• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 9, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

RUSSIA / UKRAINE
SECRETARY TRAVEL
FRANCE
OMAN
KEYSTONE PIPELINE
SOUTH KOREA
CUBA
EGYPT
GLOBAL TERRORISM
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
NIGERIA
SAUDI ARABIA
INDIA
PAKISTAN
SRI LANKA
KEYSTONE
EGYPT
NORTH KOREA
RUSSIA/ UKRAINE
CUBA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

12:46 p.m. EST

MS. PSAKI: All right. Two items for all of you at the top. We're deeply concerned by reports that Russia has moved Ukrainian pilot Nadia Savchenko to solitary confinement. We understand that Ms. Savchenko has been on a hunger strike for nearly a month to protest the terms of her detention and is suffering additional health problems. We call for her immediate release as well as other Ukrainian hostages held by Russia.

A few more details on upcoming travel: Secretary Kerry will stop in Munich, Germany on January 10th to meet with the sultan of Oman to express his gratitude for their longstanding and strong relationship. He will then travel to Ahmedabad, India to attend the Vibrant – as you know, the Vibrant Gujarat Global Investors Summit, inaugurated by Indian Prime Minister Modi. We talked a little bit about that the other day. Secretary Kerry will then travel to Geneva, Switzerland to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif on January 14th to have a bilateral meeting to provide guidance to their negotiating teams before their next round of discussions, which begin on January 15th. And then on January 15th, Secretary Kerry will travel to Sophia, Bulgaria to discuss security cooperation, energy diversification, and the bilateral trade and investment relationship. He will also highlight the importance of rule of law in helping Bulgaria to realize its full potential as a vibrant, European democracy.

With that, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on the – logistically on the trip, there isn't – it's just a bilateral visit in Bulgaria?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: It's not – there's not some big conference to --

MS. PSAKI: No.

QUESTION: And then you – isn't he meeting someone rather unusual in Ahmedabad?

MS. PSAKI: Rather unusual? He is having a meeting with the prime minister of Bhutan, which we announced earlier this morning. That is the first meeting at a cabinet level with the prime minister of Bhutan.[1]

QUESTION: All right. Now that that's out of the way, let's start with the situation in Paris and outside Paris. Do you have any new information that you can convey about what's happening, what the embassy, various consulates are doing security-wise?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the U.S. Embassy in Paris did issue a new security message today advising that the Government of France has extended the heightened terror alert to parts of northern France. International schools and other institutions are reviewing their security posture and make changes as appropriate. So this was simply passing on what the government there had provided. Nothing has changed in terms of our posture or otherwise, and our embassies and consulates – our embassy and consulates remain up and running.

QUESTION: Okay. It seems that the French police have told shops and sites in the historic Jewish neighborhood that they should close their doors. I realize that this is a domestic police/terrorism issue, but does that have – does that spark any broader concern or thoughts that – about the situation as it relates to anti-Semitism in Europe, particularly the idea of a government ordering the closure of stores in ethnic or religiously specific neighborhoods?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have any more analysis other than to convey that certainly, as you know, the situation remains fluid, and we of course provide and reiterate our full support for France and our solidarity for their efforts. They're taking every measure they can right now to keep people safe. Beyond that, I don't have any other analysis on what that means.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Following on that, do you agree with the foreign minister of Israel who said that he's very concerned about a terror offensive which is going on in France right now?

MS. PSAKI: I haven't seen the full measure of the comments. I think anyone around the world – and you've seen everyone from President Obama to Secretary Kerry express concerns about what we saw happen in France and what that means about freedom of speech and the need to continue to press for that. And clearly, around the world, even prior to this attack, we've all been on alert about the risk of terrorism. So I'd have to look more closely at the comments. I think there's a broad view that there are risks out there, and certainly every time there's a tragic attack it's a reminder of what more we need to continue to do to work together to address these challenges.

QUESTION: And on the Secretary's schedule, is there a possibility that the Secretary's stop by Paris on Sunday, because there is a big march which is organized by political parties and a lot of world leaders, would participate to this march?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you heard how passionately the Secretary spoke just a few days ago in English and in French about his views on these tragic events. And certainly, he feels a special connection with the people of France. As we've noted in the schedule, we've announced he'll be in India on Sunday, and that those travel plans have not changed.

QUESTION: So let me go to the question of the older brother, Said Kouachi. Multiple reports, including from our channel now, are suggesting that not only were they on the U.S. no-fly list, but apparently Said may have been affiliated with fighting for AQAP in Yemen in 2011, 2012. What more are you able to say about the Kouachi brothers' connections to organized terrorist organizations?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we've certainly seen the reports that have been broadly out there. As I just noted, of course, France is in the lead. This is an ongoing investigation. Out of respect for that, we're just not going to talk about the backgrounds of these individuals at this point in time.

QUESTION: But given that the Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that both men were barred from coming to the United States, what does this say about what the U.S. awareness is of persons who may be considered potential threats to U.S. security? Are there other people in addition to the Kouachi brothers who, while they may never have ever tried to come to the United States, might still have been involved in some larger security concern for this country?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Roz, I'm not going to speak from here confirming or not confirming who is or isn't on a no-fly list. I've seen the same reports you have, as we all have. Broadly speaking, we certainly take every precaution, including tracking any individuals who we feel may pose a threat to the United States or any Western interests. I'm just not going to speak more specifically to these individuals at this point in time.

Go ahead, Samir.

QUESTION: You said the Secretary will meet with the sultan of Oman?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any update about his health?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any update. As you know, they have a strong personal relationship, and I expect this will be more of a personal meeting than a policy meeting. They certainly could discuss a range of issues that they've talked about in the past, especially with everything that's ongoing, with issues ranging from the nuclear talks to Syria to all of the issues we talk about in here every day.

QUESTION: That means his meeting with the sultan is related to the negotiations with Iran, especially that Oman is --

MS. PSAKI: No, that's not at all what I said. There are a range of issues. I conveyed, again, just to reiterate, this is more of a personal meeting than a policy meeting. In the past, as you know, they've talked about a range of issues of mutual interest. I expect they could do that again, but that's not the purpose of the visit. The Omanis, while they have certainly played a helpful role in the past, they're not involved in the negotiations. Those are happening between the P5+1 and Iran.

QUESTION: Well, except the Omani foreign minister has played the role of a shuttle envoy.

MS. PSAKI: Well, they have a long history of a relationship with Iran, certainly.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I expect this will be a very short answer, so I'll do it now –

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- rather than later. Have you seen the Nebraska court decision?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So I'm assuming you're ready to release the results of the review into the Keystone pipeline now that that –

MS. PSAKI: No, but since you –

QUESTION: -- that obstacle has been removed?

MS. PSAKI: Since you gave the opportunity, and I know we haven't talked about this in a while, let me just give a quick summary of kind of where things stand. So last April, as we talked about then, in light of over 2.5 million comments from the public and uncertainty created by litigation in Nebraska, we gave the eight federal agencies specified in the executive order more time to submit their views on whether the proposed Keystone pipeline serves the national interest.

At the same time, we've continued to work on the matter. Our process isn't starting over. We now, as Matt mentioned, have, of course, a decision by the Nebraska Supreme Court that has the result of upholding the pipeline route approved by the governor. So the next step is to request that the agencies complete their consideration of whether the proposed project serves the national interest and provide their views to the Department. That will, of course, be factored into the national interest determination, which is what ultimately at some appropriate time the Secretary will issue.

QUESTION: Well, with the court –

MS. PSAKI: That's the process.

QUESTION: But you had already – the review was essentially complete, or the –

MS. PSAKI: No, it was not. No, it was not complete. It was paused.

QUESTION: It was paused, but it had been operating on the assumption that it was the existing route, the existing planned route.

MS. PSAKI: Well, we didn't know what the outcome of the court case would be, so if – at the –

QUESTION: But surely, surely the review is – proceeded far enough on the basis of what the old – of what the old and now current route is so that it's not going to be another six, eight months --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have a timeline for you.

QUESTION: -- 2016 kind of time?

MS. PSAKI: -- but as I mentioned, obviously, a factor here is the input of the eight agencies, which will be taken into account in the issuing of the national interest determination.

QUESTION: So you're saying that – how long is the review going to take then? I don't understand.

MS. PSAKI: I don't have a – the agencies will obviously be given a sufficient and reasonable amount of time to provide their input, but I don't have an assessment on the amount of time at this point.

QUESTION: Well, how far – how close to complete was the review before there was a pause?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are several components of the review. The agency input is not something that we have at this point to review.

QUESTION: Well, but shouldn't they be able to do that relatively quickly, since it's now the old – the route has been affirmed to be the route that they were doing the work on in the first place?

MS. PSAKI: Matt, we're seeing the process through. At some appropriate time soon, we'll indicate to the agencies how much time they'll have to provide their input.

QUESTION: Well, the reason --

QUESTION: Well, let's put it this way --

QUESTION: -- that I'm harping on this is that --

QUESTION: What was the deadline before it went to court? How much more time did the agencies have before --

MS. PSAKI: It doesn't --

QUESTION: -- this matter went to court?

MS. PSAKI: -- work exactly that way, Roz. It was up to 90 days, but that didn't – to give their input. But that wasn't a deadline on when a national interest determination would be released.

QUESTION: The Administration, and in particular the – well, the Administration as a whole, but in particular the State Department, which is in charge of the review --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- has been accused by some people of deliberately stalling this whole exercise. And if you're saying now that the removal of the obstacle to completing the review doesn't mean that it can be done – it can be completed quickly, I think you're probably just going to add – that's going to add fuel –

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, we'll obviously move to the next stage of this --

QUESTION: -- fire of the criticism.

MS. PASKI: -- which is certainly what we expected, which is receiving the input of the eight agencies. That's the stage we'll be at, and we'll see the process through.

QUESTION: And is there – as Roz asked, is there a deadline for them to submit their input?

MS. PSAKI: We'll be in touch soon with the agencies to give them a timeline on when we'll need their input back.

QUESTION: And what will that timeline be?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have that to outline for you at this point.

QUESTION: Could it be as long as the end of November 2016? (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to predetermine that for you, Matt, but I don't anticipate that's the length, no.

QUESTION: So you fully expect that it will be Secretary Kerry, barring some unforeseen – that Secretary Kerry will be the one who actually makes the recommendation on the national interest?

MS. PSAKI: That is how the executive order is written.

QUESTION: It won't be some future –

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- secretary of state?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, but we're seeing the process through, and that's the stage we're in at this point in time.

QUESTION: Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: The fact that the President has said he's going to veto whatever Congress does, does that affect the review at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the White House has spoken to this. But regardless of the ruling, the House bill and their review still conflicts – and our view, the Administration's view – with longstanding Executive Branch procedures regarding the authority of the President. That's why they've indicated – or my colleague over at the White House indicated earlier this week what the President's intentions would be.

We're continuing this process. We'll see it through. And that's where we are at this point in time.

QUESTION: So none of that has changed? Like I mean, what Congress is pushing through and what the President has said and what the court ruling has come through doesn't make you feel that you need to hasten this review and get this thing over with?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we certainly understand the interest – I guess I'll put it that way – from both opponents and supporters of the Keystone pipeline. But we have a responsibility to see the process through. It was written in a certain way, and so that's what we're doing at the State Department.

QUESTION: Or can we put it in the opposite way regardless of what's happening on Capitol Hill, the process of getting the agency review continues unabated; the people who are supposed to provide this input are expected to just ignore this separate piece of legislation and just do their work based on whatever timeline is established?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, we're proceeding with the process. Yes. And also I'd note the bill hasn't yet passed. The White House has just indicated what they would do if it were to.

QUESTION: Is it understood – is it explicitly understood among those people in these agencies who are supposed to provide this information that they're not supposed to now just sit on their work, that they need to pick up --

MS. PSAKI: It will be properly communicated, and I think we've been clear and the White House has been clear on that as well, Roz. But that has not – we have not given a timeline at this point in time yet. This court case just was ruled on this morning.

QUESTION: Right. But talking specifically about the congressional legislation, they should not look at that process as an excuse to not --

MS. PSAKI: We have been clear that we are going to see the process through.

QUESTION: -- do their work.

MS. PSAKI: The process requires – or requests, I should say, the input of eight agencies that will be taken into account in the national interest determination.

Do we have any more on Keystone, or shall we move on?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Any – okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Korea, there's a American woman in Seoul who's facing deportation and a ban from re-entering the country for five years over some comments she made about North Korea. I was wondering if you have anything to say about that.

MS. PSAKI: I do. Let me just find it for you, Elliot. My apologies.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: I know. Or I could sing, which would be terrible for all of you.

We can confirm that U.S. citizen Amy Chung, also known as Shin Eun-mi, was barred from exiting South Korea for the past three weeks. We have seen the reports indicating the prosecution has asked that Ms. Chung be deported and banned from South Korea for five years. We take our obligation to assist U.S. citizens overseas seriously. We're in contact with Ms. Chung and providing all possible consular assistance.

As it relates to the laws, I think it's the application of the national security law was what was used here. I think broadly speaking, our view is that the Republic of Korea has shown a consistent and longstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. In – as it relates to law, we're concerned that the national security law, as interpreted and applied in some cases, limits freedom of expression and restricts access to the internet.

QUESTION: You can confirm that she couldn't leave for three weeks --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- but you can't confirm that she's going to be deported? Or --

MS. PSAKI: We are aware of reports that she's been deported for allegedly violating the South Korean national security law. Beyond that, I don't have any more details.

QUESTION: Okay, and then just one more on this. This comes at the same time as a Japanese reporter who made some comments about President Park is – remains on trial and unable to leave the country. Do you have any broader concerns that this raises about freedom of the press and freedom of expression in North Korea – in South Korea?

MS. PSAKI: I mean, I think I expressed that in the comments I offered as it relates to the law. I mean, broadly speaking, we believe South Korea has a strong record on human rights and freedom of expression, and we expressed just a concern about the application of the particular law in some cases.

QUESTION: Can we move back closer to home?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: So we've had some vigorous exchanges over the past couple days about the Cuban prisoners, and now it looks as though you're being at least partially vindicated in your --

MS. PSAKI: Oh, mark this down as a historic moment in the briefing. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: There were reports of up to 36, I think maybe even more now, prisoners being – having been released over the course of the last two days. I know that your – one of your colleagues at the White House tweeted about this. I'm presuming now you can at least say something. The veil of secrecy and mystery has been lifted somewhat?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we welcome the significant and ongoing release of political prisoners by the Cuban Government. I'm not going to confirm numbers or names at this point in time, but these releases are certainly consistent with the cases that we raised with the Cuban Government and their decision to release the 53 prisoners.

QUESTION: Can you say that not all 53 have been released yet, even if you can't say how many have been, that you're aware of?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. There are more that will be released.

QUESTION: And are you expecting that to be – to happen forthwith?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have a prediction of that, but obviously we're hoping that will happen as soon as possible.

QUESTION: And do you know if you have been in touch, if the Administration has been touch directly with Cuban officials about this in the last day or two?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any updates on that. Obviously, on the ground we have a pretty active interests section there, and we are in regular contact.

QUESTION: But not anyone from here, for example?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any calls from here or contact from here to read out.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just on – and I realize that this is not the State Department, necessarily; this is Treasury and Commerce – any idea when the new regulations will be released so that (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have a prediction on the timing, unfortunately. Obviously, that's one of the important next steps in order to send clear guidance to American businesses and the people of Cuba on how these pieces will be implemented – Cuban cigars and many other components. So I don't have a prediction, but they're working on that. We didn't expect it would be ready immediately, so we hope to have more information soon.

QUESTION: It is not – the publication of those new regulations is not timed to coincide with the talks that will be held on the 21st and 22nd?

MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, as you know, is leading those talks.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: It's not – clearly we want to make --

QUESTION: No, I understand. But I mean would you like to have them – would it be – would the Administration like to have them done and in place by the time that those talks begin?

MS. PSAKI: I think our focus is more putting – making them available and putting the information out as soon as it's ready. It's not timed to the timing of the talks.

QUESTION: Is it possible that they could be put together that quickly – two weeks, three weeks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it takes some time, Roz, as you know, and I think is sort of implied in your question. I'm not an expert on that, so I would refer you to my colleagues at Commerce and Treasury about how long it takes to put regulations together.

QUESTION: But would there be any motivation to do this perhaps as an incentive to Havana to continue doing what could be described as a positive step, letting political prisoners go?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't tie them together. The Cuban Government has committed to the release of these prisoners. Obviously, we've seen a significant released over the past 24 to 48 hours. We made a policy decision to change our policy toward Cuba. These regulations are a part of it, but I wouldn't tie them together in that way.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you it's relevant that – you just said that a lot of these releases have been in the last 24, 48 hours. Do you think that's relevant to anything?

MS. PSAKI: I was just speaking to the timing of it given you all have been asking about it every day, so I didn't mean to overstate that. I think it's just new information.

QUESTION: Egypt.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Are you following the case of the 20 Coptic Egyptians kidnapped in --

MS. PSAKI: Can we – is there any more on Cuba before we move on? Okay, on Egyptians? Sure.

QUESTION: -- kidnapped in Libya last week?

MS. PSAKI: I do – we are, certainly, Samir. We continue to follow the situation closely. We strongly condemn these kidnappings and express our sympathy to the Egyptians who are and have been involved in this ordeal. This incident underscores the need for the international community to continue to support the Libyan people and their government during this challenging time. The United States remains committed to helping the Libyan people and government build an inclusive system of government to address the core needs of the Libyan people, to provide stability and security, and to address the ongoing threats.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: May I change the subject?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Oh, on Egypt or --

QUESTION: Something else.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Is that okay? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask – MI5 Director General Parker has said that al-Qaida in Syria is planning a mass casualty attack against the West. Does the U.S. agree with his assessment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, one, there's almost no country we have closer cooperation and a closer relationship with than the United Kingdom, and obviously we have discussions about everything from counterterrorism to perceived threats with them. Certainly, we don't talk about those publicly typically. I don't have any new assessment at this point in time to offer to you. I think certainly we're all watching the fact that there have been recent attacks in the world – not just Paris, but Ottawa, Australia, and certainly talking to our counterparts about what that means. And part of our effort and one of our biggest focuses nowadays is certainly on terrorism and the threat that that poses to Western interests.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. believe that the threat is worsening or getting --

MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to do a ranking of it. I think there's no question that this is a primary focus of not just the United States but our important partners and allies like the United Kingdom. And it's a topic of discussion in many, many of the bilateral meetings and phone calls that the Secretary has, and something that I think will continue to be a top priority of this Administration and many of our counterparts around the world.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Going to Africa --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Seleka rebels in the DRC are claiming that the United States should pay them the bounty of $5 million for bringing in one of the LRA guys. Is that your belief as well? Let's start with that one.

MS. PSAKI: I had not talked to our team about this since we talked about it a couple of days ago, Lesley, and at that point I didn't have any confirmation about the involvement of the Seleka rebels in this, so I'd have to go back to them and see if there's more we can convey or even confirm about the specifics here.

QUESTION: And then, just on his future – I mean, given that the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC statute, does – is it up to – it's not up to the U.S., then, to hand him over to the ICC. Doesn't it have to be a country that is a signatory to it, such as --

MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check with our team and see if there's really more we can offer on this. And I know that's more of a technical question than an update --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: -- so we'll see if there's more we can communicate on that.

QUESTION: Well, do – and do you believe that he should go – he should be handed to the ICC?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I just don't have an update, so we'll talk to our team – our Africa team – and I – certainly, I'm not sure your colleagues are in touch with DOD, but I would talk to them as well about it.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Africa?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: You probably have seen this report from Amnesty International that Boko Haram may have killed up to 2,000 people in this village massacre. I'm wondering, one, if you have any way of knowing whether that number, which is rather astonishing, is correct, but also what the status is of the cooperation and assistance that you're (inaudible) the Nigerians about this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, on the first question, we've certainly seen the reports, and I will say that, of course, even one death attributable to violence is too many. But we don't have any means of confirming it at this point in terms of the numbers. We certainly are aware of and in close touch about the troubling reality of the violence on the ground there.

In terms of our close cooperation with Nigeria, Secretary Kerry – I think we may have put this out, but it was over the holiday, so – he spoke with President Jonathan on the phone on December 30th. They also had a long conversation just a couple weeks before that on December 6th. Obviously, our cooperation on a broad range of issues, including security issues, is part of that dialogue. We also remain committed to supporting Nigeria as it addresses the violence caused by Boko Haram. We certainly still have a presence on the ground, an interdisciplinary team that we've had on the ground for some time as well. So there's a range of assistance I could certainly talk through, or we can send something more comprehensive out after the briefing.

QUESTION: Well, I'm just wondering – there had been complaints from the Nigerians a month or so ago, or maybe a little longer now, that they hadn't been getting everything that they'd been – that they wanted or that you – and that they hadn't been getting everything that you thought – that the U.S. thought was actually appropriate. Has that changed at all?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I can't speak to what their specific requests are. I can convey that we continue to provide a range of assistance to Nigeria. We remain committed to our counterterrorism relationship and our strategic relationship in that regard, and that we are – remain in close contact, as is evidenced by the Secretary's calls with the president.

QUESTION: But is there enough trust? One of the Nigerian complaints has been that the U.S. thinks that the military is too corrupt and that giving certain pieces of intelligence to the Nigerian military could actually end up helping Boko Haram. Can you address that concern that the Nigerians have, that they don't think the U.S. thinks that they're professional enough?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Roz, there's a long history here, as you know. And as it relates to certain funding, there are certain requirements on that that are applicable around the world. But I think the fact is we've provided a range of funding to Nigeria to address their counterterrorism needs, to fight against Boko Haram. They remain an important partner. The Secretary's engaged – obviously, that's a very high level – with them and the needs they have, so this is an ongoing dialogue. Now, obviously, as is true with any relationship, there may be individuals who are dissatisfied or feel there's more that they need, but this is a discussion we're having at the highest levels of government and we remain absolutely committed to helping meet their security needs.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: On the Saudis. Yesterday, you called for the Saudis to cancel the sentence of the thousand lashes for the activist. Has there been any feedback from the Saudis to that call?

QUESTION: Especially considering they went ahead and did it.

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any updates on that, Lesley. So, obviously, our view yesterday stands today. I understand events have happened, but we felt it important to express our concern.

QUESTION: But is this going to become an issue between the two countries?

MS. PSAKI: Well, look, I think that with any strong relationship, which certainly our relationship with Saudi Arabia is a good example of that, we work closely with the country on a range of issues – fighting ISIL, of course, they're one of our most important partners; the Middle East peace process, they're one of the countries that the Secretary briefed regularly when that was ongoing; and I could keep going on and on about what we work with them on. He also has had a long and growing relationship with King Abdullah and certainly with his counterpart there. But that doesn't mean that we don't express our concerns when we have them about issues. So our relationship will continue; it's a strong strategic relationship, but we felt it was important to express our concern about this particular case.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: And there are more and more calls from human rights groups calling for – I mean, yeah, calling for Saudi Arabia to be expelled from the human rights – United Nations Human Rights Council. Is this something the United States would support?

MS. PSAKI: I just don't – we don't have a comment on their – the status of their membership at the UN Human Rights Council.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask you – in your response to one of Lesley's question saying your position is the same as it was yesterday, and then you said, "I understand that events have happened." Could you be a little bit more specific about --

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly understand that the --

QUESTION: -- what event it is that you're talking about? I mean, we're talking about the public flogging of a blogger.

MS. PSAKI: Matt, which obviously we spoke about strongly yesterday.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So I was reiterating that our concerns about that sentencing and obviously what has happened since then have not changed.

QUESTION: But what has happened since that? I mean, do you know, other than just from reports that this --

MS. PSAKI: We've seen the reports. I don't have any independent confirmation of them. I wasn't meaning to imply that.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: South Asia?

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Madam, I have a couple of questions on South Asia, please, starting with India. As far as Secretary's visit, can you confirm – I've seen the report, of course, or the press release. What will be the major discussion since Secretary's not staying for the presidential visit on 26th? And if the Secretary is visiting also Pakistan or not?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything to announce at this point in terms of additional stops. As it relates to the trip, we expect that a big focus of the discussion will be about our economic relationship. Part of the Secretary's agenda while he's there is going to be meeting with American CEOs. He'll also have a separate meeting with Indian CEOs. And so they'll be talking about the ongoing opportunities to continue – for the United States to continue to invest in India and to increase that partnership. He'll also be visiting a Ford plant that will soon be opening, which obviously is a specific example of the investment of the United States in India.

QUESTION: On Pakistan, as far as – can you confirm because there have been some reports in Pakistan that – a government spokesman said that Kerry-Lugar $532 million certificate has been issued by the Secretary or --

MS. PSAKI: Well, I've talked about this a bit, so I'd look at some of the transcripts of this week. But we have not notified Congress of any specific funding, so those reports are bit ahead of the process.

QUESTION: So it has not been released? Because there had been reports in Pakistan.

MS. PSAKI: It has not – Congress has not been notified of a request.

QUESTION: And on Sri Lanka, please, quickly.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, one more.

QUESTION: As far as this election in Sri Lanka is concerned, I've been talking with the people or Sri Lankans here in the U.S. They applaud Secretary's and U.S. support for as far as free and fair elections, because they were saying that there was a human rights problem – of course, you know that. How do you see the future of U.S.-Sri Lanka relations under the new president? Because there were problem in the past as far as human rights and --

MS. PSAKI: And we've expressed concerns in the past. The Secretary put out a comprehensive statement last night. Obviously, we'll start looking forward to our relationship soon, and certainly, that will be a primary focus of Assistant Secretary Nisha Biswal. But I don't have anything to lay out for you at this point.

QUESTION: And finally, do we see more opening of U.S. investment and relations between the two countries under the new president?

MS. PSAKI: Again, the election was just certified last night. Obviously, we issued a comprehensive statement, so I'd point you to that.

QUESTION: Thank you, ma'am.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you.

QUESTION: So --

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- just coming back to the pipeline --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Ed Royce has just put out a statement --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- saying that it's – they've passed the bill on Keystone. Any comment given that, or – and then just coming back to that review, is there no way that the review could in any way sway what the President's thinking is on this way, given that it's a broad opinion of many stakeholders?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the purpose of the review is to take into account a range of factors, information that's been gathered – obviously, the input of eight agencies. And certainly, the reason we want to get that input is because the Secretary will review that and he'll make a recommendation, or his designee will make a recommendation. Obviously, the President of the United States obviously has the authority to take a range of steps. But certainly, as the White House has indicated today, we fully expect the Secretary will make the recommendation, or his designee. So I don't have anything particular on the House legislation. Obviously, the White House has spoken to the President's view on that. We're seeing the process through. That's our responsibility over here. And I indicated the next step is providing the information to agencies about how much time they'll have to provide their input.

All right. Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION: Someone else can go. I have two brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Should I go?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Back to Egypt.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: They've set their date for the parliamentary elections. Do you have anything to say about that?

MS. PSAKI: I could sing again now, but – we have seen the reports and welcome the news that Egypt is moving towards parliamentary elections. Obviously, we'll be watching closely.

QUESTION: Does that mean sending official observers?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have any details on that at this point in time, Roz.

QUESTION: Would that be expected in light of the recent years of political upheaval?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to make a prediction of that. Obviously, this announcement was just made today.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Recently, the FBI director and CIA director James (inaudible) were strongly --

MS. PSAKI: Comey?

QUESTION: Yeah, strongly mentioned that North Korea cyber hacking to Sony Pictures Entertainment was – used a North Korean IP. Can you confirm that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't know that it requires my confirmation when the FBI director goes out and makes the comments, so I would just point you to those remarks, and certainly, we stand by those.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), the more, the merrier confirmation.

MS. PSAKI: The more, the merrier, all right.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say – there were reports out – a report out this morning, one that I'm aware of, that the United States did not have anything to do with the North Korean internet outage?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything more to say than what we've offered on that in the past.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I just wanted to go back to – a second to Russia and Ukraine --

MS. PSAKI: Okay, sure.

QUESTION: -- and your opening statement on the pilot.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: It is my understanding, and I think your – everyone's understanding that under the Minsk agreement, both sides were to release --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- or – everyone was to release everyone else's prisoners; is that – that's correct?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, but I think there's --

QUESTION: Are you aware of any – you specifically mentioned that you call on Russia to release its prisoners. How many other Ukrainians do you believe that Russia is holding?

MS. PSAKI: I don't --

QUESTION: Not the separatists, Russia itself.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I don't have a specific number, Matt. I can see if that's anything we have publicly available.

QUESTION: And do you – and in terms of those held by the separatists, do you have any idea of those?

MS. PSAKI: I don't have a breakdown in numbers, no.

QUESTION: And in terms of those held by Ukraine from – by the Government of Ukraine of separatists or whoever else they might be holding that would be affected or should be freed under the Minsk agreements, how many are still left there?

MS. PSAKI: I don't think it will surprise you that our concern is mainly focused on the --

QUESTION: On one person, apparently?

MS. PSAKI: Well, no, on any political prisoners which are predominantly held by the Russian-backed separatists and the Russians, so --

QUESTION: But you – that is a fact, that you know that there are – the Russians and the separatists are holding the predominant majority of people --

MS. PSAKI: Political prisoners?

QUESTION: -- of prisoners who you think should be released?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm talking – not talking about political prisoners in general.

MS. PSAKI: No, I understand what you're saying.

QUESTION: I'm just talking about Ukraine --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- related to this conflict.

MS. PSAKI: I don't have a breakdown in numbers, but yes, that's our --

QUESTION: But are there – are you also calling on the Government of Ukraine to finish its releases of people?

MS. PSAKI: I think, Matt, I will check on the status of whether that is actually a concern we have. I mean, certainly, it's --

QUESTION: Well, if they're still holding people that they should have released, wouldn't that be a concern?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, but that's – I don't think that's the reality of what's happening on the ground with the agreement.

QUESTION: I don't know. I'm asking if you know. I'm not suggesting that it is or it isn't. I just – I mean, it just seems to me that you would want both sides to fulfill their obligations and not just one side with one person.

MS. PSAKI: But it remains the case that there's one country --

QUESTION: I understand that.

MS. PSAKI: -- that's illegally in another country, so --

QUESTION: I understand your position on it. I'm just trying to find out if it needs – if the call needs to be made to both sides rather than just one.

MS. PSAKI: We will let you know if that's a call we're making.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yesterday, there was a question at the end about the last U.S. official of similar rank to have traveled to Cuba.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. So Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, now referred to as Western Hemisphere Affairs – otherwise known as the 1977 version of Roberta Jacobson – Terence Todman, traveled to Cuba in April 1977. And that was, I think, raised by someone yesterday. Peter Tarnoff, who was the executive secretary in December – in – around the same time, traveled to Cuba as executive secretary in December 1978; that's the same rank as assistant secretary. He also traveled to Cuba three more times in January, April, and September of 1980.

QUESTION: Sorry, Mr. Tarnoff was executive secretary where?

MS. PSAKI: At the State Department.

QUESTION: He was the executive secretary at the State Department. Does that position still exist?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: And who – oh, the exec sec.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: But that's not a Senate-confirmed position.

MS. PSAKI: I don't believe so, no, but it's the same rank as assistant secretary. I don't know what the status of it was in the late '70s.

QUESTION: Well, is it not the case that an assistant secretary who was Senate-confirmed is more senior to someone who has not been confirmed by the Senate?

MS. PSAKI: There's many ways to rank. There are people who are different levels; some are Senate-confirmed, some are not Senate confirmed, or the same level. It's not – it doesn't work exactly that way. It's not – you don't outrank just because you're Senate-confirmed.

QUESTION: You don't?

MS. PSAKI: No. There are assistant secretaries who are not Senate-confirmed.

QUESTION: I know there are, but the assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere Affairs is. I'm not sure --

MS. PSAKI: Correct

QUESTION: And I don't believe the executive secretary of the State Department --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, and they're the same rank. They're the same level. That's what I'm conveying in providing information to you about the last visit.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 1:27 p.m.)

DPB # 9

[1] Secretary Kerry's meeting with Bhutanese Prime Minister Tobgay will mark the first bilateral meeting between a U.S. Secretary of State and a Bhutanese official. Previously, the highest ranking State Department official to engage with Bhutan was at the Undersecretary of State level. In the past, United States officials have met with both the Fourth and Fifth King of Bhutan.