good deal will dismantle, not just stall Iran's illicit nuclear program and prevent Iran from ever becoming a threshold nuclear weapons state. This will require stringent limits on nuclear-related research, development, and procurement; coming clean on all possible military dimension issues; and a robust inspection and verification regime for decades to prevent Iran from breaking out or covertly sneaking out." Is that the Administration's position as well?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: Do you – does the Administration agree with that as --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, our position is we are negotiating with Iran about preventing them from acquiring a nuclear weapon by cutting off all of the pathways for them to acquire that. There are a range of steps that need to be included in there, including stringent monitoring, stringent verification, but I'm going to leave what our view is as that.

More on Iran or should we move on?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Back to Russia?

MS. PSAKI: Russia? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: There was an announcement this morning by Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia was going to be extending the range of its long-range heavy duty bombers, of which they've got 150 in their fleet going as far as the Gulf of Mexico, and certainly, in the other direction, a very significant shift in policy with regard to surveillance on the defense side. Have you any comment on that from State?

MS. PSAKI: Let me – I haven't had a chance to talk to our team about this. I've seen the reports on it. But why don't we – I'll do that after the briefing. We'll get you something more substantive and around to others who are interested.

Go ahead, Abby, and we'll go you, Nicolas, next.

QUESTION: Sorry, I just wanted clarification.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Were you saying, when you were speaking about Ukraine, that there were just – you had just seen troops – just seen Russia building up along the border and not crossing over the border?

MS. PSAKI: So NATO and the OSCE have spoken to this and they've spoken about proceeding past the border. We don't have any reason to question that, but we don't have any independent, new information from the United States.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And General Breedlove spoke a little bit to this earlier today, and the OSCE did over the last couple of days.

Go ahead. Oh, go ahead. I said you could go next, sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can we move to Iraq/Syria and slash --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- ISIS?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any independent information about the fate of Baghdadi since Monday?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any new information.

QUESTION: Okay. One U.S. lawmaker, Mr. McCaul, said this morning in Time Magazine that – he criticized the security gaps, security shortcomings in Europe, saying that Europe has the risk of becoming a super – a jihadi superhighway because of lacks of – lack of controls of foreign fighters. So do you agree with him and do you think that European countries are not doing enough to control the flow of foreign fighters coming back from Syria and from Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we've all seen European countries, the United States, and others as well in the region – that the growth of ISIL and the increase in foreign fighters we've seen over the last year or so has been a wakeup call to everybody about the need to do more to crack down on foreign fighters, to make it more difficult, to do better tracking, to coordinate along those fronts. Over the last several months, Europe and many European countries have taken steps to do more on that front. It takes a while to implement, and obviously, there are still aggressive recruitment tactics that are happening from ISIL at the same time. But I would say that our view is that the efforts of the EU and Europeans have increased over the last several months, as has the efforts of the United States, as has the efforts of Arab countries in the region. There have been new laws put in place, there have been new restrictions put in place. Obviously, this isn't a challenge or a problem that we can address within just a couple of months.

QUESTION: Jen, there is a meeting that will take place tomorrow here in Washington by 200 military experts from 30 countries that will be discussing the next phase in the fight against ISIL. That might also include some ground troops. Are you aware of that or could you share with us any information that you might --

MS. PSAKI: Is the Department of Defense – I assume is engaged in this event or hosting it in some capacity. Or do you have more details on it?

QUESTION: Okay. I don't have more details. Let me ask you about a poll that was conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Study in Doha. They have a satellite office here in Washington that held a press conference today. And it shows that while a majority of Arabs support the fight against ISIS itself, they remain suspicious of U.S. intentions. Now, they also say that you don't take into consideration Arab opinion in – when formulating U.S. policy, whether military or just policy. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven't seen that poll and I'm not going to speak to a poll, but let me convey, though, that obviously, from the beginning we felt it was important for Arab countries to be partners militarily when we did our first airstrikes. We've been partnering and working closely with Arab countries and Arab leaders because we feel specifically that the voices of those leaders, the voices of religious leaders, of faith leaders, of government leaders in many of those countries is far more effective than the voice of the United States. So I think our actions just contradict the findings of that report.

QUESTION: Well, that's the fact – that's why they're angry. Their beef is on this point, that you do consult with the leaders, but you don't – you dismiss totally the sentiments of the so-called "Arab street," the sentiments of the public, how they view your interventions and so on in the region.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our view, Said – and we're not just talking to leaders; we're talking to a range of civil society leaders, of religious leaders, of faith leaders, we're communicating via social media. And a lot of this is done, though, through partnering with many high-level officials in these countries. We certainly feel that there is a view that ISIL poses a threat to the region. We're taking on that threat with these countries, and I don't know that there's much disagreement about that particular challenge.

QUESTION: On the political dimension of your strategy against ISIS in Iraq, can we – have you made any progress in, for example, vis-a-vis Iraq's Government's efforts to reach out to the Sunni communities in Anbar?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been – Prime Minister Abadi has spoken to this, but he's also taken a range of steps to meet with leaders, Sunni leaders and Sunni tribal leaders. He's ramped up outreach to Sunni tribal leaders in Amman and Baghdad and stressed in public remarks that he is an advocate and will continue to be an advocate for all Iraqis regardless of ethnicity or religion. We know there's quite a bit of history here and hard feelings given some of the events over the last several months prior to Prime Minister Abadi taking over, and we know it's going to take some time to repair some of those relationships. But we've seen him take some steps to address them and we've seen him make efforts to both encourage the security forces to operate in a more inclusive manner, in a regulated manner, including the Shia militia, to reach out himself personally, which is what I just referenced.

QUESTION: What about the relationship between Baghdad and the KRG, Kurdistan Regional Government? Yesterday – or it was this weekend, actually, prime minister of Kurdistan, Nechirvan Barzani, slammed the Iraqi Government for failing to deliver on promises that it had made before forming the government in Baghdad.

MS. PSAKI: Well, are you --

QUESTION: It seems that people like the Kurds are frustrated with Baghdad, with Prime Minister Abadi's new government, the same way that they were with al-Maliki's government.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't think it's been put specifically in those terms. Obviously, there are discussions about everything from oil revenues to payments that are ongoing. And we're certainly encouraging those to be – the Iraqi Government to resolve those issues, but those are negotiations that are ongoing. And there have been some back and forth on it between the Kurdish government and the central government. And we hope it will be resolved soon.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) In your response to the question earlier about this public opinion poll and the Arab street, you talked about how you're – you are making an effort to engage with the regular people and not just the leadership, and I'm sure you are. The – but you also agree that actions speak louder than words, correct? I mean, you constantly say that as it relates to all sorts of governments, including the Russians and Ukraine elsewhere. So with that in mind, the fact that actions do speak louder than words, I'm wondering if we could talk for a short – a little bit about this huge business delegation that a senior State Department official led to Egypt. Your concerns about the human rights situation in Egypt, the political situation in Egypt, remain and so – as far as I know, unless something has changed. So in light of those concerns and your unhappiness with the Egyptian Government, what kind of signal does it send to have a senior official lead the largest-ever U.S. business delegation to Egypt with the goal of promoting U.S. investment there?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one, our concerns regarding Egypt and human rights and restrictions on civil society are well known; they haven't changed. But we also know that one of the challenges that the people of Egypt have been experiencing over the past couple of years is the lack of economic development, of economic growth, of economic opportunity. And international investment in Egypt's economy supports the Egyptian people, and so we believe that by bringing companies there Egypt's economic and work force development is something that can help the people of Egypt. It's vital to their long-term stability. It doesn't mean that we're not going to continue to have at the diplomatic level a conversation about our concerns about their human rights record and the steps they've taken to crack down on protesters, et cetera. And obviously, we haven't moved forward with the additional certifications, as you know.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean in the past foreign investment in Egypt and to be – bring it home, U.S. investment in Egypt has benefited a relatively small number of Egyptians. Certainly, not the ones who are coming out and voted for the president who was then overthrown in the coup/non-coup. So I'm just wondering if you are of the opinion now that the benefits of specifically – of generally foreign investment, but specifically U.S. investment, will benefit the majority or the vast majority of the Egyptian people rather than the scattered elites.

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that would be the objective of any investment/trade initiative --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- would be to impact and help the economy and help the people of Egypt.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, the objective – good intentions are one thing. But being able to be sure that you're – what you're doing is promoting the kind of thing that – or is going to end up promoting and help the kind of thing that you're talking about is something else. So you're confident that this --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, look, the alternative would be not to help with economic investment and bringing U.S. companies, some of the most prosperous in the world, to try to help boost up the Egyptian economy. And the many people who have been suffering without jobs, without opportunities --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: -- and we don't feel that's the right alternative.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a follow-up on that?

QUESTION: Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Isn't that, in a sense, just what the Administration has chosen to do by not yet – as I understand it – disbursing all of the $1.55 billion in annual assistance that it gives Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: You mean the additional certifications or --

QUESTION: Yes. And I mean you're making a choice there to not make all that money available. At least some of that money would presumably help prop up the Egyptian economy.

MS. PSAKI: Well, but much of --

QUESTION: It's not all military.

MS. PSAKI: -- some. But much of it is tied to, one, Egypt making progress on their human rights record and concerns we have about crackdowns over the last year-plus.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So there are specific requirements --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- as you know, that work through Congress on --

QUESTION: That were imposed by Congress.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: I mean, you didn't ask for them, right?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. But we support them.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: But – that have been imposed by Congress, so we haven't – they have not yet been certified.

QUESTION: So why not – I mean, just adopting the same logic, why not hold off on leading teams of American business people to Egypt until they start getting their human rights and democratic processes more in line with international norms and what you would like to see?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it's – like any relationship, Arshad, there are complications to it. But we want to see Egypt's economy thrive. We want to see Egypt be stable over the long term. We want the Egyptian people to thrive. This is an opportunity to bring U.S. businesses there, to encourage them to invest. There are still concerns we have, and that is noted by the fact that we have not certified, based on their human rights record or progress that hasn't been made, additional funding. Some of it is military funding. Some of it is for other programs. But --

QUESTION: Could you take a question for me on this one? It's a difficult one.

MS. PSAKI: What specifically is the question?

QUESTION: Well, I'd be interested in knowing, of the 1.55 billion that was appropriated for Egypt for fiscal 2014, how much has actually been obligated, and how much has not, and what are the reasons for the portions that have not been obligated. Is it simply the lack of certifications or is it something else?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, we will check on that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I just don't understand how you're not concerned you're sending a mixed message. I mean, the money that Arshad's talking about, $1.55 million --

QUESTION: Billion.

QUESTION: Billion.

QUESTION: Billion dollars, sorry – is presumably far less than a group of several dozen enormous U.S. multinationals will invest there. Do you not – are you not concerned that the people of Egypt, the very people who you hope to see benefit from foreign investment there, are getting what – are getting a mixed message from you when you are withholding aid – direct aid to the government at the same time as telling American businesses that they should go and pump their money into Egypt?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there's a difference between direct assistance to the government and promoting economic opportunity and business investment that we believe will benefit the people of Egypt, and that's why we supported this mission and why we led it.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. President Sisi gave himself or was extended the authority to turn over any fugitives that might be in Egypt and wanted by their home countries and so on. I wonder if you have any comment on that. Are you aware of this?

MS. PSAKI: The – tell me again?

QUESTION: The president of Egypt has assumed executive authority to turn anyone that may have taken refuge in Egypt for political reasons over to their countries if they are wanted by these countries.

MS. PSAKI: We'll have to check on the specifics of that, Said.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: I'm happy to do that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on a different front?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: A few days ago, you said you didn't have the chance to discuss with the team the link between Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and Daesh – ISIL, which was like the ones that were working in Sinai and ISIL. Do you have a chance to – possibility of link, because --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I can --

QUESTION: -- there was a reported story in New York Times --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- related to the killing of an American citizen in Sinai, what is somehow related to this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I – what I conveyed at the time, I believe, if I recall correctly, is that there is a difference between publicly stating or publicly claiming support for a group and specifically taking actions that are linked and coordinated with the group. So that I don't have any additional assessment on.

QUESTION: The reason that I'm asking this – because almost a week ago or so, the American Embassy in Cairo, there was kind of warning to the people, especially those who are going to the American school in Cairo, to be worried about – have precautionary steps regarding the possibility of a terrorist attack.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. You're saying that a travel – a travel advisory that went out.

QUESTION: The travel advisory. Beside that, there was like a warning for the Americans who are living in Cairo and their kids are Americans --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. A couple of weeks ago, I believe. Yeah.

QUESTION: Maybe 10 days.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to – have you – I mean, like come to more details about this threat? Or it's like whatever was done, done?

MS. PSAKI: We provide – and this is standard across the world. When there's information that we believe the public needs to know, we provide that. And this was a case of that. I don't believe that's ongoing, but --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I wonder if you would comment on a Russian report that Egypt received surface-to-air missiles – 300 – S-300 ballistic missiles. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any confirmation of that, Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen? I just wanted to ask you --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- after Monday's announcement of the drawdown in Embassy staffing, if there are any – if concerns are – have eased, if the situation is still the same. And I'm asking because a report that says that you guys are getting ready or preparing for the possibility of an evacuation.

MS. PSAKI: I have no new changes to report, despite public reports out there, beyond what we announced on Monday. Obviously, Yemen is a high-threat post, and we always have contingency options. But there's nothing new to report on that front.

QUESTION: Would you say that the – given the situation in Yemen now, the contingency option is more in play there than it is, say, in Paris?

MS. PSAKI: I would say in any high-threat post, it's – we certainly always have contingency options. Paris, not a high-threat post. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Not yet.

QUESTION: I just wonder why you still have the Embassy open, given that there's quite a lot of dangers. Today we saw another suicide bombing, not in Sana'a but in the center of Yemen. Why are you still keeping the Embassy open? Is it not a case that you should be actually closing it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Jo, obviously, in Yemen – anywhere in the world – we constantly assess the security needs of the men and women who serve in our posts there, as well as locally hired employees. We made the decision that an ordered departure was warranted. We obviously did that just a couple of days ago. If we need to make a new, additional assessment, we will do that. Typically we don't preview those in advance, but I can assure you that we take every precaution we believe is necessary to keep our people safe. But right now, we feel that we can keep the Embassy open. It's operating normally and continues to be.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Going back to Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I'm not sure if you were asked about this question, but in this latest round in Oman nuclear talks --

MS. PSAKI: In Oman, yeah.

QUESTION: -- was Syria or the fight with the ISIL was in of the topics discussed with the Iranians?

MS. PSAKI: In the past that's been raised on the margins, just given it's a prominent issue not just in the news but of concern to many of the attendees. That was the case here, but there was no new development on that front.

QUESTION: Today former State --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, can I just update one thing? Because somebody asked the other day whether he raised the concerns about the Supreme Leader and the Supreme Leader's comments, and he did raise them directly with Foreign Minister Zarif.

QUESTION: Today former State official Fred Hof wrote piece and he was asking whether U.S. in this alleged (inaudible) letter to Khamenei from President Obama – whether the U.S. assured Iran that U.S. is not going to target Syrian regime in Syria. Would you be able to give us any kind of refusal or refute to this claim?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not going to speak to – I'm still not going to speak to a reported letter from the President of the United States to anyone, and I would certainly point you to the White House for that. I will convey that in no conversations or communications have we made a link between the nuclear negotiations and the threat of ISIL, so I would take that and – go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no.

MS. PSAKI: No, I don't have anything else to say. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So can we say that you have not given any kind of assurances to Iran regarding Syrian regime being targeted or not?

MS. PSAKI: Our discussions have been exactly how I've described them.

QUESTION: Just on this, a senior Iranian official is saying that there have been responses to correspondence, and I'm just wondering if you are aware – not being specific, not talking about any specific letter that may or may not have been written by the President – but are you aware of a – discussions between the United States Government or the – between the Administration or exchanges of correspondence between the Administration and the office of the Supreme Leader in Iran?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything for you on that, no.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Hi, Mary Alice Salinas with Voice of America.

MS. PSAKI: Hi, Mary Alice.

QUESTION: Hi there. With regard to Ferguson, the parents of Michael Brown, the teenager killed by a police officer in Ferguson, appeared yesterday before the UN Committee against Torture in Geneva. They've said they want justice for Michael Brown, and they also believe that what happened there was a – represents a violation of the Convention Against Torture and other cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. And they say they want the world to know what is happening in Ferguson. Any response from the U.S. Government, especially now that it's in – on this global stage?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I will let my colleagues at the White House speak to events, even as difficult as events like those in Ferguson and what that means. I can speak specifically to the fact that we stand by our record here in the United States as it relates to everything from freedom of speech, freedom of protest, freedom of media, and we would put that up against any countries in the world.

I will say – let me give you a brief update about – I know – as many of you know, there's a meeting today in Geneva. And you may have seen that there have been comments from our legal advisor – one of our legal advisors as well. But since some have asked about that: During that meeting, the U.S. delegation has articulated a number of changes and clarifications to its legal positions with respect to the convention. In contrast to positions previously taken by the U.S. Government, we are affirming that U.S. obligations under Article 16, which prohibits cruel, inhumane – inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment apply in places outside the United States that the U.S. Government controls as a governmental authority. This position, which applies equally to other provisions of the convention with the same jurisdictional language, is consistent with the text of the convention, its negotiating history, and the Senate ratification process. Legal Advisor Mary McLeod spoke to this as well while she was there, and I'd certainly point you to her comments, but since you referenced the meeting I thought I would take the opportunity to speak to that as well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) meeting today, just going back to what you said, that you'd put your record up against any others in the world, I don't think it was Mary McLeod, but another one of the U.S. legal advisors said that – admitted that when it came to Guantanamo and some of the other things that happened under the previous administrations, that the United States had moved – had – outside of its boundaries.

MS. PSAKI: You're right, and that's an important point, too. The delegation also acknowledged that in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, we regrettably did not always live up to our own values, including those reflected in the convention. And as President Obama has said and others have said, we crossed the line and we take responsibility for that. Obviously, part of the focus here is where we are moving forward, and we've engaged since then in ongoing efforts to determine why lapses occurred and we've taken concrete measures to prevent them from happening again. And they restated what our position is at this point in time.

QUESTION: Did they specifically say it was the Bush Administration that crossed the line and we're sorry? Is that what they said?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have the text of her remarks or the remarks of the delegation, but they acknowledged that in the wake of 9/11, we regrettably did not always live up to our own values.

QUESTION: So does that mean that when you say you put up – you'll put the U.S. record up against anyone else's in the world, it's with the exception of the seven and a half years that followed 9/11?

MS. PSAKI: I'm referring, Matt, to how we operate and how it compares to the world on a number of these issues.

QUESTION: But not during that timeframe?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we acknowledged, as I mentioned, during this meeting what we regret about what's happened in the past.

QUESTION: When you say you take responsibility for the lapses during that timeframe, what does that mean?

MS. PSAKI: That means that we've taken measures to prevent them from happening again; that we have established laws and procedures to strengthen the safeguards against torture and cruel treatment; that we've made changes; and obviously, we've stated how applicable we believe the convention is and our own laws are.

QUESTION: Does it mean offering compensation or an apology to the people who have been detained without trial or charge for years, or an apology or compensation to people, for example, who have been the victim of waterboarding?

MS. PSAKI: It means that we conveyed we regrettably did not live to – up to our values. I don't have anything else for you in terms of other issues, but I don't believe that was a part of the discussion, no.

QUESTION: India?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Abby, and then we'll go to you, Goyal.

QUESTION: Sorry, another thread along those lines. I know that they'll actually be speaking to this tomorrow, but does the U.S. agree with the UN's interpretation of when solitary confinement constitutes torture? And is the U.S. currently in compliance with that interpretation?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe I'd have to check with our lawyers and the team working on this on the specifics. Obviously, we reiterated clearly our commitment to abiding by the convention. In terms of the specifics of it, I'm happy to take the question and we can get you back some specifics.

QUESTION: Turkey (inaudible) question?

MS. PSAKI: Why don't we go to Goyal and then we can go to you. Go ahead, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam. I've been talking about this issue for the last 10 years – corruption in India and black money. Now this issue became escalated during Prime Minister Modi's campaign, and now he's taking this action to bring back $1.4 trillion, according to New York Times, sitting outside of India from the corrupt ministers from India.

Now my question is: Now since G20 is taking place in Australia and Prime Minister Modi will be there and so will be President Obama – so is – how U.S. is going to help? Because Prime Minister Modi and Indians are seeking U.S. help to bring that money back to India.

MS. PSAKI: Goyal, in terms of the specifics on the agenda that are happening in Australia, I'd really refer you to the White House on that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: But in generally --

MS. PSAKI: I'm sorry. We have to move on just because --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: -- I have to go to something else. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Today in Turkey in Istanbul, a few of American sailors had some bags placed over their heads. Do you have any comments on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there was a statement put out by the U.S. Navy as well, which I'd point you to, but we're deeply troubled by today's assault against sailors of the USS Ross in Istanbul. The USS Ross is visiting Istanbul as a sign of the longstanding cooperation and friendship between the United States and Turkey. While we support the right to peaceful protest, this event clearly crossed the line from peaceful protest to violence and threats. We're working – U.S. officials, I should say, are working with Turkish authorities to investigate this incident.

QUESTION: Do you see this incident as an isolated incident or part of trend about anti-Americanism in Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not sure what other incidents you're comparing it to, so we believe that Turkey remains an important NATO ally. We work closely with them on a range of issues. Obviously, we're looking at this specific incident.

QUESTION: Recognizing that you – the Pentagon and the Navy have already spoken to this, as has the Embassy in Turkey, do you consider this case closed now, at least in terms of any conversation that you might have with Turkish authorities? Or is it something that you intend to raise beyond just the local police (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we're continuing to work with Turkish authorities. I don't believe there's a plan to raise it at a different level than that. But this is – we're continuing to work with them now.

QUESTION: Okay. So that would suggest – and correct me if I'm wrong – that you don't think that this is symptomatic of some – that you think that this was an isolated incident and it's not something that --

MS. PSAKI: I think I conveyed we're speaking to this specific incident, yeah.

QUESTION: Right. But it's not something that you feel the need to take up with the foreign minister or senior members in the – senior members of --

MS. PSAKI: I'm not aware of plans to raise it at that level, no.

QUESTION: Can I go to Nigeria?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I just have probably time for one or two more questions.

QUESTION: Okay. I'll try not to take up too much time.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: There was – the Nigerian ambassador here in Washington, D.C. invited some members of the Council on Foreign Relations to the Embassy on Monday. And basically, he gave a speech in which he said that Nigeria is not very happy with the United States at the moment, that he feels that you guys are not giving them the weapons that they need to really deal with Boko Haram, and that this statement that you have that it's because you're concerned about human rights allegations by the Nigerian army are just half-truths, hearsays put out by the opponents of President Jonathan and human rights groups.

I wondered if I could have your reaction to the comments that he made.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we first value our – highly value our longstanding and important relationship with Nigeria. Let me just lay out the facts of our assistance. Over the past six months, the United States has started sharing intelligence with Nigeria, began training a new army battalion and held numerous high-level discussions with Nigerian authorities on additional measures to best address the Boko Haram threat. We have also provided and approved sales of military equipment to its armed forces. These decisions are made, of course, after careful scrutiny to ensure they conform with United States law.

Earlier this year, we denied the transfer of some Cobra attack helicopters to Nigeria due to concerns about Nigeria's ability to use and maintain this type of helicopter in its effort against Boko Haram and ongoing concerns about the Nigerian military's protection of civilians when conducting military operations. We shared those concerns with Nigeria before this decision and subsequent to it.

Nigeria has purchased helicopters that originated in countries other than the United States, and nothing in our decision prevents Nigeria from obtaining weapons and equipment from other sources. We'll continue to look for ways to deepen our cooperation with Nigeria to help it acquire the systems and skills needed to restore peace and security. But obviously, we've provided a great deal of assistance over the past several months.

QUESTION: So other than the Cobra helicopters, is there any request from the Nigerian Government that hasn't been met by the United States?

MS. PSAKI: I would ask them that specific question, but we've obviously provided them with a range of assistance, including intelligence sharing as well as military equipment.

QUESTION: And what about their response that the allegations of human rights abuses by the Nigerian army are just – are not substantiated?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we continue to urge Nigeria to investigate allegations of abuses perpetrated by Nigerian security forces, as well as offer Nigeria assistance in developing the doctrine and training needed to improve the military's effectiveness. We wouldn't be raising that concern if we didn't feel and others didn't feel that they were warranted.

QUESTION: So were you surprised by – was this building surprised by the ambassador's comments on Monday?

MS. PSAKI: We did not review the comments in advance, no.

QUESTION: But so you were surprised, then, to – by the depth – I mean, it was a pretty angry statement that he made.

MS. PSAKI: I'll leave it at what I conveyed.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:21 p.m.)

DPB # 192