Daily Press Briefing
Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 18, 2014
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/NOMINATIONS
DEPARTMENT/GENERAL ALLEN TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
BAHRAIN
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
AFGHANISTAN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
BURKINA FASO
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
ISIL/SYRIA
NORTH KOREA
DEPARTMENT/COUNTERTERRORISM
COLOMBIA
NORTH KOREA
JAPAN
NORTH KOREA
IRAN
DEPARTMENT/OUTAGE
DEPARTMENT/KEYSTONE
TRANSCRIPT:
1:23 p.m. EST
MR. RATHKE: Hi. Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR. RATHKE: So I have three things to mention at the top – first of all, with respect to nominations. Yesterday, the Senate confirmed four State Department nominees, each a career Foreign Service officer: Karen Stanton to Timor-Leste, Ted Osius to Vietnam, Erica Barks Ruggles to Rwanda, and Barbara Leaf to the United Arab Emirates. This is welcome progress. We're grateful to Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, and of course, the Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker.
We desperately need all of America's team on the field of diplomacy, and these are all spectacularly qualified career nominees. This is exactly how our remaining nominations should be considered and confirmed. There are 19 career Foreign Service officers awaiting confirmation on the Senate floor. They were all carefully considered in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and approved. The full Senate can consider each of these nominees quickly. Certainly, our career nominees could be confirmed en bloc, they're well-qualified, and they're experienced.
A total of 58 State Department nominees, including 35 career diplomats, are still waiting. One example, our nominee to head the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, Frank Rose, has been waiting nearly 500 days since July 2013. Career Foreign Service officer Arnold Chacon, the nominee for director general of the Foreign Service, who would head the State Department's Bureau for Human Resources, has waited nearly 400 days. And each day waited is a day lost which would be better spent engaging our international partners and promoting U.S. interests overseas. That includes security matters, but it also means that we aren't using every tool we have to promote U.S. businesses overseas and creating jobs here at home.
Nominees on the floor have waited for more than eight and a half months on average, 258 days. It's critical, in the Department's view, that we get these nominees confirmed before the Senate adjourns for the year to prevent further delay in meeting our foreign policy objectives, and while we appreciate the progress just made, we know that America is stronger if the backlog is cleared and our nominees are confirmed before Thanksgiving. The Secretary has made a personal plea to his former colleagues in the Senate, and we would ask again for their help.
Second item: Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL John Allen will travel to Ankara November 18th and 19th to meet with Turkish Government officials to discuss international coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. On November 19th, General Allen will then travel to Brussels for a meeting at NATO headquarters, where he will provide an update on coalition efforts. General Allen and Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador McGurk will also visit Rome on November 21st to meet with Italian Government officials on global coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL.
And my last item is the Secretary's trip. The Secretary is in London. Today, he met with British Foreign Secretary Hammond, Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry, and Omani Foreign Minister Alawi. In his meetings, Secretary Kerry provided an update on his meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif and Baroness Ashton last week. He also discussed the tension on the ground in Israel and the West Bank, and specifically the attack this morning. He also spoke with his counterparts about the ongoing effort to degrade and defeat ISIL and the ongoing cooperation in this effort. Secretary Kerry spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning to express condolences and offer support, and following the meetings with Foreign Secretary Hammond, he spoke with President Abbas and expressed support for President Abbas's statement condemning the attacks and urged him to do everything possible to de-escalate tension. And he agreed to stay in close touch with both leaders.
So with that, over to you, Lara.
QUESTION: Great, thanks. I actually wanted to ask you about President Abbas's condemnation of the attack. He also took the opportunity, as you probably saw, to criticize Israel for some of what he called provocations at the Holy Site in Jerusalem. I'm wondering if the State Department thinks that that was an appropriate time to bring that up.
MR. RATHKE: Well, as I mentioned, you heard the Secretary condemn this act of terror within hours of the attack, and he spoke with President Abbas. And in that conversation, he expressed support for the condemnation of attacks and he urged him to do everything possible to de-escalate tension. President Abbas agreed. The Secretary's going to stay in touch with both leaders. I would say President Abbas has condemned this attack. Clearly, more needs to be done at all levels, and the – you've heard the president's statement, certainly, and it's clear that extremists cannot be allowed to prevail. So the United States is going to stand with those who reject violence and seek a path toward peace.
QUESTION: And --
QUESTION: Did the Secretary ask --
QUESTION: May I just ask --
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- a couple of more on this? Specifically, regarding Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement as well, he said that Israel would respond in the harshest way possible, including the demolition of some of the homes of people who were involved either in this attack or previous attacks. Does the State Department think that's appropriate?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to speak to all of the steps that each individual leader has outlined. I think it's – as I mentioned, Secretary Kerry spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He will speak with him again, possibly today. They've spoken a number of times in recent days and remain in frequent contact. So he expressed our condolences and offered our support.
I can confirm, as you have probably heard elsewhere, but three U.S. citizens were killed in this attack. So today, families in the United States are mourning side-by-side with Israel. And so clearly, in those circumstances, we express our condolences to the families, and the Secretary did to Prime Minister Netanyahu as well, and I'd leave it at that.
QUESTION: Last week in Amman --
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Just on the home demolitions, I thought it was the U.S. Government's position that you were opposed to home demolitions as a counterproductive activity. Is that not the case?
MR. RATHKE: Well, with respect to that, our position hasn't changed, so I don't have anything new to say in that regard.
QUESTION: Well, would you say that that is – I mean, while not justifying in any way the attack or the horrific nature of it, it sounds like if you're saying that the position on demolition hasn't changed, then you would think that that is a kind of disproportionate response to what happened.
MR. RATHKE: Well, look, I'm not going to characterize – the reference was to a statement, so I'm not going to jump forward to that, to an action that hasn't taken place.
QUESTION: I understand, but clearly – I mean, again, not justifying in any way the attack, but is the – was the tone of the Secretary's conversation with the prime minister, "We understand you need to respond to this, but keep in mind not to do anything and use restraint so as not to further exacerbate tensions in the region"?
MR. RATHKE: Well, the Secretary urged both sides to do everything possible to de-escalate tension, but again, let's keep in mind the horrific attack which just happened and --
QUESTION: I did keep it in mind in my question.
MR. RATHKE: -- we – our view is that punitive home demolitions are counterproductive to the cause of peace, especially in an already tense situation. I would refer you to the Israelis for any more details, but our view on that remains the same.
QUESTION: Did he – just one follow-up on the conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. Did the Secretary – in that conversation, beyond offering his condolences and his support following the attack, did he privately ask the prime minister to do everything he could to de-escalate or to reduce tensions?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by privately. I mean, the United States Government and the Secretary have long urged both sides to do everything possible to de-escalate tensions. The Secretary was just in Jordan, and I don't need to recount all of that. So --
QUESTION: No, the question is whether he said that to the prime minister in private, just as you have just said, and he said it in public. I'm wondering if that was a feature of his private conversation with the prime minister.
MR. RATHKE: Well, we continue to urge all sides to work to lower tensions, but I'm not going to get into more detail from their conversation.
QUESTION: Well, if you're saying publicly that you believe that punitive home demolitions are against peace, then one would stand to reason that the Secretary also reiterated that.
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm just not going to characterize every single thing that the Secretary said and recount the entire conversation. I think I've conveyed the essentials of the conversation.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Do you know if that came up in their conversation?
MR. RATHKE: The Secretary spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu very soon after the attack to express his condolences. I don't have further detail on --
QUESTION: And that's it, just to express condolences and not in the realm of "Let's make sure that this doesn't completely further – again, exacerbate further"?
MR. RATHKE: Well, again, the Secretary has spoken with Prime Minister Netanyahu numerous times just in the last few days, so he's made our views on that question quite clear.
QUESTION: One other factual matter: Three of the four people who died, you said, were U.S. citizens. Are they – were they dual U.S. and Israeli citizens?
MR. RATHKE: I don't have information to confirm about other nationalities. I'd refer you to the Israeli authorities for anything they want to say on that.
QUESTION: Last week in Jordan when the Secretary finished his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and King Abdullah, he was asked specifically on what steps might have been taken in that meeting. And as you know, he didn't announce what steps they were going to take --
MR. RATHKE: Right.
QUESTION: -- to de-escalate tensions, but how this could prevent or how either side could prevent hardliners from coming forward and continuing to raise escalations, not to mention horrific attacks such as this. I'm wondering, if the State Department or the U.S. Government is now willing to say, "Hey, this is what we tried to do, this is what our intent was," or are doing anything more to try to prevent hardliners – to help both sides from keeping hardliners from lashing out like this.
MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't think that the Secretary's – that there's any change to the Secretary's posture on this as he expressed it in Jordan. He had conversations with the parties. He made it clear how important it is to take affirmative steps to restore calm and implement practical measures to prevent further escalation of tensions and --
QUESTION: But clearly, it's not working, right? I mean --
MR. RATHKE: Well, certainly, we've witnessed a horrific attack today, and all leaders in their discussions in Jordan agreed on the importance of de-escalating tensions. The Secretary reiterated that in his conversation with President Abbas today, and President Abbas agreed that everything needed to be done to reduce tensions. So – but I'm not going to go back and then read out more details of those conversations from Jordan.
QUESTION: Okay. Aside from agreeing that tensions need to be reduced, is it still fair to assume that whatever deal that was worked out or whatever steps were discussed and agreed upon in Jordan are still enacted today, are still being followed today? I mean, it kinds of seems "no" if President Abbas is out there saying that – or criticizing Israel for provocations.
MR. RATHKE: Well, this is unfortunately not the first tragic loss of innocent life in recent months. There have been too many Israelis and too many Palestinians who have died. So clearly, more needs to be done. That's --
QUESTION: But I mean since those talks last week in Jordan. I mean, steps were agreed on to de-escalate tensions.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Kerry was asked, how will this keep hardliners from striking out? Clearly, hardliners are continuing to strike out. So is it fair to assume that these steps are no longer being followed by both sides?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't think we would look at it that way, as some sort of a snapshot. The Secretary, in talking to both President Abbas and to Prime Minister Netanyahu, stressed that this is a time for leadership. And as the President said, extremists can't be allowed to prevail. So we're committed to remaining in contact with both leaders and continue working with both the Israelis and Palestinians to that end. I don't have more to say than that.
QUESTION: Let me ask it one more way.
MR. RATHKE: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In his conversations with the Secretary today, or the conversations, did both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas agree to continue implementing and embracing those steps that they agreed to last week?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not – I think we've already seen the step undertaken by Israel with respect to access to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and I don't have anything further to add on that. In his discussion with President Abbas, President Abbas agreed with the Secretary's urging to do everything possible to de-escalate tensions. I'm not going to characterize it further.
QUESTION: Can I branch that out just a bit? I mean --
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- beyond the steps in the last few weeks and the violence that we've seen at the Temple Mount, I mean, you have seen in recent months a kind of increase in tensions for a multitude of reasons, whether it's settlements or the Temple Mount or – an increase in violence and tensions. Do you in any way see the lack of a ongoing peace process as contributing to a kind of vacuum where this type of extremism on both sides has a kind of climate to flourish? And would you say that this underscores the need to get back to the peace table?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I think that's – we've always said that depends on both parties and their readiness to do so. So I don't have anything new to report in that respect. Of course, the United States has invested great energy not just in recent months but over decades in support of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
QUESTION: I understand. But do you see the climate of tensions and violence over the last several months a product of the lack of a peace process?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to characterize it in those terms. We condemn violence in the strongest terms. I'm not going to do an analysis here --
QUESTION: I'm not saying you don't condemn it. That has nothing to do --
MR. RATHKE: I understand. But I'm not going to do an analysis here from the podium about factors that contribute to it.
QUESTION: So you don't think that all this increase in – like, there was virtually no violence in the period where Secretary Kerry was engaged in a peace process, and now there is no peace process. Again, I understand what you're saying, that it's the parties that want it, but since the peace process has broke down, there's been a steady increase in violence and tension, so you don't --
MR. RATHKE: Well, but there's been a number of – there have been a number of things, including the attacks, the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel. So I'm not going to try to affix --
QUESTION: Also since the breakdown of the peace process.
MR. RATHKE: Right, but Elise, I'm not going to try to affix a specific single cause to it. Further on this topic?
QUESTION: Any plans to change your Travel Warning for Israel given the multiple deaths of U.S. citizens in Jerusalem?
MR. RATHKE: Not that I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware of. If there is a change, then of course, we would notify that broadly as soon as it happens, but not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MR. RATHKE: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Bahrain.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: I'm wondering if you can talk about continued political detentions in Bahrain, and also the case of an American citizen, Tagi Madu, who – UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention cited his case as an arbitrary detention and criticized the Bahraini's continued detention of this individual.
MR. RATHKE: Right. Well, we're aware of reports that a U.S. citizen is being detained in Bahrain.
QUESTION: He's been detained for over a year.
MR. RATHKE: Well, for privacy considerations, I'm just not able to comment further on the specifics of that case. But we're certainly aware --
QUESTION: Not even on the UN report of it?
QUESTION: What do you think about the UN report?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we're certainly familiar with the report of the UN Human Rights Council Working Group. That's – we're certainly familiar with it. I don't have a judgment or an assessment of that report to offer to you.
Lara, I know you had asked the question yesterday about the --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR. RATHKE: -- pre-election --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RATHKE: -- situation, and I don't have an answer to provide. But we're working on that and we'll be able to --
QUESTION: Actually, I think it's closer to two years that this gentleman has been in detention. I mean, without getting into the specifics of what you're doing, can you say whether you're providing consular access to this gentleman, or providing any type of discussions with the Bahraini Government about his detention, or doing – can you assure the American people that you're doing everything you can to make sure that his case is resolved with fairness and due process?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we certainly take our obligation to assist U.S. citizens abroad extremely seriously and provide all appropriate consular services. But again, in this case, privacy considerations prevent me from offering any further detail.
QUESTION: Why would privacy considerations prevent you from talking about the UN report on this?
MR. RATHKE: No, that isn't what I said. That's --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: I don't have anything – I don't have any analysis to offer on the UN report. If I have more, I'm happy to share that. But --
QUESTION: Okay. Do you think you will have analysis on the report?
MR. RATHKE: I'm happy to check and see what --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: So again, you asked a question that is in some ways probably related, so I – we anticipate coming back with more --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: -- detail in response to your question from yesterday.
QUESTION: Can we talk --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. RATHKE: Yes, Arshad.
QUESTION: Can we follow up on yesterday's question about the Council for American-Islamic Relations --
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- and its being designated as a terrorist organization?
MR. RATHKE: That's right. There was a question yesterday about this. So just to pick back up where we were, we have seen the report of the United Arab Emirates of a list of terrorist organizations that they have published, and we are aware that two U.S.-based groups were included on that list. The United States does not consider these U.S. organizations to be terrorist organizations. And – but we are seeking more information from the Government of the UAE about why that designation was made by them and what their background – what their information is.
QUESTION: On this point --
MR. RATHKE: Yes, Said.
QUESTION: -- I know you said that you are – you're following up with the Government of UAE. But the head of the organization is someone who really does frequent the State Department and gets invited to the White House and so on. So that basically puts them in a very difficult situation. So are you asking for an immediate kind of response as to why they were placed?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we are approaching Emirati authorities, asking for more information. I'm not going to put a timeline on it, but clearly we've seen this report and we're engaging. Now, as part of our routine engagement with a broad spectrum of faith-based organizations, a range of U.S. Government officials have met with officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society. We at the State Department regularly meet with a wide range of faith-based groups to hear their views, even if some of their views expressed are at times controversial.
QUESTION: Okay. So I know from reports that the head of the organization, or the director of the organization, has actually traveled overseas. Is he likely to face any kind of difficulties getting back into the country because of the designation? No?
MR. RATHKE: Well, again, the United States Government does not consider these organizations to be terrorist organizations.
On the same topic?
QUESTION: No, Afghanistan.
MR. RATHKE: No. So, anything else on this topic? Okay. Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: Yes. For Afghanistan, London conference will come soon. Do you think that U.S. has a role and what topic will discuss on it? And this --
MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry, did I – I didn't hear the first part.
QUESTION: London conference --
MR. RATHKE: Right, at the London conference.
QUESTION: -- regarding Afghanistan.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes. What will be the U.S. role, and what topic will discuss on it? And the second question: The new cabinet in Afghanistan hasn't announced yet. Do you think that United States concerned about it and it has negative effect between two countries' relationship?
MR. RATHKE: Well, on the second question, President Ghani and CEO Abdullah share a common vision and are working effectively together during the first months – the first month, excuse me, of the new administration. The nomination of cabinet ministers is a process that takes some time. We understand that President Ghani and CEO Abdullah and their teams have been working together with the goal of putting key ministers in place soon. So I think they've stated the goal of the London conference; that's their goal, and we're supportive of that. But naturally, forming a cabinet remains a complicated process.
With respect to the London conference, I don't have any specific details to announce. But of course, we see this as an important opportunity for the Afghan leadership and the international community to reaffirm and address the international support for Afghanistan going forward, also for the Afghan Government's policy priorities and programs. So as we get closer to the conference, I'm sure we'll have more detail to offer in that respect.
Different topic, Said, or same topic?
QUESTION: Different topic.
MR. RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: I'm sorry for being late. I'm sure that you discussed the Jerusalem attacks.
MR. RATHKE: Yes, we did.
QUESTION: I wonder if I could ask you a question. You may have even addressed this. Has anyone contacted Palestinian Authority President Abbas?
MR. RATHKE: Yes, Secretary Kerry spoke with him.
QUESTION: He spoke with him. Now, today, in the cabinet meeting, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his foreign minister accused Abbas of being behind the incitement that we have seen lately, although the head of the Shin Bet, chief Cohen, came out and said there's no evidence that Abbas is actually doing the incitement; quite the contrary, he's also blaming a great deal of the tension on some extremist elements within Israeli society. Are you aware of that report?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to – you're asking me to analyze and discuss views of different Israeli politicians in a cabinet meeting, which I'm not going to do.
QUESTION: Okay. Your view of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as an interlocutor for peace has not changed, has it?
MR. RATHKE: No. No, it hasn't.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: Scott.
QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on the political development in Burkina Faso?
MR. RATHKE: Can you be a little more specific?
QUESTION: Well, you've called for some time since the coup for the military to appoint a transitional authority. So, such moves have been made.
MR. RATHKE: That's right. Just a moment. So the United States congratulates the people of Burkina Faso and their leaders on the signing of the transition charter by representatives of civil society, political parties, religious and traditional leaders, and the military. This will guide the transition to full civilian rule. And we congratulate Mr. Michel Kafando on his selection as interim president of Burkina Faso.
We also urge the men and women of Burkina Faso's armed forces to return to their primary mission, safeguarding the territorial integrity of Burkina Faso and the security of its citizens. And at the same time, we firmly hope that the central mission of the transitional government will be to ensure effective preparation for national elections in November 2015.
QUESTION: Can I stay in Africa, if nobody else wants to go to Burkina Faso?
MR. RATHKE: You may.
QUESTION: Human Rights Watch today has a report on the Democratic Republic of Congo, alleging that authorities there have killed more than 50 young people and are responsible for the enforced disappearance of some 30 others as part of an anti-gang-related program. Are you aware of that report, and do you share the concerns expressed by Human Rights Watch of these alleged extrajudicial actions by Congolese security forces in the capital?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we're reviewing the Human Rights Watch Report and we call on the Congolese Government to conduct a prompt, thorough, and transparent investigation of these alleged serious human rights violations and to hold accountable any individuals who are found responsible. Further, we remain disappointed that with the October release of the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office report on Operation Likofi, the Congolese Government has chosen to dismiss the report's findings and instead call for the expulsion of the Human Rights Office director. And so we are concerned that impunity for human rights violations remains a grave problem. We call on the Congolese Government to take robust and decisive action on reports of abuses, as detailed in the Human Rights Watch report, in the UN Joint Human Rights Office report and others in order to achieve their stated commitment of ending the cycle of impunity.
QUESTION: Different topic?
MR. RATHKE: Yes. Go ahead, Lara.
QUESTION: You brought up General Allen's trip to Ankara and elsewhere at the top of this briefing.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Wondering if you can bring us up to speed with training missions that are sanctioned or supported by the United States that are being housed or based in Turkey.
MR. RATHKE: More specifically, you're talking about the Syrian train-and-equip program?
QUESTION: Yes. You're probably aware there's reports out there that the U.S. will be training 2,000 troops, I believe, at a Turkey base.
MR. RATHKE: Well, we are going to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian armed opposition. And this is a program, as you know, that runs through the Department of Defense and this is going to help moderate Syrian fighters defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and the Syrian regime, stabilize areas under opposition control, and empower a subset of the trainees to go on the offensive against ISIL. So we see this as a key component in our strategy, in addition to the political, financial, and other support to the moderate opposition that we've been providing for some time. Our partners in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have offered strong support to host and to quickly stand up the program. But nonetheless, it requires some time at the front end to develop infrastructure and to plan that action. So as far as specific details of that, I would refer you to the Department of Defense, but clearly we see this as a critical element in our strategy.
QUESTION: Well, I ask here because General Allen is based here, and it's a State-led component of the coalition to combat ISIL. So I was just wondering who – if that number is right, if it's 2,000 troops, SOC troops or moderate Syrians who will be trained. And also, who's doing the training? Is it U.S. forces or U.S. civilians? And if it's U.S. forces, is it special forces?
MR. RATHKE: Well, the Department – the train and equip element of that, of the strategy is a Department of Defense-led program, authorized by Congress. So again, they would have the more detailed information about it, including the numbers.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. RATHKE: Sorry. Same topic?
QUESTION: Same topic.
MR. RATHKE: Syria. Okay. Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: You said they'll be trained to go on the offensive against ISIL.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: What about the regime forces? Will they go offensive against the regime forces?
MR. RATHKE: Well, again, we have – as we've said, we see this as a program that will help moderate Syrian fighters defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and the Syrian regime and empower a subset of the trainees to go on the offensive against ISIL. That's --
QUESTION: Only?
MR. RATHKE: Well, that's the way we envision the program.
QUESTION: Not the regime?
MR. RATHKE: Again, that's – we see the role of the Syrian opposition defending against attacks by the regime to be also important. The Syrian opposition is between in some – in many cases the Syrian regime and ISIL, subjected to attacks by both. So clearly there is that need.
Yeah.
QUESTION: But that's defending against the regime, not attacking the regime. Correct?
MR. RATHKE: Well, that's the way I put it, yes.
QUESTION: So not attacking the regime, not forces against the regime, attacking the regime?
MR. RATHKE: Well, again, the – I'm not going to get into the specific, on-the-battlefield actions.
QUESTION: Well, there's a difference.
MR. RATHKE: Again, they've got to defend themselves, and they're under serious attack, for sure, by the regime.
Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. But they're also trying to oust Assad, so they're on the offensive.
MR. RATHKE: I understand.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: There are reports that the Syrian forces, Syrian regime forces are slowly but surely regaining territory in the environment of Aleppo. How does that fit in with the proposal by the UN Special Envoy de Mistura to have local ceasefires in the area? Is there any – do you have any view on that? I mean, does the Administration have a position on these proposed ceasefires, local ceasefires?
MR. RATHKE: But is your question about de Mistura's proposal or is your question about something else?
QUESTION: Well – okay. No, because they are connected. As the forces gain in Aleppo, and his proposal was to have ceasefires in Aleppo, would you demand or would you request that a ceasefire would take place, or this plan to have a ceasefire in Aleppo take place immediately?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we remain committed to a political solution in Syria and we support – we would support any local arrangements that would alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people, the – and Staffan de Mistura has made some proposals in that regard. This includes ceasefires that could provide relief to Syrian civilians and be consistent with humanitarian principles.
As we've seen in previous cases, many local truces have been much more akin to surrender arrangements. So we think there would need to be the appropriate assurances that humanitarian assistance would reach those in need. But in ceasefire arrangements to date, there has been no enforcement mechanism, so that's – we would be supportive of ceasefires that provide genuine relief, but I'm not going to get – I'm not going to characterize --
QUESTION: I want to understand you correctly. So you would support ceasefires that actually would keep both forces in place? In other words, the regime forces and the opposition forces in place in Aleppo, correct?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I didn't say that. What I said is that with respect to some of the ideas that have been raised by Mr. de Mistura, we would be supportive of local arrangements that met those criteria that I outlined. So I'm not going to characterize that, though, in this specific context. I think this was also raised yesterday, and I would just highlight that with – the United States, along with out coalition partners, have conducted nearly 400 airstrikes in Syria and we continue to target areas around Kobani as ISIL is concentrating its fighters and materiel there, and we're focused on degrading ISIL and its sanctuary.
Now, these strikes in Syria hit fixed targets – command and control, for example, finance centers, training camps, oil infrastructure. Those kinds of strikes are going to continue and – but the targeting in Syria is also evolving beyond fixed facilities and also includes more dynamic targeting of a more tactical nature, such as vehicles, armor vehicles, convoys. So the destruction and degradation of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq will further limit their ability to lead, control, and project power and conduct operations.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the resolution of North Korean human rights issues? They had final discussions today.
MR. RATHKE: Well, the resolution is before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. It's expected to be voted on today. As we have said before, we support the Commission of Inquiry's final report and its calls for accountability. The commission's findings and recommendations are compelling, and we feel they deserve the full attention of the Security Council and the General Assembly. We've been a co-sponsor of this resolution on DPRK in the Third Committee every year, including this year, so of course we are supportive. As of the time I came out to brief, though, the vote had not been held.
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Can I go back to Syria to round out that --
MR. RATHKE: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- part of the world. In light of the killing of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, there's talk of a review of the U.S. policy on hostages, specifically with ransoms. I'm wondering if it's still the State Department's view that ransoms should not be paid to terrorist organizations for the release of hostages.
MR. RATHKE: Well, I know there's been some attention to this in the last couple of days as a result of a report about a letter to Congress. The Administration's goal has always been to use all of our resources, within the bounds of law, to assist families and to bring loved ones home. In light of the increasing number of U.S. citizens taken hostage by terrorist groups overseas and the extraordinary nature of recent hostage cases, this past summer, President Obama directed relevant departments and agencies – which includes the State Department as well as the FBI, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community – to conduct a comprehensive review of how the U.S. Government addresses these matters.
Now, we're not going to be able to detail every effort or every tool we use to try to bring American hostages home, but we continue to use all appropriate capabilities – military, intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic – to recover American hostages, and those efforts continue.
QUESTION: Okay. So you said within the bounds of law. Paying ransoms to a known terrorist group would constitute material support to terrorism. So would that still be illegal?
MR. RATHKE: Well, it's a matter of longstanding policy that we don't grant concessions to hostage-takers. We feel that doing so would only put more Americans at risk of being taken captive.
QUESTION: Is that policy under review as part of this broader review?
MR. RATHKE: Well, as I say, the President directed all of the agencies involved to conduct a comprehensive review of how we address these matters. I'm not going to get into any more detail.
QUESTION: I mean, "these matters" is vague, and I guess what we're asking is a reasonable question, which is whether or not the United States' longstanding policy of not paying ransoms or providing other concessions to hostage-takers is, itself, being reviewed. If you say that it's being reviewed, it seems to me that you are then potentially giving an incentive to hostage-takers, maybe you'll change the policy and then they can hope to get paid off. So – but I still think it's a reasonable question: Are you reviewing that policy or not? "These matters" is completely vague. I have no idea what's in that. So are you reviewing it or not?
MR. RATHKE: Well, no, it's – our policy – our longstanding policy on granting concessions to hostage-takers remains. I'm not going to characterize further the nature of an ongoing review.
QUESTION: Is that for government ransoms as well as private ransoms?
MR. RATHKE: Again, I'm not going to characterize the scope of the review.
Yes.
QUESTION: Short of her identity, do you have anything to share with us about the 26-year-old woman hostage that is with the group? Do you have anything to say?
MR. RATHKE: I'm sorry. I don't have any additional thing to say about – what is it you're --
QUESTION: My question is: Can you confirm that there is another American hostage, a woman hostage, with the group? (Inaudible) they don't want to identify her, but at least can you confirm --
MR. RATHKE: We've – as we've said in the past, there is a small number of hostages being held by ISIL. We're not discussing specific numbers or other details.
QUESTION: A small number of hostages or American hostages?
MR. RATHKE: U.S. citizens.
QUESTION: Okay. Is that still true? Because you've said in the past that there were a small number, but three or four of them have been killed to this point, so --
MR. RATHKE: I'm not going to discuss a specific number or other details.
QUESTION: Can you say multiples or --
MR. RATHKE: No. I'm not going to discuss a specific number or other details or characterize it in any other way.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, I have a question on Colombia.
MR. RATHKE: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: President Santos suspended the peace talks with the FARC guerrilla after a general was abducted or kidnapped. Do you have a comment on that?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we condemn the kidnapping of Brigadier General Alzate and his travel companions on November 16th, particularly given the ongoing peace efforts by the Colombian Government. We're a longtime supporter of Colombia and the Colombian Government's efforts to bring peace to the Colombian people. That's where I would leave it at this stage.
QUESTION: And – well, considering you've been like a longstanding supporter of the peace talks, do you find that the suspension is a smart move? Would you characterize it --
MR. RATHKE: I'm not going to characterize the Colombian Government's reaction. We certainly condemn the kidnapping, especially because of the efforts the Colombian Government had been making.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Also on North Korea. Does the U.S. view China as a partner in addressing the human rights condition in North Korea?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we talk regularly with China about issues related to North Korea. That's – they are, of course, one of the parties to the Six-Party Talks, and an important partner in addressing the threats that come from North Korea. So it's certainly an issue on which we have an ongoing dialogue.
QUESTION: Well, we've seen China become more proactive about the nuclear issue with North Korea. Is it your hope that they'll become more proactive on the human rights issue as well?
MR. RATHKE: Again, this is a matter of ongoing international concern. I'll let the Chinese Government speak for themselves about how they view these issues, but clearly the United States places high importance on the human rights situation in North Korea, along with our goal of denuclearization.
MR. RATHKE: Anything else on North Korea? No, okay. We'll come to you in a second, Said.
Please.
QUESTION: Well, I had a question about Japan, actually, so --
MR. RATHKE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I was wondering about if you have any reaction to Abe's announcement that he's going to dissolve parliament and hold elections in December.
MR. RATHKE: So we look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Government of Japan across the broad range of regional and global issues. We've got an alliance that's based on a shared commitment to democratic values, and that alliance has broad support across the political spectrum in Japan and the United States. So that's the way we view the relationship with Japan. I don't have a comment on his move to dissolve parliament.
QUESTION: Yeah, one more about North Korea.
MR. RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: North Korean's second (inaudible) and Choe Ryong-hae visit to Russia yesterday, and he meet with Putin. How do you feel about – between – North Korea and Russia's relationship is very close right now. Do you have any comment on that?
MR. RATHKE: Yeah, I think we spoke to this last week. We're certainly aware of the travel of the DPRK official to Russia. We maintain regular contact and consultations with Russia on issues related to the DPRK, and we closely coordinate with our partners, including Russia, to counter the threat to global security posed by the DPRK's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. I don't have anything further on that visit.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah, P5+1 talks. I know the meetings are ongoing as we speak now, or as we discuss, but are you aware of any split right down the middle among the (inaudible), which is the clerics headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and him being on the side of reaching a deal? Are you aware of that?
MR. RATHKE: I'm not going to analyze Iranian internal politics from here.
QUESTION: Okay. And do you expect that if there is such a deal and in fact that the supreme leader agrees to it, gives his blessing to Zarif and the government of President Rouhani, do you expect that Iran could teeter on the verge of chaos and internal dispute?
MR. RATHKE: Again, as I – I think as I said, I'm not going to analyze Iranian internal politics from here.
QUESTION: Is there anything that you can share with us about the meetings that are ongoing?
MR. RATHKE: Well, as you know, our team is in Vienna. They're engaged in bilateral, in plenary, and in expert and a variety of other meetings – this is a sort of complicated, multilayered mechanism – along with the EU, our P5+1 partners, and Iran. Our delegation includes acting Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, former Deputy Secretary Bill Burns, and a number of other experts who've been engaged in these talks over the past year.
So they're in Vienna now. Discussions have commenced, but I don't have further readout to share.
QUESTION: During the press call by the senior Administration official yesterday, the issue of suspending the sanctions and not lifting them altogether came up, and the question. Do you have any comment on that? Is there a likelihood that the sanctions may, in fact, get suspended while not being lifted altogether?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I think you were on the call, so you probably heard in detail.
QUESTION: Are you getting any kind of pressure from, let's say, Senator Menendez and Senator Kirk, I believe, who issued a statement last week saying that the sanctions should not be lifted?
MR. RATHKE: Well, we've said, given our past concerns, also that this Administration has and previous administrations and our partners in Congress have had about Iran's nuclear programs and its intentions – we've said that it would not be logical or good policy to simply terminate sanctions immediately. So if the talks – P5+1 talks with Iran come to an arrangement, we've taken the view that it would be better to suspend – rather than terminate – sanctions at first, and only once we are confident that Iran had lived up to its commitments would we look to terminate the sanctions. Suspension makes it easier to snap sanctions back into – suspension makes it easier to snap sanctions back into place if Iran were not to hold up its end of the deal, so --
QUESTION: That is the thinking now, that if we reach --
MR. RATHKE: Well, that's been our thinking all along.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. RATHKE: There's no change in that.
QUESTION: Isn't that (inaudible), actually, that the sanctions are approved by Congress and only Congress can lift or keep them in place, but by executive order the President can suspend them?
MR. RATHKE: Well, there are a number of different sanctions, so – all of which --
QUESTION: But the vast majority, right?
MR. RATHKE: So again, our point of view on this has been that there would be suspension first before any termination, and in our conversations with Congress we've always agreed (inaudible) that we need to make sure Iran would live up to its commitments if we get to a comprehensive arrangement. So nothing --
QUESTION: One thing that I see is referring to it – and this was the case with the senior Administration official on the call yesterday – where you're no longer talking about it as an agreement and you just use the word "arrangement." And the official on the call was very careful to avoid the word "agreement" and said that it was because of a legal technicality. Do you know why it's no longer an agreement but something else that you seem to be seeking?
MR. RATHKE: I'd have to check. I don't have a vocabulary – I don't have a glossary to share on that at this point.
QUESTION: Can you take that?
MR. RATHKE: I'm happy to (inaudible) look into that, yeah.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Hacking?
MR. RATHKE: Yes, Lara, please.
QUESTION: Everybody's favorite topic. You had talked yesterday from the podium about how the – it's only the unclassified email systems at the State Department that was affected by this most recent data breach that prompted the suspension of – sorry, I've got suspended on my mind – (laughter) – but that prompted the shutdown over the weekend. But there's been some suggestions that some of the missions and embassies and consulates have had some problems or could have some problems with processing passports or visas.
MR. RATHKE: No.
QUESTION: No? Not at all?
MR. RATHKE: No, no. These are unconnected. I mean, we have a separate system that deals with those types of consular issues – passports, visas, and so forth. Now there may be other technical issues that have arisen in one place or another. Is there a specific --
QUESTION: Yeah. Embassy Beirut, I think, had to --
MR. RATHKE: Yeah. No, that's unrelated to the outage that we've had here.
QUESTION: Well, what's going on in Embassy Beirut, then?
MR. RATHKE: Well, I don't have the specifics, but it's a separate issue. And I – from what I understand, they were able to continue doing their operations today, so it was not any major impediment.
I can give you an update, though, on the outage. I can report that our external email services from our main unclassified system are now operating normally, and for those who feel they are tethered to their Blackberries, they are once again, because the Blackberry service is working. So our unclassified external email traffic is now normal, so we've had some progress since yesterday's discussion. So much of it is now operational. Much of our systems that had connectivity to the internet are now operational. We have a few more steps that'll be taken soon to reach full restoration of our connectivity.
QUESTION: But just to clarify, no consular services, no client-based services --
MR. RATHKE: That's a separate --
QUESTION: -- have been affected by this outage?
MR. RATHKE: No, not to my knowledge. That's – those are separate.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have internet access from the unclassified system now?
MR. RATHKE: No, we are not – we do not have internet access at this stage. That will be restored soon, we expect. Sorry, yes?
QUESTION: Anything else major that you don't have now?
MR. RATHKE: No. No, I think that's mainly it. But it – this has not stopped us from doing our work, so --
QUESTION: The classified system never went down, correct?
MR. RATHKE: No, it was never affected at any point. So as mentioned yesterday, that hasn't changed. It was not affected.
QUESTION: And you still – you don't want to hint who was behind this hacking?
MR. RATHKE: I don't have anything further to say on attribution.
Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: Really quick – Oliver Cox, NBC. I just wondered if you guys have an update on the permit review process for the Keystone. I might've missed this at the top; I came in a little late. Do you have anything – updates on that?
MR. RATHKE: No, you didn't miss anything at the top, but --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. RATHKE: -- I can say a word about that. Just give me a second.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. RATHKE: (Laughter.) I don't think so. I mean, we – do you have a more specific question?
QUESTION: Just more on like the timing of when the permit review – I don't know exactly the inner workings of how it all works, but just when the State Department is expected to give out more information on where that review process stands.
MR. RATHKE: Well, our review process continues. We have a well-established process. We are reviewing many factors. This includes energy security; environmental, cultural, and economic impacts; foreign policy; and compliance with relevant law and policy. This is also being conducted in consultation with eight other federal agencies, so as you can imagine, it's quite a complex process, and that process is ongoing.
QUESTION: Is there any update on when – timing – when --
MR. RATHKE: No, I don't have a deadline to provide.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
MR. RATHKE: Anything else on that topic?
Said, one last?
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you quickly about the meeting between Sameh Shoukry, the foreign minister of Egypt, and Secretary of State John Kerry.
MR. RATHKE: Meeting took place. I don't have any details to share at this point. May have more to share later.
Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:16 p.m.)
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
