UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 17, 2014

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL
SIERRA LEONE/EBOLA
DEPARTMENT/CYBER SECURITY
AFGHANISTAN/IRAQ
DEPARTMENT/CYBER SECURITY
IRAN/P5+1
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN/TURKMENISTAN/INDIA
PAKISTAN
SAUDI ARABIA
TURKEY/SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
BAHRAIN
NIGERIA
BAHRAIN
UAE
JAPAN/OKINAWA
CHINA/HONG KONG

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:32 p.m. ET

MR. RATHKE: Hello. Good afternoon, everybody. So I just have on item to mention at the top, and then we can get started. As you've probably seen, Secretary Kerry is traveling to London today for consultation with his European counterparts and to brief government officials from the Middle East on the ongoing EU and P5+1 negotiations with Iran. He will later travel to Vienna, Austria this week, but the date and time of that arrival is still being determined. And you will also perhaps have seen – I think we just put out a note or will shortly put out a note about our delegation to the P5+1 talks. So you'll see that shortly if you haven't already.

And with that, Lara, please.

QUESTION: I'm sure people have a lot of P5 questions to ask, but I wanted to quickly ask about Ebola. My understanding is that the doctor who died wasn't brought to the United States from Sierra Leone as quickly as he might have. I'm wondering if you can explain why.

MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't have any details to share about the timing. The Department was asked by a U.S. citizen to provide medical evacuation assistance to the lawful permanent resident family member, and we carried out the evacuation in accordance with that request. I don't have details about the timing.

QUESTION: You don't know when that request came in?

MR. RATHKE: I'd have to check on that. I don't have that.

QUESTION: Okay. If you could, please.

QUESTION: Can we go to cyber security?

MR. RATHKE: Okay, just – any other questions on Ebola or that evacuation? Okay. Please, Arshad.

QUESTION: So it's fairly widely disseminated that the State Department unclassified email system was hacked, for want of a better term, several weeks ago, and that the Department chose to shutdown portions, I think, rather than all of that system over the weekend, to try to improve its security. To start with, who do you believe is responsible for the hacking, for the breach of the system?

MR. RATHKE: Well, first of all, let me start – as we mentioned to some over the weekend in response to queries, the State Department, like any other large organization that has a global span is a constant target of cyber attacks, and we closely monitor cyber security. And we detected activity of concern several weeks ago, and as a result, we immediately formed a team to develop and implement a response plan, in coordination with cyber security experts from DHS and from other agencies. And we are implementing carefully planned improvements to the security of our main unclassified network, taking advantage of a scheduled outage. Let me also highlight that no classified systems have been affected by this incident.

And so with regard to attribution, I don't have anything to share at this point on the origins of the intrusion. It's something that remains under investigation.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you don't know or does it mean that you – does it mean that you don't know and you're still investigating it, or that you know but it's just not something that you feel you can share?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we are still investigating it. I don't have anything further to share right now.

QUESTION: So you may know, but you're just not willing to say.

MR. RATHKE: Well, that's all I'm going to say at this point on that.

QUESTION: Just a couple more ones on this.

MR. RATHKE: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Regardless, I understand your statement that no classified systems were breached. Do you believe that any classified information might have been compromised as a result of its being aired on the unclassified email system, presumably in contravention of your policies?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we take our responsibility seriously to safeguard information, and we do not send classified information over our unclassified systems. So in that respect, and also because no classified systems were affected by this incident, then no, we have no reason to believe classified information would have been affected.

QUESTION: And are you going back to check or to spot-check in any way, because it is – even if it is the rule that classified information should never be transmitted over an unclassified email system, we know, for example, from the mobile phone conversation that was recorded and broadcast of one of your assistant secretaries, that sensitive diplomatic communications are sometimes conducted over non-secure systems. And so I'm wondering if the Department is making an effort to ascertain whether there might have been any breaches of classified information from the untoward activity on the unclassified system.

MR. RATHKE: Well, we take cyber security very seriously, and we are well aware of the difficulties that cyber threats present. And so we are careful about that. I don't have anything more to say though beyond what I already said on that.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don't know if you're actually looking into whether there may have been breaches via the unclassified system?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to go into all the details of our response and to technical issues, but again, I stand by what I said, that is we have no reason to believe classified information was compromised.

QUESTION: But that's different from what you – you said no classified systems had been compromised, not that no --

MR. RATHKE: Well, that's correct as well.

QUESTION: So both are true. Okay.

MR. RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Great. And just last one for me on this: A senior official said that this was part of the same incident previously disclosed by the Executive Office of the President. Were multiple U.S. agencies targeted as part of that wider incident of several weeks ago? Or was it just those two – the State Department and EOP?

MR. RATHKE: Well, it's – we believe that this activity was linked to the incidents – connected with the Executive Office of the President a few weeks ago. I don't have a broader conclusion to draw than that --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RATHKE: -- at this time. Anything else on this topic?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: So it doesn't have anything to do with the Secretary's travels over the last two weeks? There's no indication --

MR. RATHKE: No.

QUESTION: -- that any of the information was compromised either in the countries or by the countries where he was traveling?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, this is similar to Arshad's question. I'm not going to get into all of the technical aspects and all the details of our investigation. We became aware of this intrusion a few weeks ago, and we immediately began working with other agencies in order to come up with a plan to mitigate it. But I'm not going to get into any further details than that.

QUESTION: Why do you think it's linked?

MR. RATHKE: Well, again, I'm not going to get into the technical details of our network security.

QUESTION: What --

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: You said that you immediately formed a team to look at this. Why not immediately shutdown the system?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we reached a judgment that that was the best way to deal comprehensively with the situation that we had to deal with. This was – we are regularly upgrading our security, and in this case the response to this specific incident needed to be more comprehensive than our regular updates. And so we took the opportunity of this scheduled outage to do so.

QUESTION: And just so we're clear, when you say "scheduled outage," the outage was previously scheduled. It was already expected to happen during the period of time that it happened. It was not something that was scheduled after you realized the attack on your unclassified system?

MR. RATHKE: No, the former. That's my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. RATHKE: Yes, Lalit.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) attack origin was from inside the U.S. or outside the U.S.?

MR. RATHKE: As I'd said in response to Arshad's question, I don't have anything to share, at this point, about the origins.

QUESTION: Did at any point of time it also compromised the non-classified network which the Secretary himself uses?

MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry. Repeat the question.

QUESTION: Did this attack also compromise at any point of time the unclassified network being used by the Secretary of State or his office?

MR. RATHKE: Well, this – as I said, this is a – this was an attack that affected our unclassified email system. And in order to address that, we've used this scheduled outage in the connectivity of our main unclassified network to implement enhancements to our security measures.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary use an unclassified system?

MR. RATHKE: I'm not going to get into the Secretary's --

QUESTION: To what extent was the damage? What is the assessment of the damage caused by --

MR. RATHKE: I'm not going to get into those details at this stage.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR. RATHKE: Just a moment. Anything else on this topic?

QUESTION: So this has – this has stopped? There's no longer a cyber-attack on this unclassified network right now? It has stopped?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we've – our email systems operate on a worldwide platform. We have our internal – our internal connectivity remains in place. It's connectivity to the internet that has been affected. None of our classified systems have been affected, and we are doing right now – implementing the security upgrades that I described.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Nazira Karimi. I'm correspondent for Ariana Television from Afghanistan, and I'm from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, now it is the Taliban increase their activity again. And the day before yesterday was big suicide bomber accident and one of the congresswomen also get injured. Do you have any concern?

And also the other question: Comedian John Oliver described about interpreter in Afghanistan who worked for U.S. authority that their visa process take a long time, and they are – and their family there under arrest. Do you know that there is some U.S. authority work to expedite their visa process?

MR. RATHKE: Well, with respect to your first question, we strongly condemn the November 16th attack that targeted member of parliament Shukria Barakzai. We offer our sincere condolences to those affected by the attack, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. At this time, we're not aware of claims of responsibility, but that does not diminish in any way our strong condemnation of the attack.

Now, with respect to the Special Immigrant Visa Program to which you referred, the State Department and the United States Government are committed to supporting those who have helped the United States, often at great personal risk, and we have been working to improve our process for the so-called Special Immigrant Visas. I would point out that this year we've issued more than 7,900 Special Immigrant Visas to Afghans, and those are principal applicants. That overall benefits more than 11,000 Afghans and their family members who have benefitted from this program.

Now, in August, Congress raised the ceiling, authorizing an additional 1,000 visas for the SIV Program, and this allows us to keep issuing visas into Fiscal Year 2015, but there may be a need for additional action if we approach that ceiling. So this is something we take quite seriously and we take every step we can to expedite the process in these kinds of visas.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. RATHKE: Yes, Lalit.

QUESTION: So this figure of 7,900 or 11,000 is up to the fiscal year ending September 30th?

MR. RATHKE: That's right. That was in the Fiscal Year 2014.

QUESTION: And what's the quota for the next year?

MR. RATHKE: That I'd have to check. I don't have those data in front of me.

Yes.

QUESTION: And (inaudible) the SIV program is for Iraqis? I believe it was supposed to expire, and if that's the case, I'm wondering if there will be any move to extend it given all the unrest in Iraq of this year.

MR. RATHKE: Well, in Iraq also there is in addition to the Special Immigrant Visa Program, there are also people who are eligible for refugee resettlement processing, so there it becomes – it looks like a more complicated --

QUESTION: Right, but anybody can apply for ION.

MR. RATHKE: Well, yes, but --

QUESTION: But it was – SIVs were given to Afghans and Iraqis specifically --

MR. RATHKE: Right, correct.

QUESTION: -- especially those who were helping American soldiers --

MR. RATHKE: So in Fiscal Year 2014 we issued over 1,400 Special Immigrant Visas to principal applicants and family members from Iraq.

QUESTION: But could you take the question? I'm more interested in whether or not that might be extended for future years.

MR. RATHKE: Happy to look into the Fiscal Year 2015 situation.

QUESTION: Great, thank you.

QUESTION: Jeff, is the difficulty with people who had helped the U.S. Government – what is it a function of, from your point of view? Is it a function of not having sufficient spots to be able to offer, and hence one that can and was addressed by congressional action, or is it some other issue?

MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry, your question is about the numbers or about the --

QUESTION: The question began with talking about the comedian John Oliver's piece on this, which I think basically talked about the difficulty that people have had from these countries taking advantage of this program. And I don't understand why that's been (a) a problem and (b) a problem for so long. I mean, I think it was first brought to light in an op-ed piece by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, who talked about what a shame it was that people who had helped the United States were not able to get visas to escape or to leave. And so I just don't understand why this isn't kind of a well-oiled machine at this point. Now, it may be that there were limitations on the number of people who were permitted to be granted those visas, and therefore it's a matter for congressional action because the Executive can't just by fiat, I think, increase that program, right?

MR. RATHKE: Correct.

QUESTION: Or if there's something more intrinsic in the process, that the process doesn't work efficiently or smoothly as it should.

MR. RATHKE: Well, let me just start off by saying again we have the highest respect for men and women who take risks in supporting our military and civilian personnel, and we're committed to helping those people who've helped us. So in general, the visa application process, it takes some time, and all visa applicants are thoroughly vetted to ensure they do not pose a threat to the security of the United States.

Now, as far as the numbers, the issuance of Special Immigrant Visas in Afghanistan has ramped up over the past year because we've made a number of improvements to the processing times at every stage. And we've also expanded our outreach to current employees to former employees who might be eligible, and we remain focused on expediting the processing time. But it's an interagency process that takes a bit of time to complete.

As far as the numbers go, then there was – we were in the situation at the end of last fiscal year where we were approaching the ceiling, Congress raised that ceiling for Fiscal Year 2014. I'll have to get back with more details about the 2015 situation.

QUESTION: And one more on this. What is the processing time, or what was it before you began instituting the improvements, and sort of what is it now from A to Z? And I understand that there are multiple agencies and multiple levels that are involved in this, but for an ordinary person who is trying to take it – well, I guess none of them is ordinary, but someone in this category who's applying for such a visa, how long was it taking before your improvements, and how long is it taking now?

MR. RATHKE: I don't know what – I don't have data for before the improvements, but the current average processing time, and this is roughly consistent both with respect to Afghanistan as well as Iraq, is about eight months from start to finish. Of course, that depends on a number of factors; that's average – the average processing time.

QUESTION: Could I go back to cyber if that's okay?

QUESTION: I have one (inaudible).

MR. RATHKE: Yes. Okay, Lalit. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you know how many – the number of pending applications for these visas, or what's the estimated number of people who require the visas?

MR. RATHKE: I do not have any information here about number of people in the pipeline, so we'll have to look into that and get back to you.

QUESTION: And is this the highest number so far, the last several years – 7,900 or 11,000?

MR. RATHKE: I believe so, but we'd have to check. I don't want to --

QUESTION: Two quick ones on cyber. You said that you have no reason that any classified information was compromised. How can you know that without having done some kind of a check on the unclassified system to see whether classified information was, in fact, being transmitted using that system in violation of your normal rules?

MR. RATHKE: Well, you will appreciate, I'm sure, that I'm not going to get into the details of exactly how we are responding to this particular incident. And I'm also not going to get into details of how we are analyzing the effect of the intrusion. But it's our view that there has not been –that our classified systems have not been affected and that we have not had a breach of classified information.

QUESTION: And what harm would it cause to disclose, "Yeah, we're taking a look at some tiny fraction of unclassified emails to make sure that classified material isn't disseminated on them"? I mean, why is it hard to admit that? I understand you don't want to let the people who are trying to attack your systems have any information that might make it easier for them to attack your systems. I don't see how letting people know, "Yeah, we're going back to check to make sure that there are no problems here in terms of using the unclassified system as it's properly meant to be used" – which is to say, not putting classified information on it – I don't see how that would help a potential hacker, as it were.

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm just not going to get into more detail about the security measures we're taking.

QUESTION: And then – okay. Last one from me on this: When – I know that you've said that you expect your unclassified system to be back up soon. Is it back up yet? Do you think it'll be today, or is this a matter of days?

MR. RATHKE: It's not up right – well, let me be more precise. So it's our connectivity to the internet. So our internal systems – that is, people emailing from one state.gov address to another – that functions, both in Washington and overseas.

QUESTION: Unclassified.

MR. RATHKE: Unclassified.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: As well as classified, in which there's been --

QUESTION: Of course. Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: -- no effect. It's internet-connected systems that have been taken down while we implement these security measures. So that remains down.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: But I'm not going to give a specific deadline or prognosis.

QUESTION: That includes, however, emails from people like me to people's unclassified email systems at State. I mean, I got bounce-backs even this morning.

MR. RATHKE: Right.

QUESTION: And you don't have any kind of an estimate on when that may be?

MR. RATHKE: I'm just not going to give an estimate. We're working on it as fast as we can, but I'm not going to give a specific estimate.

Anything else on this topic?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RATHKE: On this topic?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. RATHKE: Yes. Go ahead (inaudible).

QUESTION: I'm sorry for being late – traffic. How much assurance can you give to people in India and other countries that their information that they have submitted to you electronically is safe and has not been stolen?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I would go back to what I said, which is this has affected our email system; it has not affected our business systems. So that's, I think, worth noting.

New topic?

QUESTION: Iran?

MR. RATHKE: Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Who exactly is the Secretary going to be briefing about the Iran negotiations while he's in London?

MR. RATHKE: Well, the schedule is coming together. We'll have more to say on that soon. He'll be meeting with European counterparts, also with counterparts from the Middle East. But this is coming together on short notice, so I don't have details to share right now.

QUESTION: And in signaling that he will be going to Vienna at the appropriate time, does that not almost guarantee that there'll be no headway until he shows up? I mean, isn't that often the way negotiations work, that the lower-level negotiators don't – if you know that a more senior one is coming in, you might as well just wait until they show up before showing your hand?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to make a prediction about these talks. And certainly we have a team that is going out to Vienna. They're leaving today, as I mentioned. A note will be going out shortly with the composition of our team, which will look very familiar, I think, to those of you who have been following the P5+1 talks – a very senior team, very experienced team. So they will be getting to work right away. And the Secretary will go to Vienna at the appropriate moment, but we're not going to suggest exactly when that will be.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. RATHKE: Yes, Samir.

QUESTION: Will there be a bilateral meeting, or it's going to be a ministerial? Because I read the French foreign minister is planning to go to Vienna, too.

MR. RATHKE: I don't have any details about the particular format of the discussions, but again, these are P5+1 discussions. So we would expect them to go ahead in that format. But then, of course, during each of the sessions, there have usually been meetings in smaller formats, whether they're bilaterals or trilaterals. So those have happened in the past. I don't have any scheduling information, though, to give right now about the talks coming up later this week.

Yes, go ahead. Same topic?

QUESTION: Same topic, yeah. I want to take a step back to the Amman meeting between Secretary Kerry, Javad Zarif, and Catherine Ashton. Is it fair to say that that meeting not only didn't resolve anything, get their views any – bring their views any closer, but that maybe Iran presented demands beyond what had already been – was being discussed and made things even more complicated?

MR. RATHKE: No, that's not a fair statement. We've said all along we're not going to do a day-to-day tick-tock readout of what is happening inside the room for very sensitive negotiations. We've been direct in our negotiations, but I'm not going to characterize – and we've also been clear about the overall objective, which is ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and closing down the pathways to obtaining a nuclear weapon, and reminding Iran that it has to find – that it has to demonstrate that its assurances about the purely civilian nature of its nuclear program can be verified and proven. Those things are all clear, but I'm not going to get into characterizing individual conversations such as you've described.

QUESTION: Because it's not a fair characterization, you said. So are you in fact saying that things did not move backwards?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to characterize that conversation.

QUESTION: That's fine. If you don't want to characterize it, that's fine. But what you said was it wasn't a fair statement. So that's characterizing it in some way, no?

MR. RATHKE: No. I was saying that I thought the question was unfair because it seeks to reach a conclusion about a specific meeting and its outcome, which is not what we're going to get into.

Yes, Lalit.

QUESTION: I have one on Afghanistan-Pakistan. Last week --

MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry, just a moment. Anything else on Iran before we move? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Last week, four countries – Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India – established a joint venture company for transportation of gas from Turkmenistan to India, passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Do you have anything to say on that, on that four-countries gas pipeline?

MR. RATHKE: I don't have anything to – on that. I'm happy to look and see if there's something I can share, but I just don't have anything in front of me.

QUESTION: I have one more small thing. The Pakistan's army chief is visiting.

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Is anyone from this building meeting him? And --

MR. RATHKE: So General Raheel Sharif began his first visit to the United States as chief of the army staff with a series of high-level meetings with U.S. officials and a visit to Central Command headquarters in Florida. Senior State Department officials will continue to engage with General Raheel Sharif, and the State Department will participate in the general's visit. But at the moment, I don't have further details to announce about exactly whom he would meet with and when and that kind of scheduling information.

QUESTION: From the State Department's perspective, what are the issues that you plan to – that you're planning to discuss with him?

MR. RATHKE: Well, of course, we have a broad relationship with Pakistan, and the chief of the army staff is a key figure. So we've been having – already he's been having productive and positive meetings. They've focused on a range of issues, from the situation in North Waziristan to border security and so forth.

QUESTION: He is coming to this – to the city after (inaudible) you said and the actions against terrorists in North Waziristan for the past several months. Are you satisfied by the actions that the Pakistan army has taken against terrorist groups?

MR. RATHKE: Well, of course, we consider it extremely important to, the fight against extremist groups and we've offered at every stage to be supportive, and we remain in dialogue with our Pakistani counterparts about that. I don't have anything new to read out about that. Of course, the general will be meeting with a range of high-level Administration and congressional officials this week, which is an opportunity to continue that conversation.

Samir, and then we'll go to Ilhan.

QUESTION: The Saudi minister for the National Guards, who is the son of the king, also visiting tomorrow Washington and expected to meet with the President. Is there – is he coming here part of this military – the meetings with military people from the --

MR. RATHKE: I don't have anything to – any meetings to announce with respect to that. If there is a meeting at the White House, I'd refer you to them for details of that.

Ilhan.

QUESTION: Thank you. I had couple for Turkey. Prime Minister Davutoglu, during – over the weekend, he had a press meeting. And he said that he had this lunch meeting with the President Obama, and he was stating that Turkey and U.S. agreed that the ISIS could not be defeated unless President Assad is toppled. Is there any way you can speak to this? Is there some kind of a consensus emerging between --

MR. RATHKE: If I understand correctly, you're asking about a conversation the President had --

QUESTION: In general.

MR. RATHKE: -- with President Erdogan, so I'd encourage you to --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. RATHKE: -- ask that question at the White House about the content of that conversation.

QUESTION: In general, would you be able to tell us that there is some kind of a consensus emerging between the U.S. and Turkey in terms of strategy in Syria, that Assad must be defeated in order to defeat ISIS?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I would refer you to the speech that the Secretary gave this morning, where he went to – at the Open Forum on Transformational Trends. He gave an update on Operation Inherent Resolve. He talked about the five lines of effort. Our strategy has not changed, and he recounted where we stand now, what progress has been made. I don't have anything further to add on that.

QUESTION: I am sorry. I have not seen that particular speech, and I will check it. Is there any way you can tell us that – do you think that in order to defeat ISIS, first – or at the same time – Assad must be toppled?

MR. RATHKE: I really don't have anything further to add on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, he – I saw the speech. He didn't make that link directly, so it's not this building's belief that --

MR. RATHKE: Well, our strategy remains as – it remains the same.

QUESTION: But the strategy has been Iraq first, so – I mean, heretofore, anyway. So is that the case, then? Is it still Iraq first? Is it not that Assad must go before ISIS can be defeated?

MR. RATHKE: Well, our focus is on defeating ISIL, and that of course takes different forms in Iraq as opposed to in Syria because the situations in each country are quite different. Again, there's – we've spoken to this in some detail. The strategy remains the same, though, and I don't have any change in it to announce.

QUESTION: So in other words, you think that ISIS can be defeated without toppling Assad first or at the same time?

MR. RATHKE: No, I'm not going to have words put in my mouth, Ilhan. What – do you have something particular to ask?

QUESTION: Yes. Yeah, for the last couple of days, a couple of deputy prime ministers in Turkey were talking about whether U.S. leadership has been talking to PKK leadership at Qandil Mountain, northern Iraq, regarding the peace process between the PKK and Turkish administration. Is there any way you can confirm --

MR. RATHKE: We have – I have no information about any meetings with PKK representatives. The PKK remains a designated foreign terrorist organization.

QUESTION: Okay. I can move to Syria if --

MR. RATHKE: Anything else on that topic? Okay, one more, and then we'll – go ahead.

QUESTION: On Syria, just in – generally, the U.S. started its airstrikes in Syria for about two months now. Do you think the Assad regime forces on the ground got stronger since the U.S. began its airstrikes? Is there any way you can give us some kind of assessment?

MR. RATHKE: Well, we have – as you say, we've been taking strikes against ISIL and other targets in Syria. Those have been part of our comprehensive strategy, and of course, there have been attempts by the Syrian regime to give the impression that they are gaining. Frankly, we see ISIL – halting ISIL's momentum as our focus right now, and that's why we have been dedicating the effort to the strikes in Syria. And we've been – I think we've shared a vast amount of detail about those strikes, where and what their targets have been, and we see that as the focus of our effort. I'm not going to characterize on a – give a day-to-day battlefield readout, though, of where the regime might be focusing its efforts.

QUESTION: Final question: It looks like the Aleppo – regime forces, Assad regime forces are gaining or becoming even more stronger in Aleppo. Do you have any update on Aleppo situation, whether Aleppo is going to fall to the regime anytime soon?

MR. RATHKE: Well, I think we spoke to this on Friday last week. We talked about Staffan de Mistura's proposals and his ideas of local freezes and so forth. I don't have any update on the precise battlefield arrangements around the region of Aleppo, so – yes, Lara, go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to go to a different topic, if that's all right.

MR. RATHKE: Please.

QUESTION: On Bahrain --

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- there are parliamentary elections coming up this weekend, and yet there are reports of a crackdown on women protesters. I'm wondering if this is something that the U.S. has brought up with the kingdom and what their reaction is.

MR. RATHKE: Mm-hmm. I'll have to look into that and get back to you.

Scott.

QUESTION: Nigeria.

MR. RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: We spoke briefly on Friday about Boko Haram capturing the town of Chibok, from which those 200 girls were kidnapped. The military says that it retook that town over the weekend. Do you believe that to be the case, and do you have any more knowledge about the state of the potential ceasefire talks between the Nigerian Government and Boko Haram?

MR. RATHKE: So we're aware of the reports, and as with the reports on Friday, we are not in a position to confirm details. We condemn Boko Haram's attacks on Chibok, a community that has suffered far too much already, and we extend our condolences to the families of the victims.

Now with respect to the fight against Boko Haram, the United States remains committed to helping the Government of Nigeria address the threat that Boko Haram poses and to find and free those who have been abducted in Chibok and elsewhere. So we continue to support Nigerian efforts to bring them home, and we are providing assistance, both through humanitarian programs, through sharing of intelligence, and advising on strategic communications and other issues. We also continue to encourage Nigerian authorities to adopt a comprehensive approach to violent extremists.

With respect to the – any talks that might be ongoing, I'd refer you to the Government of Nigeria for any detail.

QUESTION: Could I go back to Bahrain? I had another question. Is there more on Boko Haram?

MR. RATHKE: Sure. Anything else on this topic? On this topic? Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jeff. With regard to Boko Haram and bringing back our girls, nine months ago these 285 young women were abducted. There was an international task force assembled to locate them. Very little has been said beyond – there's been a recent bombing in the last four or five days, 47 students killed, lots more injured. It's obvious that the Nigerian Government does not have the capability of conducting this search and find operation on their own, although they've announced two weeks ago that they had reached a deal with Boko Haram and that the girls would be returned. Now there's been reports over the weekend about all of the girls having been converted to Islam, many of them forced into arranged marriages, others given as gifts to soldiers for use for sex and rape abuse. So where does this thing stand? I mean, what is the current status today of the international task force efforts to locate these young women who've been gone now for nine months?

MR. RATHKE: Well, as I said in response to Scott's question, this is a Nigerian-led effort, and the United States is providing support to Nigerian authorities. And this support covers a range of possibility – a range of aspects, including humanitarian programs, including sharing of certain intelligence information, and we have also provided and approved sales of military equipment to the armed forces after careful scrutiny. So we have a multifaceted approach to this Nigerian-led effort and we – our hearts certainly go out to the families of the victims and to the girls themselves and all of those who have been abducted.

And this is an endeavor that we continue to support. We have devoted approximately $19 million in fiscal year 2014 for vulnerable and conflict-affected households in Nigeria. Some of that goes through USAID, some of it through other channels. But we have been providing in addition to that about $54 million in humanitarian assistance to neighboring countries where there are significant refugee populations. So this is something to which we remain committed, and we'll continue that support.

QUESTION: Jeff, if I may, just one follow-up statement. It's obvious that the Government of Nigeria is not competent enough to handle this operation domestically, so what is the status with respect to the U.S. policy position on this with the surveillance capabilities that the United States has, with the special forces capabilities that they have, with the international willingness of people in a coalition to come together to try and merge their assets to find these girls? Why is it proving so difficult to locate a very large group of young people who've been hijacked?

MR. RATHKE: Well, it is an enormous challenge and we continue to support the Nigerian-led efforts, but it's our view this has to be a Nigerian-led effort. So we'll continue to provide the support that I outlined because we consider this an important opportunity to help Nigeria achieve success, but it's a Nigerian-led operation.

Lara, you wanted to go back to Bahrain.

QUESTION: Yes, I did. Yes. There's --

MR. RATHKE: Sorry. Same topic?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. RATHKE: All right, just one there.

QUESTION: I was just wondering, when you say that the United States Government has spent $19 million in helping people who are being internally displaced in Nigeria, a lot of reports that's coming out from the northeast of Nigeria indicates that there's virtually no presence and no indication that there is anything that is being sent in terms of food and other things to help people in that part of the country. So I really don't know where that money is going.

MR. RATHKE: Well, as I mentioned, in fiscal year 2014 the United States has provided more than $19 million for vulnerable and conflict-affected households; $7 million from USAID for health, water, and sanitation services, emergency relief supplies, and protection activities for women and children in northeastern Nigeria. We have also provided about $7 million in emergency food assistance and the State Department has provided more than $5 million to fund protection activities. So this is clearly something we are taking – making efforts in and taking seriously.

QUESTION: May I just also ask about the issue of intelligence that United States is sharing with Nigerian Government? We have had a chance of speaking with some people in government in Nigeria, and they're saying that there's not much coming out from United States and that United States is not really helping. And there was an allegation that United States said they're not going to help with anything because of the issue of – how did they put it – from Nigerian Government perspective, they said that United States Government is actually turning their back on Nigeria because of the issue of human rights. This is the statement from the chief of defense staff from Nigeria.

MR. RATHKE: Well, we have a longstanding and important relationship with Nigeria and we value that highly. We are standing with the government and the people of Nigeria in the face of the lethal and inhumane attacks that Boko Haram has unleashed, and we're working closely with the Nigerian Government and with the governments of neighboring states to counter these threats. We have existing programs to fight terrorism and we also have new programs such as the Security Governance Initiative, also a Global Security Contingency Fund.

So we are increasing our efforts to strengthen Nigeria's institutions. We have begun over the last six months to share intelligence with Nigeria. We've begun training a new army battalion. We have held numerous high-level discussions with Nigerian authorities on ways to meet the Boko Haram threat. So I think that record is clear and we are – we have stepped up our support and our cooperation with Nigerian authorities in the face of this threat.

QUESTION: Will the United State Government debunk any statement by any Nigerian Government agency or personnel saying that United States is turning its back on helping Nigeria --

MR. RATHKE: I think I just outlined all the ways in which we are supporting both on the humanitarian side as well as the more specific assistance to Nigerian security forces. And I'm going to leave it at that.

Lara, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. There's a U.S. citizen who's being detained in Bahrain, name of Taqi Al-Maidan. And a UN working group recently concluded that he was being detained arbitrarily, which is to say, I would assume, illegally or improperly. Is there any response from the U.S. government on this?

MR. RATHKE: That one I don't have anything on here, so apologies. We'll look into that and get back --

QUESTION: Okay, if you could take it.

MR. RATHKE: -- and get back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR. RATHKE: Yeah. Yes, Michelle.

QUESTION: I just wanted to see if you had any reaction to the United Arab Emirates decision to designate the Council on Islamic American Relations as a terrorist organization.

MR. RATHKE: So we've seen the United Arab Emirates list of organizations that they published just a few days ago. We are aware that two U.S.-based groups were listed on that there and we're – we are seeking to gain more information on why. We're engaging the UAE Government on this list. That's what I've got at this stage.

QUESTION: What's the other one?

MR. RATHKE: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Do you know what the other one is? If one is the Council on American Islamic Relations, do you know what the name of the other one is?

MR. RATHKE: We're aware that two U.S.-based groups, the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, were included on the list. And we're engaging UAE authorities.

QUESTION: The State Department works with CA – with CAIR all the time, no? I mean, there's all sorts of outreach programs between the government and CAIR, right?

MR. RATHKE: I don't know offhand whether we have particular --

QUESTION: I know the FBI works with them frequently and they --

QUESTION: Their officials may also have been invited to Iftars by the Secretary of State in years past.

QUESTION: That's right.

MR. RATHKE: Yeah, I don't have that information at my fingertips. But at any rate, we are engaging UAE officials. These are U.S.-based groups, so of course, our – we're not in the lead then for domestically based groups generally.

Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: I was just hoping to get your reaction to a couple things going on in East Asia. First of all, are you aware of the gubernatorial elections that took place in Okinawa (inaudible)?

MR. RATHKE: So I'm not going to comment on a local election. Regardless of the outcome, we are committed to working with the Government of Japan to follow through on our alliance agreements and to fulfill our treaty commitments to the defense of Japan as well as to the peace and security of the Asia and Pacific region.

QUESTION: So you have no concern about the fact that the person that was elected has voiced pretty clearly that he will veto any – the relocation plan of the Futenma Air Base?

MR. RATHKE: Again, I'm not going to comment on the specific election outcome. We're committed to working with the Government of Japan to follow through on our agreements.

QUESTION: Okay. I also just wanted to ask for your reaction on what's been going on in Hong Kong recently. Students over the weekend were prevented from traveling to Beijing, and then today there was reports that the police will start clearing the protests. Do you have any reaction to the reports?

MR. RATHKE: So we are aware of reports that protest leaders were unable to travel to Beijing. We continue to encourage differences between Hong Kong authorities and the protesters to be addressed peacefully through dialogue. And that's the call we've made over the last several weeks and that remains our point of view.

New topic? Nothing else. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: Thank you.

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



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list