Daily Press Briefing
Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 8, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SAUDI ARABIA
CHINA
FRANCE/COUNTERTERRORISM
CUBA
YEMEN
SRI LANKA
PAKISTAN
INDONESIA
IRAN
BAHRAIN
TURKEY/COUNTERTERRORISM
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TRANSCRIPT:
1:27 p.m. EST
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: A rose between two thorns (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: A rose between two thorns, wow. Well, hello. Happy New Year to those of you --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: No one knows who you were referring to. (Laughter.) Welcome back to those of you that I haven't seen yet. Happy New Year.
I just have one item at the top: We are greatly concerned by reports that human rights activist Raif Badawi will start facing the inhumane punishment of a thousand lashes in addition to serving a 10-year sentence in prison for exercising his rights to freedom of expression and religion. The United States Government calls on Saudi authorities to cancel this brutal punishment and to review Badawi's case and sentence. The United States strongly opposes laws, including apostasy laws, that restrict the exercise of these freedoms and urges all countries to uphold these rights in practice.
I also just want to flag I have a time issue on the back end here, so let's get to any – as many issues as we possibly can. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I was going to ask about that – what you just talked about --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- anyway, so let's start there. Just what happens if the Saudis go ahead and do this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously we've expressed our views. This announcement just came out this morning. We've certainly expressed our views privately. I'm not going to get into a discussion about what happens next. Obviously, we're just making clear our opposition to this.
QUESTION: Does the Administration oppose public flogging as a punishment for any crime, or just for religious-type issues?
MS. PSAKI: Well, you know our view on religious freedom and people's ability to express religious freedom, so I would focus on that.
QUESTION: Well – no, I mean do you think that – does the Administration believe that there are certain crimes that it's acceptable to be punished by being publicly flogged?
MS. PSAKI: I think we've expressed in the past in a range of reports we do annually, Matt, what our views are. I don't think I need to expose on those any further.
QUESTION: And just – one thing you said, too – you wanted them to cancel this sentence, correct?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Does that mean you believe the individual deserves any kind of a sentence?
MS. PSAKI: We said to review his case and sentence, so obviously there's a judicial process. But clearly, we want to cancel this particular sentence, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Should we move on to --
QUESTION: By "cancel" you mean "nullify," right? I mean, it just --
MS. PSAKI: Yes, that's another way of saying it, sure. Should we move on to a new topic?
Go ahead, James.
QUESTION: Staying with --
MS. PSAKI: Oh.
QUESTION: Staying with human rights --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- there's the late report out of The Washington Post about the family of the Radio Free Asia reporter who are being harassed by Chinese authorities in Xinjiang province. Do you have a comment on what's been happening to this reporter's brothers?
MS. PSAKI: We consistently raise the treatment of journalists and ethnic and religious minorities with the Chinese Government at all levels. We're deeply concerned by reports that family members of the Radio Free Asia journalist Shohret Hoshur continue to be harassed, including reports that his brothers have been imprisoned, apparently in retribution for his reporting. We urge Chinese authorities to cease harassment of his family and to treat them fairly and with dignity. We continually urge China to respect internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression.
QUESTION: Have you discussed – "you" meaning the State Department – has this building discussed his brothers' cases with the embassy here, with officials in Beijing, what's – beyond the public call for treating people fairly?
MS. PSAKI: We regularly raise concerns that we talk about publicly privately, so you can assume we've done that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can you provide an update on what assistance the United States is providing France right now on counterterrorism and – well, this case particularly and in general?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have a significant update from yesterday. As I mentioned yesterday, as you know, we have a – we've had a longstanding counterterrorism cooperation with France. That's been continuing. Obviously, we've been – that includes intel sharing. We've made clear – and the President's indicated this, as has the Secretary – that we will provide them any information or assistance that they would like. But obviously, that's happening through diplomatic channels. I don't have any particular update beyond that.
QUESTION: Do you know if – there are two brothers who are now part of a – quite a large manhunt in northern France, suspected of being behind the shooting yesterday at Charlie Hebdo. Do you know if these two brothers at all were known to American intelligence authorities?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, given this is an ongoing French investigation, we're going to let them speak to any specifics about suspects and any additional efforts underway. Obviously, we share information privately, but there's nothing I'm going to get into at this point in time.
QUESTION: The – Eric Holder has announced – or his office has announced that he's going to go to Paris at the weekend to join some major talks on terrorism which are being put together now by the French authorities. I wondered if there were – given that we know the Secretary's off on the road soon, if there are any plans perhaps for the Secretary at some point to go to Paris – he's obviously been there a lot recently, and it's a country and a city that he knows well – and whether there might be any plans – they haven't set the funerals yet, but whether he might anticipate attending any of the funerals that are held for the staff who were killed.
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any plans at this point in time. As you noted, obviously, these events are relatively fresh, and clearly, we'll discuss that once we know more details.
QUESTION: And yesterday, he was going to try and talk to Foreign Minister Fabius.
MS. PSAKI: He did speak with Foreign Minister Fabius yesterday afternoon, and he expressed, of course, our condolences – which he had already done publicly, but we certainly understood the foreign minister was quite busy yesterday – and certainly reiterated that the United States is here to offer any assistance that we can.
Margaret.
QUESTION: Jen, a follow on a question Jo just asked there. When it came – comes to one of the suspects, Sharif Kouachi – I'm not sure if I'm saying that properly – there are reports that he had ties to a known terrorist who would have been known to the U.S. since he was – confessed to conspiring to attack the U.S. Embassy in Paris. That man's name is Djamel Beghal, and was a known associate. Is it safe to say that the U.S. would have knowledge of his associates, given that they had focused on U.S. diplomatic facilities?
MS. PSAKI: As I reiterated, and I certainly understand the frustration with this, but this is, of course, a French investigation. We're sharing information privately. I'm just not going to be in a position to discuss or outline any of that information sharing that's happening privately.
QUESTION: Can you say whether there is any connection, or perhaps there is none, between the attack in Yemen – the large-scale suicide attack yesterday – and this attack in Paris? There are some making connections. Is there one?
MS. PSAKI: I know there are some making connections out there. Obviously, I'm not in a position to do that, and we're certainly going to let the investigation see itself through.
Go ahead, James.
QUESTION: Sometimes when a terrorist attack occurs on a Western target, the nature of the attack, its method of execution, et cetera, will tell us something that – or show us something that tells us that there is something new afoot in the world of terrorism. In other words, some new capability, some new trend is evidenced by the way the attack unfolds or what-have-you.
In this case, we happen to have the benefit of video footage of the attack, apparent purported video footage of the attack. Does this attack tell us anything new about terrorism in the Western world right now, or was it a fairly conventional attack that really didn't show us anything new afoot in the world of terrorism?
MS. PSAKI: Well, James, I think those are all understandable and smart questions. We're just too preliminary in the process that, of course, the French have the lead on to do any public analysis of that. Certainly, you're right, that it's the responsibility of any country, and certainly countries that we work closely with, to learn from experiences – tragic incidents, as this was. But we're just not at that point of being able to do analysis in a public manner.
Do we have more on this before we move on? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sort of piggybacking off of that, there are two kind of recurring topics that we're seeing here. First is the indications that one or more of – or both of the brothers might have traveled to Syria in the last year, and secondly, the fact that they seem to have been – taken some influence from social media and possibly from this al-Qaida publication, Inspire. Is this kind of causing this building or any others in the Administration to look at what more could be done to either stem the propaganda online or to coordinate more on the flow of foreign fighters?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just say on this – in this specific case, as I've said a few times but it's worth repeating again, the French have the lead on this investigation. We certainly understand that there is a great deal of speculation or interest or educated analysis out there. But this is very fresh, it's very new. We're going to allow them to have the lead on this, we're going to share information privately, and we're not going to speculate publicly on what things mean.
As it relates to foreign fighters – which we don't know enough in this case, so let me preface that – that's something that has been a focus that has picked up significantly, as you know, over the last six to nine months, certainly given events in the world. It's something that we work very closely with the French and others around the world on. There's also an ongoing effort on – that we've worked not just domestically, but also internationally on countering violent extremism.
And obviously, this is something that we've done a lot on the federal level, but we've also – DHS and the State Department have also worked together with our international partners. We've had robust exchanges recently in the past few months with European government officials and community leaders from the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia, have had meetings to provide opportunities for us to share with our law enforcement and civil society counterparts overseas a better understanding of the threat that communities face from extremist recruitment and activities.
So there's a range of ongoing discussions that have been happening, and certainly, we look at and we learn from tragic events that happen, and that's a part of the discussion as well.
Should we move on to a new topic?
QUESTION: Cuba?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Have you any update on the so-called mysterious 53?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think it's a mysterious 53, James. But --
QUESTION: Well, they're mysterious because no one will tell us who they are.
QUESTION: How many have been freed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, as I've talked about a little bit in here, on days where you weren't actually in attendance, we --
QUESTION: Have you listed the names of the 53?
MS. PSAKI: We have not.
QUESTION: I didn't think so.
MS. PSAKI: And I talked about the reason we didn't list them, which was because we didn't want to put a target on their backs. The reason that we're focused on this is getting them released. So I will say --
QUESTION: Hold on, hold on. They already had a target on their backs. That's why they're in prison, right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, yes, Matt. But let me give a little bit more information. Some have asked about how to categorize. The people on this list have been arrested for – had been arrested for non-violent activities that are protected most other countries in the world, things that we know internationally are respected and valued – freedom of press, freedom of protest. That is – kind of was the focus of this list.
As I mentioned a couple times, the Cuban Government made the commitment, and we expect them to follow through, on the release of all 53. There have been recent reports that – of a new release. I'm not going to confirm specific individuals on any list. I can confirm that this wasn't the first released – release of people on the list, as some reports suggested.
QUESTION: When you say "this," what are you referring to? "This wasn't the first release." What is "this"?
MS. PSAKI: There were some reports over the last 24 hours of a – of the first release of individuals. And I'm just noting that that is not the first release of individuals on the list.
QUESTION: So are you telling us that there have been more than – there has been more than one round of releases, as far as you know?
MS. PSAKI: That would be an accurate assumption, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Is this building concerned that by naming these people under detention that they could be harmed by Cuban authorities?
QUESTION: Or Cuban (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Roz, that this is a case where we – one, this was not part of the negotiation. I think there's some confusion about that. This was a commitment that the Cuban Government made to release these individuals, a list we provided, and we fully expect them to do so. There were policy changes that the United States Government also announced, regulations that we'll be putting in place through Commerce and the Treasury Department.
QUESTION: So it was just a coincidence that these were all announced in one big batch by the President? They were completely separate?
MS. PSAKI: I'm conveying, James, that I think, not perhaps you, but some have been grouping together all of this. Yes, but – yes, the --
QUESTION: The President grouped them together in his own statement.
MS. PSAKI: In an announcement about a lot of things that are happening. But in the negotiation, that was about the swap of individuals.
To go back to your question, we made a judgment that the best way to secure the release of these individuals is to not name them publicly. We know who's on the list. The Cuban Government has assured us that they're going to release these individuals. We're encouraging them to do that rapidly, and we're confident they'll do that.
QUESTION: What I don't get – what – though what I don't understand about this is that if you know who's on the list, and the Cubans know who's on the list, how is it – how would it hurt to have the names out their publicly so that the rest of the world can see whether or not the Cubans have lived up to their commitment or not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, that's not something we're doing at this point in time.
QUESTION: Well, that just smacks of --
MS. PSAKI: I'm not ruling that out in the future. But at this point in time, we made a policy judgment this was the right way to go about this.
QUESTION: Well, then can you say that once all 53 have – if and when all 53 are out, they'll – that you'll be in a position to name them and say, look, here's proof that the Cubans lived up to their commitment?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not making any new commitments at this point, Matt. But I'm just conveying that this is a list – we know who's on the list; the Cubans know who's on the list. We are certainly conveying to complete that rapidly.
QUESTION: Right. So if – so everybody knows who's on the list except for --
MS. PSAKI: The Associated Press. I understand your frustration – (laughter) – but --
QUESTION: No, I don't think it's just the AP. It's not – I mean, do the people who are on the list know that they're on the list?
MS. PSAKI: I think we've addressed that question too.
QUESTION: Have you?
MS. PSAKI: I have.
QUESTION: I mean, do the families of the people who – do the families of people who were imprisoned who are on the list know that their loved one is on the list?
MS. PSAKI: Let me reiterate one thing that I said --
QUESTION: I mean --
MS. PSAKI: Let me reiterate something I think that I said yesterday that I think is important here. There's a focus by all of you on this list of 53. I understand that because it feels like a concrete thing that you're evaluating. This is one component. There are other – there could be other --
QUESTION: You just said it wasn't a component.
MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. There could be other arrests. If there are other arrests, we will make the case for those individuals to be released. This is not a – the end. This is the beginning of a process.
QUESTION: Right. But the problem is that we only have one – after the release of Mr. Gross and the intelligence asset and the U.S. release of the three remaining Cuban Five, the only thing that we have – or that the general public or anybody else has – to know whether the Cubans are living up to their commitments to you and to the Pope is whether these 53 are out. And the only way for us to know that is to know who they are.
MS. PSAKI: That's not correct. What I was conveying before is that our agreement with the Cubans was that we sought the release from a Cuban prison to the United States of a key U.S. intelligence asset who was exchanged for three Cuban intelligence --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: -- agents jailed in the United States.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: Separately, there was a component of discussing policy changes that we were proposing.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: The Cubans committed to releasing 53 individuals.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: There are a range of steps that we're going to take because we think it's in the interest of the United States.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: There are regulations that will be put in place. It's in our interest to change our diplomatic relationship with Cuba.
QUESTION: Right. I don't think anyone's taking issue with the way you've laid that out. But the point is, is that this is a – that you set the bar at 53, or a bar at 53, for the Cubans to show that they're meeting their commitment. And then you say you won't tell us whether or not they've actually met it or not.
MS. PSAKI: Well, one component.
QUESTION: Which is --
MS. PSAKI: And I have told you that they have released some of them, that we are continuing to convey the need to release the rest as rapidly as possible.
QUESTION: So just --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- continuing on a purely factual basis here --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You have told us just now that there have been at least two rounds of releases involving these 53 individuals. Can you tell us even ballpark numbers how many those two releases amount to of the 53? Is it half or --
MS. PSAKI: I certainly understand your question. I'm just not going to get into specifics on numbers.
QUESTION: And when you say that there have been reports over the last 24 hours about new releases and that you're not going to get into confirming them or not, can we just, for the sake of clarity, specify that you are referring to the list of individuals – I think six – that has been published by the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba? Is that what we're talking about?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'm not going to confirm who is on the list. What I was trying to do, and maybe not as clearly as I intended, was convey that some headlines suggested that this was the first release of individuals, and that is incorrect.
QUESTION: Can you explain this statement you made about you don't want to put a target on their backs? Who would use that as a target? I don't quite understand whose actions you might be fearing.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me phrase it in a different way, Brad. Our objective and goal here is that these individuals get released. We have made a policy judgment that it is in the interest of that not to release the list publicly in advance of that.
QUESTION: So you're worried that public pressure would actually harden the Cubans at this point?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to spell it out more clearly. I understand the frustration of why you all would like to see the list, but we need to make a decision about how achieve our goal and not just how to satisfy the desire to see the list.
QUESTION: But I thought this wasn't your goal, actually. Wasn't this the Cubans who did this unilaterally?
MS. PSAKI: The Cubans did commit to this, yes. But of course, we'd like to see these individuals released.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: Did you share the list with any of the human rights organizations in Cuba who've been working for the releases of these people?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to get into more specifics about --
QUESTION: Because there is some frustration --
MS. PSAKI: -- who is aware of individuals on the list.
QUESTION: There is some frustration from them that they feel that they've been shut out of the process, to a certain extent.
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are some opponents of the entire process of changing our approach to Cuba in Cuba and the United States. I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: But Jen, maybe those opponents would be a little less opposed if they knew what – whether or not the Cubans were meeting this commitment.
MS. PSAKI: There are individual names that have been out there publicly, Matt, and I can assure you that the individual activists in Cuba know who those people are.
QUESTION: But when Treasury changes its regulations on Cuba, is it considering doing that in a secret manner?
MS. PSAKI: No, that information will be released publicly, Brad, of course, because businesses --
QUESTION: You would make a policy decision in that case?
MS. PSAKI: Businesses need to be able to have the information and need to be able to know how to implement it.
QUESTION: But don't individuals need to have information, too?
MS. PSAKI: It's an entirely different comparison.
QUESTION: Can I just ask --
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Sure.
QUESTION: -- if you've set a date yet for the migration talks --
MS. PSAKI: I have a little more information on that. Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson will travel to Havana on January – from January 21st through the 22nd – sorry – to take advantage of previously planned migration talks to launch a discussion with the Cuban Government on normalization of diplomatic relations. As all of you know, the migration talks are a – are semiannual meetings which alternate between the United States and Cuba. The United States hosted the last round in July 2014 in Washington, D.C. While the agenda for this round is not yet finalized, the migration talks are bilateral efforts to ensure safe, legal, and orderly migration between the United States and Cuba.
As I mentioned, Assistant Secretary Jacobson will lead the delegation. Of course, the decision to reestablish diplomatic relations is certainly going to be a topic of that, and of course issues surrounding that – including the reopening of embassies, requiring certain logistical arrangements, embassy operations, staffing, visa issues – would also be topics as well.
QUESTION: And do you know how many people will be accompanying her in the American delegation?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have details on the delegation quite yet. I expect we will when we get a little bit closer to the date.
QUESTION: And do you know who her immediate sort of counterpart will be on the Cuban side?
MS. PSAKI: I will – we'll let the Cubans convey that information.
QUESTION: Is there a timeline for the reestablishment of full relations between the two countries?
MS. PSAKI: This is just the beginning of having a discussion about these specific issues, and obviously an opportunity to talk about some of the logistical details. So at this point I'm not going to lay out a timeline.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: And so therefore it would be unrealistic to imagine that an embassy might – could conceivably even be reopened prior to the conclusion of these talks?
MS. PSAKI: I think that's correct, yes.
QUESTION: Can I just ask about the process that climaxed in the President's announcement, if you will, with the talks in Canada and at the Vatican having been conducted chiefly by Ben Rhodes and Mr. Zuniga of the National Security Council, and not by professional diplomats associated with this building that has given rise, as you may know, to some speculation to the effect that the Secretary of State or the Department of State was essentially cut out of the loop on this big shift in Cuba policy? What would you say to that?
MS. PSAKI: I would disagree with that with the fact that Secretary Kerry and others here were certainly consulting with everyone from the President on down on these ongoing negotiations and discussions. And --
QUESTION: Can you tell me that again, just so that we don't have a --
MS. PSAKI: Certainly.
QUESTION: -- that the Christmas chimes in the back – thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Certainly. Secretary Kerry and others were certainly consulting with individuals involved in these negotiations and with the President on down on these – this decision to reopen our diplomatic relations. And also, this has been a topic and a policy that the Secretary has long supported a change in. Right now where our focus is is on implementing this moving forward. And Secretary Kerry, Assistant Secretary Jacobson will certainly be in the lead on that moving forward.
QUESTION: So President Obama, Ben Rhodes, the White House National Security Council staff were keeping John Kerry and his staff in the loop at all points along the way in this secret process?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah, there have been many discussions behind the scenes about these – the ongoing negotiations.
QUESTION: Was there a tactical decision in having people who might be best described as political operatives carrying out the work because there might – it might have been easier to do so?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, to be clear, Ricardo is a Foreign Service officer who has decades of experience and just happens to be detailed over at the White House at this point in time. Ben Rhodes is one of the President's closest national security advisors, so I'd hardly characterize them in the way you did. There was a decision made to have these two individuals lead the talks. Obviously, there was a successful outcome. The Secretary was supportive of that, certainly wanted to see a change in our relationship with Cuba and a change in our policy approach. And our focus at this point in time is how we implement that moving forward.
QUESTION: A successful outcome?
QUESTION: Well, let's contrast it with – well, let me finish.
QUESTION: It's not over yet.
QUESTION: Let me finish.
MS. PSAKI: Well, in terms of an agreement on the swap of individuals, yes, that's a successful outcome.
QUESTION: But to contrast it with the Secretary's ongoing work with Mideast peace, with going in every so often on the Iran nuclear talks, was there a tactical decision made to carry out something which the Administration has long said it wanted to achieve without having so much public scrutiny ahead of it and possibly scuttling the outcome that we have right now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Roz, to that question – and obviously it's better posed to the White House – but clearly there was a decision made to do these talks privately in order to achieve the – "outcome" maybe is an overstated word, but to achieve a different path or a different way forward. And so that decision was made, certainly, so that it wouldn't have the ups and downs that public scrutiny often does.
QUESTION: Well, what – can you just walk us through --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- the thinking that concludes that this is best conducted by two officials on the National Security Council and not by the diplomatic corps?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, James, it's important to remember that the national security team works as a team, and there are negotiations the Secretary leads, there are negotiations that sometimes the NSC has more of a role on. There are discussions that the Department of Defense leads on. We all work together and play different roles, and there are individuals who also span across different agencies. So this is – this was a process the Secretary was comfortable with. We certainly are now focused on the path forward, and I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can I just make sure --
MS. PSAKI: I have to go in a few minutes here. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Can I just make sure that I understand, though, that you're not expecting that the meeting that Assistant Secretary Jacobson has on the 21st and 22nd is going to be the end? This is just the beginning of --
MS. PSAKI: Correct. That is the right way to think about it.
QUESTION: And so you would anticipate there would be additional meetings after that on the same – on the normalization, not just on migration (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: That's right. I would anticipate it's going to be an ongoing process.
QUESTION: And they would set it – I mean, like, what, once a month or something they would meet? Or --
MS. PSAKI: I don't know yet. I'm sure they'll discuss that as part of the meetings when they're in Cuba.
QUESTION: One more thing. I apologize --
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- if you said this at some point when I haven't been here --
MS. PSAKI: That's okay; go ahead.
QUESTION: -- but can you now or can you take the question of when was the last visit to Havana by an official?
MS. PSAKI: I actually – I have that for you.
QUESTION: Do you? Great.
MS. PSAKI: I do.
QUESTION: Of equal rank to Secretary or higher rank that Secretary Jacobson.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the last visit – I don't know if this – I'm doing my best here to answer it.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.
MS. PSAKI: So the highest ranking official from the Department of State to have visited Cuba on official travel in recent years was Roberta Jacobson when she was the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in 2011. Since that time, Department of State practice has been to limit high-level visits to the deputy assistant secretary of state level. Before that, Craig Kelly, who was the PDAS before Roberta Jacobson, traveled on February 2010 when he was also principal deputy assistant secretary.
QUESTION: So this level then --
QUESTION: Yeah. No, but – but the real question, I think, is: This is the highest level U.S. visit since when?
MS. PSAKI: We can certainly look into that.
QUESTION: Can you? I'm sure the --
MS. PSAKI: Seek some information from the --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: A good friend in the Historian's Office --
QUESTION: There – well, there is a school of thought that believes that an assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere visited in 1977 --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: --in the Carter Administration.
MS. PSAKI: We will check on that – well, we'll seek some help from our friends in the Historian's Office.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Jen, one quick question on Yemen.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The U.S. ambassador met with President Hadi today. I was wondering if you had anything, any kind of readout or attribution perhaps on the huge attack yesterday?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have a readout. We condemn the attack, as you may have seen yesterday, for obvious reasons. We can see if there's more we can convey about the ambassador's meeting.
QUESTION: And the U.S. isn't ready to say it's AQAP yet, like the Yemenis have?
MS. PSAKI: We don't have any additional details or independently from this end.
QUESTION: Jen.
MS. PSAKI: Let me just do a few more here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a quick one on Sri Lanka.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Elections were held today. There was a high turnout. Do you have anything to say on that?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let's see. I know I have something a little new on this. Let me just – oops, sorry about that. All right. Here we go, Lalit. We are encouraged by initial reports indicating high turnout. We're further heartened by reports that election observers have thus far been able to carry out their critical oversight role. We commend the role of the election commission and police and security forces in ensuring a peaceful process. We urge the Government of Sri Lanka to ensure that vote counting is carried out credibly and transparently, and that any allegation of fraud or violence is credibly investigated. We will wait to hear the announcement of the electoral commission and the reports from domestic and international observer groups before making an assessment of the voting process.
And I know you asked yesterday about observers from here.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: The United States did not send international election monitors for the presidential elections in Sri Lanka. We understand the Government of Sri Lanka invited international monitors from the Commonwealth, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and the Asian Network for Free and Fair Elections, totaling around 84 international monitors.
Pam? Oh, go head. Sri Lanka or --
QUESTION: No, but in the region.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Okay.
QUESTION: There's a report in the Pakistani newspaper, The Tribune, which asserts that the United States has double counted funds spent prior to the enactment of Kerry-Lugar-Berman as falling under the 7.5 billion to be disbursed to Pakistan under Kerry-Lugar-Berman. Is that true? Are you counting any funds that were expended prior to the passage of that bill or that law now as part of the 7.5 billion?
MS. PSAKI: I'll have to take that, Arshad --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- which I'm sure doesn't surprise you. But we can look into it with our --
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS. PSAKI: -- economic team.
Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: Jen, can you elaborate on a U.S. travel advisory that was issued over the weekend for Surabaya, Indonesia.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: It stated that the Embassy was aware of potential threats against U.S.-associated hotels and banks. Does this have anything to do with the Air Asia crash? That flight, of course, took off from that city.
And secondly, today the Indonesian foreign minister said that security officials had assured her there were no threats of any kind and the situation is safe.
MS. PSAKI: Well, the embassy, as you noted, in Jakarta released a security message on January 3rd which alerted U.S. citizens to a potential threat against U.S.-associated banks and hotels in Surabaya, Indonesia. It strongly encouraged U.S. citizens who are traveling or living abroad to, of course, enroll in the Smart Traveler Program and keep wary of – or keep aware of our security messages.
We have no knowledge of any connection between this threat and the Air Asia flight, so this was a separate – separate information that we wanted to put out to the public there. As you know, we have information we gather through a range of sources, and we provide that publicly when warranted. This is the case here as well.
QUESTION: Can I just ask on Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You put out a statement earlier this morning that Under Secretary Sherman is going to Geneva on the 15th of January through the 17th.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: And the European Union has announced the start of the P5+1 talks on the 18th.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I just wondered, two days ahead for bilateral talks – usually you only give yourself like – you only do a day. Was there a particular reason?
MS. PSAKI: It depends. It's different time to time. I think there was a decision made that that was warranted now, and it gives an opportunity to have more discussion. And that's, of course, why Acting Deputy Secretary Sherman will be leading and heading to these meetings.
QUESTION: Okay. So there's no particular reason for two days of talks as opposed to --
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't over-read into it other than our commitment to having discussions about the technical details and continuing to make progress.
QUESTION: And do you anticipate these political director level talks will go on through January? How is it going to work?
MS. PSAKI: I expect that once they have this round of discussions they'll have – they'll make determinations about the schedule moving forward. As always, we'll let the EU make announcements about the next sets of meetings.
QUESTION: But you want an outline agreement by March.
MS. PSAKI: Yes. But in terms of the specific sets of meetings, I expect the meetings will be continuous as they have been, or regular, and there are technical meetings often that happen in between. But in terms of a schedule, well, we're just not at that point yet.
QUESTION: I've got three. I'll make them really, really brief.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. And then – well, I'll do the last one. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Bahrain is: Do you have any updates on the case of – on your concerns about the case of Mr. Salman?
MS. PSAKI: Let me see if I have anything new on that. If not, Matt, we can look into it.
QUESTION: And there's also a question about arms sales to Bahrain, if they've fully resumed or not. So if you could take that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Secondly --
MS. PSAKI: I'm happy to take both of those.
QUESTION: -- Turkey, the Turkish foreign minister has said that the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, is welcome in Turkey anytime he wants to – any time he wants to go. Do you have any thoughts about that, given the fact that he is --
MS. PSAKI: I spoke to this a little bit yesterday, but it wasn't asked in the exact same way. Our position on Hamas has not changed. Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization that continues to engage in terrorist activity and demonstrate its intentions during the summer's conflict in – with Israel. We continue to raise our concerns about the relationship between Hamas and Turkey with senior Turkish officials, including after learning of Meshaal's recent visit there. And we have urged the Government of Turkey to press Hamas to reduce tensions and prevent violence.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, is there any – I mean, I don't get it. This guy is the leader of a terrorist organization. If Ayman Zawahiri showed up in Turkey, would you have a similar muted response? I mean --
MS. PSAKI: I don't think that's a muted response. Obviously, we look at each situation case by case.
QUESTION: Well, this is a NATO ally and they seem to be --
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: -- they're hosting and seem to be willing and happy to host the leader of a group that you deem a foreign terrorist organization. So is Hamas somehow less bad than other – other groups that are on the FTO list?
MS. PSAKI: I just conveyed we expressed our concern. We'll continue to have that discussion with Turkey.
QUESTION: Can I ask in a different way, slightly – the other side of the coin? Could the hosting of somebody like Khaled Meshaal place Turkey in some jeopardy of finding itself on the list of nations that sponsor state terrorism or states that sponsor terrorism?
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Obviously, there are a range of criteria that are looked at in that regard. So I --
QUESTION: Well, you remember the famous Bush doctrine: If you clothe, feed, or harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist. Does that doctrine still hold?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't think we've repeated that exactly. There's obviously criteria that we look at as it relates to designating countries or individuals. We're not looking at that as it relates to Turkey.
QUESTION: Well, welcoming --
MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we're concerned about this.
QUESTION: Well, welcoming the leader of a group that you've designated a foreign terrorist organization would certainly seem to be supporting it.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt --
QUESTION: No?
MS. PSAKI: -- obviously we've expressed our concerns. There hasn't been action that we have knowledge of to confirm about where his whereabouts are, so --
QUESTION: But you just said that you knew – that you raised your concerns with him when you found out that he was there a couple --
MS. PSAKI: That he recently visited. Yes, we did.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, that's it? It's okay?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think I said it was okay.
QUESTION: Well, no --
MS. PSAKI: Pam, do --
QUESTION: -- I know. But there isn't any consequence, then, except for you saying that we're concerned about --
MS. PSAKI: I --
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: We're going to have private discussions. We have to wrap this up.
QUESTION: All right. I've got one more.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: It'll be brief. And that is that I read the taken question that you put out on --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: It's a fuller explanation of your position --
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: -- on the Palestinians and the ICC. And I'm just wondering: In any of this, which you – this is your opinion, that the U.S. – you don't believe the Palestinians are eligible to join. But is there anything that the United States can do to stop the Palestinians from doing this? I mean, opinions are like noses, right? Everyone's got one, but does this one – does your opinion on this make any difference since you're not a member?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't think it's appropriate for me to do the analysis of what influence our opinion has, Matt. You can ask other people that question.
QUESTION: And there are some unfortunate people without noses.
QUESTION: I suppose, but everyone usually --
MS. PSAKI: That is true. It's a different question, but --
QUESTION: Most people are born with them. Anyway, the – in addition to submitting – well, the deal is that the ICC has welcomed them as the 123rd member state of the court, of the Statute of Rome, whether you think that they're eligible or not.
MS. PSAKI: Well, wait a second, Matt. They – there is documents --
QUESTION: I'm looking at --
MS. PSAKI: -- that are submitted to Ban Ki-moon. There is a decision that will be made by member organizations. I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of where things stand.
QUESTION: Well, I think the decision has already been made. I mean, the letter from the president of the court to President Abbas says that, "I confirm receipt," and here – and basically you're in, and then he also says that they confirm receipt of a letter that the Palestinians have sent to them giving the ICC jurisdiction back to June – just before the Gaza war – back to June of 2014. Do you have any opinion about that, and if – even if you do, does it make any difference?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let us take a closer look at that, because that's not my understanding of where – the status of where things are at this point in the decision making.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, last one. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay, so this just popped up, so you may not have a response at this point. But there is reports that a 25-year-old American student was stabbed in Jerusalem and wounded from that attack. Are – is this something that you have any comment on? Are you in touch with the Israelis about this particular case?
MS. PSAKI: We didn't have more information. We didn't have an indication – obviously, this just happened – that there was an American citizen involved. So we will take a closer look at it and see if we can get more information.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:05 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
