Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 4, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT/INTERNATIONAL WOMEN OF COURAGE
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT/EMAIL POLICY
IRAN/ISRAEL
IRAN/IRAQ
IRAQ
NORTH KOREA
TURKEY
CHINA
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT/EMAIL POLICY
VENEZUELA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
UKRAINE
TRANSCRIPT:
1:17 p.m. EST
MS. HARF: Welcome to the daily press briefing. I have two items at the top and then I will open it up to your questions.
A trip update: The Secretary's on travel today having met with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif this morning in Montreux. He is now en route to Riyadh where tomorrow he will meet with GCC foreign ministers, with King Salman, and with the Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. He'll then have a press availability with Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. From there he will go on to London and to Paris – I know there was questions about the schedule yesterday – and scheduled to be back on Saturday. We don't have a full schedule for London or Paris yet, but as that becomes available, we'll give it to people.
And a very special guest we have today. As you may know, tomorrow the Department will be honoring the courage of some extraordinary women worldwide who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women's rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk. We are honored to have one of these women here with us today at the press briefing, and she's right back there, I think taping right now, so I'll wave. Ms. Nadia Sharmin is a Bangladeshi journalist and women's rights advocate who was attacked in the line of duty but continues to work despite threats. She is an inspiration to the field of journalism and to men and women everywhere, and we're so happy she could be here today. So thank you for coming and hope the briefing is interesting and many good questions. So you're all on notice.
Brad.
QUESTION: Well, inspired by our colleague here today, we will be fearless in this briefing.
MS. HARF: I have no doubt. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. I just wanted to ask firstly on the briefing – the schedule. London, there's no planned events yet for?
MS. HARF: We just don't have a schedule fleshed out yet.
QUESTION: Okay. So he's filling it up with other things to do?
MS. HARF: Many, many important events and work activities, phone calls. I'm sure we'll have a schedule soon.
QUESTION: And then can I start with something we touched on yesterday?
QUESTION: Sorry, can you stay on this, please?
QUESTION: Go on. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Since he will be meeting tomorrow with the GCC foreign ministers and you are supposed to meet with them in London, what is – and he will meet with British foreign minister in Paris, I think, on Saturday.
MS. HARF: We're still trying to finalize the schedule. We don't have a schedule for London yet.
Brad.
QUESTION: So I wanted to touch on what we spoke about yesterday regarding former Secretary of State Clinton's emails.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to – at the time, you said you weren't sure about how the whole thing got set up and I asked --
MS. HARF: How her email address got set up?
QUESTION: Well, how – did she ever have a State email? Was it offered? Was it rejected? I also wanted to ask about a report that there were some red flags raised at the time here in the building, but it never went any further and never reached her because it was deemed to be appropriate or acceptable.
MS. HARF: Sure. And a couple points – and I will answer all of your questions, I promise, Brad, and then I'm sure there will be many more. There's been a couple in inaccurate accounts over the last 24 hours, some that I think you asked about but some others – so I just wanted to clear those up, and then let's get into specifics.
First, there's been inaccurate accounts that Secretary Clinton used multiple email accounts. That is false. There was just one email account. Second, it wasn't the select committee that brought this email account to light, although I think some have tried to claim that. In fact, the account's existence had been known publicly since March 2013 when it was reported on. And of course, there's – as we've said yesterday, it was not prohibited at the time, is not prohibited now, and we can get into more details about that.
In terms of the questions about when it was set up and all of that, I'm sure her office can address some of that. We're not going to get into specifics, but this was the email account that she used. I can't speak to anonymous claims about concerns people inside the building may have raised. Again, I think her office can address the issues about security. I think they're probably most appropriate to do so. So I can't really speak to those kinds of claims.
QUESTION: Well, anonymous or not, I mean, have you asked the cyber security office here in the State Department if they had concerns?
MS. HARF: I have not.
QUESTION: Has anyone asked about that?
MS. HARF: I'm happy to check on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: I'm happy to check on that. And again, it's not prohibited – was not then, is not now – so just want to reinforce that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Would it be possible to get some clarity on who exactly in this building is in charge of handling compliance with regards to archiving of electronic communications?
MS. HARF: I'm happy to check. I'm not – quite honestly, I'm not sure.
QUESTION: Do you know if anyone in whatever that department was had raised any concerns at the time that she was serving as secretary?
MS. HARF: Well, not knowing what department that is I think it'd be hard for me to know of concerns they raised, but I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: Right. There is – you'd referenced yesterday the 2013 guidance from NARA, but it also seems that there's an August 2012 guidance from Office of Management and Budget directing all federal agencies to – let me get the language right – to create records management systems that ensure compliance with federal records management, statutes, and regulations – specifically referencing the President's memorandum in 2011. At that time, did anyone raise the issue of whether this was in compliance?
MS. HARF: Well, again, I think what you noticed with the 2009, 2011 – you just mentioned 2012 – that there was clearly an ongoing need for clarity about how all of the government agencies kept records. And it is – was true then, certainly when she was secretary, that (a) there was not a prohibition on using personal email, but (b) there was also not a time requirement for when your personal emails or documents writ large had to be preserved as part of the record. That has since changed, but that was after she left. So at the time, there was no time requirement. Those 55,000 documents which her staff has said is anything related to her work was turned over – so her staff has said that is everything – have now been given to the State Department and are part of the permanent record.
QUESTION: I think that the core of what I'm trying to get at here is: Was anyone actively monitoring whether the State Department at that time was in compliance with these directives?
MS. HARF: I'm happy to check. But when we talk about compliance, even those directives that you mentioned, when she was secretary, did not include a time requirement to turn over records as part of a permanent record. So while I can't speak to the specifics, I do know that at that time, there was no time requirement. Now there is, and she has given everything, according to her staff, to the State Department.
QUESTION: And then one follow-up question from yesterday: Do you have anything further on whether there's going to be a comprehensive review of the contents of these emails or how it is that you've reached the, I guess, decision that there was no classified information included?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously – and part of this is coming up because 300 of her emails were provided to the select committee, so somebody obviously had to go through all 55,000 pages and determine if there was anything that was deemed responsive to the select committee's request. So that process for that request was undertaken. If other requests come in the future, they will be gone through as well, to see if there's anything responsive and appropriate to be provided. She and her team has said that it was not used for anything but unclassified work. We don't undergo scans of everyone's unclassified email to make sure they're only doing unclassified work, so I don't think there was any indication she was doing anything but here, so I don't think it's really a pertinent question.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) claim definitively that there was nothing classified in there because --
MS. HARF: You can't claim that about anyone's unclassified email.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MS. HARF: So I'm not sure why this would be anything different. She has said she – her team has said she only did – I don't know why this would be held to a different standard.
QUESTION: It's different because it's a cabinet member using an unclassified email, and most people --
MS. HARF: But we all use unclassified emails. Would it be different if she --
QUESTION: No, most people use – most of their work is on a work email.
MS. HARF: But on the work email, that's not scanned for classified information either, Brad. If she had had a state.gov email, there wouldn't have been a classification review to make sure everything on that email was unclassified.
QUESTION: Understand, but it would have --
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- the security in place to handle classified material, as opposed --
MS. HARF: Absolutely not. That is patently false. An unclassified email system at the State Department does not have security to handle classified information.
QUESTION: We weren't talking about an unclassified – she would have a classified capacity in her email.
MS. HARF: Which is a complete – no, no, no.
QUESTION: No.
MS. HARF: The classified (inaudible) even in state.gov – no, no, wait. This is --
QUESTION: We're splitting hairs here.
MS. HARF: No, we're not. We are actually not. I have both; I can tell you. They are two separate work machines, they are two separate systems.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARF: Anyone can have a – people who have unclassified emails here, those aren't scanned for classified information, and they are not set up, from a security perspective, to handle classified information. They are not.
QUESTION: But you were saying she did not have a classified or unclassified email at the State Department. Is that correct?
MS. HARF: Yes, so – yes.
QUESTION: So presumably, if she had done her business at the State Department, she could've used a classified email system. No?
MS. HARF: She had – as – I mean, she --
QUESTION: I mean, that would've been available to her.
MS. HARF: In theory, but she had other ways of communicating through classified email through her assistants or her staff with people when she needed to use a classified setting. What I was saying is our unclassified email systems at the State Department are not the same system as the classified, and they are not equipped from a security perspective to handle classified information, even if they're a state.gov account on the unclass system. So I'm just – we all use unclass systems, they don't have classified on them.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: I'm not --
QUESTION: Her question wasn't pertinent to unclassified email at State.
MS. HARF: Her – was not pertinent? I'm sorry. I think we're --
QUESTION: Let's move on.
MS. HARF: -- tying each other up in knots.
QUESTION: Let's move on.
MS. HARF: I will answer the question. I'm just not sure we --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: Did I get – sorry, let's stay with --
QUESTION: I think that that got to it, but I'm still a little unclear --
MS. HARF: As to what?
QUESTION: Maybe we can – someone else can ask a question and we can get back to me.
MS. HARF: Okay. If there are things that are unclear, I'm happy to try to address them.
QUESTION: Yesterday you weren't ready to confirm that all her emails were now in the State Department's possession. Now you're pretty confident about that?
MS. HARF: Well, what I'm saying is her staff has stated that anything related to her work has been given to the State Department.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: So --
QUESTION: And you have no reason to doubt that.
MS. HARF: Exactly.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: But this is obviously a confirmation her staff has to make.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can we --
MS. HARF: Anything else?
QUESTION: Can we move to Israel?
MS. HARF: We can.
QUESTION: So before Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived, the White House and the State Department made clear that there won't be any meetings between the Administration and the Israelis. So could you confirm that before he left yesterday he met with nobody within the Administration?
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. Not to my knowledge. I'm – not that I've heard.
QUESTION: Okay. And you would disagree with the premise of my question that yesterday was a great moment of world diplomacy when you see two allies, the President and the prime minister, clashing about Iran. So would you say that really the U.S. is upset with Israel as you attempted to have a rapprochement with Iran?
MS. HARF: Well, two points. First, no one's talking about a rapprochement with Iran. Even as we negotiate, this does in no way represent a broader warming of ties, lessening of concerns on our part. This is not about a broader rapprochement in any way. This is about the nuclear issue, and that's it.
I don't – I wouldn't say we're upset. I think that as I said yesterday, Secretary Kerry even today was on the ground negotiating with the Iranian team to see if we can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which the President has said he will do – the President of the United States has said he will do, period. And so that continues. And I heard – we heard a lot of rhetoric from Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday but didn't hear a lot of substance that would contribute to the conversation about the actual negotiations, so those continue really separate from what we heard yesterday.
QUESTION: So when the President of the United States said, "I don't have time to watch the speech, I just saw the transcript, there is nothing new in it," it's not anger or --
MS. HARF: No.
QUESTION: You are not upset?
MS. HARF: No. The President was on a SVTC – secure video conference – with some of our key allies in Europe talking about Ukraine, talking about things that are happening that we are dealing with, that he is dealing with, and didn't have the time to watch the speech, certainly has seen the transcript. Secretary Kerry has certainly heard reports of what was said as well and spoke to it today, I think.
QUESTION: So can I ask if you achieve a nuclear agreement with Iran, would that take the military option off the table, assuming there's compliance?
MS. HARF: Well, a couple points. Obviously, if there is noncompliance – so as we have always said, if we reach an agreement and everyone is in compliance, then we move forward diplomatically, peacefully, if that's what happens. If there is noncompliance of any kind, or after an agreement if Iran tries to act in opposition to its responsibilities under the NPT, under other transparency measures that will still be in place, we reserve every option to act at that point, certainly.
QUESTION: Okay. But assuming there's an agreement --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Hold on. Assuming there's an agreement and there is compliance, the military option is – there's no need for that military option, correct?
MS. HARF: It's not that it's off the table. All options remain on the table. But if we can – they do. But if we can --
QUESTION: So your military option will remain on the table even if Iran fully complies with the nuclear agreement?
MS. HARF: Well, I'm not saying we would use it, of course not.
QUESTION: Why would you even need that on the table if they're complying with a diplomatic agreement?
MS. HARF: Well, how would you take an option off of – I'm just – I'm sorry, we're not in the business of taking options on or off the table. If we get --
QUESTION: Of course you are.
MS. HARF: Well --
QUESTION: Nuclear weapons are not on the table right now.
MS. HARF: Fine. If we get to a negotiated agreement with Iran and they uphold all of their commitments under it and we uphold ours, obviously that's preferable – like there would be no need for some sort of military – of course not.
QUESTION: So if that --
MS. HARF: But if two years later or at some point it is --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: -- they are in noncompliance in a – they try to break out, something drastic happens, the option is still there.
QUESTION: But if – so if you achieve a verifiable nuclear agreement and there's compliance on all sides, how does that not create some sort of rapprochement? If you're essentially taking away the possibility, at least as long as everything remains good with the agreement, of a military conflict, how is that not some sort of rapprochement?
MS. HARF: Because rapprochement would indicate or would suggest some broader warming of ties where we don't have serious concerns about human rights, about terrorism, about Syria, about Hizballah, and would not speak out publicly and loudly and aggressively when we are – when we disagree; that somehow, our mentality about all of these other ways we strongly disagree with the Iranian regime would somehow change because we could get to a nuclear agreement. That would not be the case.
We would have an agreement that would be a good thing if we can prevent them from getting a weapon, but it wouldn't mean that on all these other issues, our relationship with Iran would suddenly change.
QUESTION: Yeah. I don't think it means that, but we can ask --
MS. HARF: I actually think that it does.
QUESTION: -- Nicolas what rapproche means.
MS. HARF: Do you have a better definition for that? I think it indicates a broader warming --
QUESTION: It doesn't mean full and warm relations.
MS. HARF: But it --
QUESTION: It means a process of moving toward warmer relations, which --
MS. HARF: And I would disagree that a nuclear agreement would do that.
QUESTION: -- taking the military off the – the option off the table would do that.
MS. HARF: But I would – no, I would so strongly disagree with you that if we can get a nuclear agreement, there would be a warming of relations with Iran. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.
QUESTION: Well, the Iranians have long demanded that --
QUESTION: So assuming you have an agreement, you don't foresee any possibility to start diplomatic negotiations to think about restoring the relationship with Iran?
MS. HARF: Look, I can't predict what could happen in two or five or ten or fifteen years. And the President, separately from the nuclear negotiations, has spoken multiple times about, of course, someday, we would like to have a different relationship with Iran and the Iranian people. He has spoken about that numerous times. But I want to be very clear that we are not linking the nuclear agreement or a successful nuclear agreement to a broader warming of ties, to a broader rapprochement on other issues, or in general. I think that's an important point to make.
QUESTION: This gets to a talking point in the --
QUESTION: I have --
MS. HARF: Wait, let's go here and then I will go to you. Yep.
QUESTION: -- in the prime minister's speech, because the Administration is saying that he did not put forward any alternatives. He did put forward an alternative according to him. When he landed in Israel, he said the alternative is pretty clear, and it's your decision to separate out the nuclear talks from terrorism-related offenses, human rights violations, and the like. By rewarding them with a nuclear agreement, they will have a greater agency in those other spheres because they will be a richer nation. And you are, in effect, facilitating that by agreeing on the deal that doesn't address those things.
So is that not – what do you contend with in that, first off?
MS. HARF: Well, that's just a sort of wholly unrealistic, and quite frankly, simplistic argument. Look, the reason we want to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is because, in large part, of their aggressive and destabilizing activities in the region. And can you imagine a country that tries to portray its power in all these ways in the region having nuclear weapons? That's actually why we want to prevent them from getting a weapon. And certainly, linking the nuclear talks with any of these other issues would make it harder to get a nuclear agreement and harder to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
So you have to deal with that issue. That is the most pressing security issue for the world and the region when it comes to Iran right now. The others are very important, but we have to deal with that. And if you want to deal with everything under the sun in an ideal world, then you will never get to a nuclear agreement ever, period.
QUESTION: Okay. But – so you do agree that he is proposing an alternative; you just don't agree with it?
MS. HARF: No, I don't think that is in any way a realistic alternative, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: I do not.
QUESTION: And then --
MS. HARF: And I didn't hear any different breakout time, I didn't hear any different ideas about the actual deal. They – he says we need longer breakout time. Okay, what? What is acceptable?
QUESTION: But you also – you, from this podium, warned him not to reveal details of the deal, so --
MS. HARF: But that's not – no, no, no. He said we want a longer breakout time. If he said – we said publicly we want a year. We've said that publicly. He says we want longer. Okay, what's long enough for you?
QUESTION: Do you want him to outline the specific --
MS. HARF: I would love for him to.
QUESTION: Okay. Going on to this – we'll move on to – go ahead. You had --
MS. HARF: Samir had a question.
QUESTION: Well, you answered part of my question.
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: What do you say to critics who say that the U.S. is not able to stop Iran's aggressive destabilizing activities in other Arab countries and an agreement on the nuclear will be a reward for Iran?
MS. HARF: Well, it's certainly not a reward, and all of those other destabilizing activities will – they will still be sanctioned for. So all of the sanctions for human rights, for terrorism, for support for Hizballah, for their ballistic missile – those things that are not specifically part of the nuclear program, those will remain in place.
QUESTION: But the sanctions don't work, as the Secretary said today.
MS. HARF: Well, I don't think the Secretary said sanctions don't work.
QUESTION: I mean, didn't stop --
MS. HARF: I think that's not what he said --
QUESTION: Did it stop --
MS. HARF: -- but I will say we will still put pressure on them for all of those other things, and a nuclear agreement is not a reward. Preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon, moving their program even further back, cutting off those four pathways – how could that be a reward?
QUESTION: So you are saying that the proposal on the – it should be said explicitly that you believe the proposal that is on the table is a good deal and not just a sufficient deal for a short period of time? You think this is a --
MS. HARF: We will not agree anything less than a good deal that meets our bottom lines: one-year breakout, cutting off the four pathways.
QUESTION: Okay. Because when you say he hasn't proposed a better alternative, what --
MS. HARF: He hasn't proposed any alternative.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay, so – all right. Fair enough.
QUESTION: Do you find it interesting that he – the prime minister didn't mention zero enrichment, which previously had been the Israeli line?
MS. HARF: I mean, I can't read his mind and decipher why he didn't. We have publicly very clearly said that is not in any way a realistic – no negotiator, no Iran – no nuclear expert thinks that's a realistic proposal.
QUESTION: Well, given that he didn't mention it, do you think that shows some more flexibility from the Israeli leader than maybe you previously had imagined?
MS. HARF: I'm not sure. I don't know what it means.
QUESTION: In terms of the – you keep using the word "realistic." There are a bunch of outlets – Washington Post had an editorial today, and some others – Dennis Ross, who was in the Administration – said that there are some legitimate concerns that the Israeli leader voiced, and that you're not – by saying that there's no alternative, you're not addressing the specific point-by-point concerns.
MS. HARF: I – well, I will say privately, in our – at the expert level and at the political level with the Israelis, we go point by point on their concerns. That happens in private, classified settings. But I can guarantee you if we're talking about enrichment, we are talking through their specific concerns. I can guarantee you of that.
So yes, we're not going – but publicly I'm happy to talk about some of this, and it will be much easier to talk about some of this if we can get to an agreement and we can very clearly lay out publicly here's what we're doing. But I can assure you that privately, we address their concerns and work through them with them.
QUESTION: Is there any country in the region – Israel or any of the Arab nations – that has come to you and said, "We really like this proposal that we're looking at"?
MS. HARF: I don't know. I can check. I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: Marie, did the speech --
MS. HARF: I will say, though, that the P5+1, all of our negotiating partners around the world, and countries in the region, every time the Secretary – we talk to them, they all express support for how hard we, the P5+1, is trying to get to a diplomatic agreement here, that the concept is something that people do – I mean, even Prime Minister Netanyahu did – express support for. Now, the details we work through with people, but with the P5+1, we are all united. We're all on the same page. We're the ones in the negotiating room, and that's going to continue.
QUESTION: And I just want to also clarify, following up on Brad's point – the President's opposition, so it seems, to a – to any legislation on Iran until the talks result in something --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: -- yeah, or fail – is --
MS. HARF: So pessimistic, Brad. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: 50/50, right?
QUESTION: 50/50 or less.
QUESTION: Realistic.
QUESTION: Anyway, the President's opposition is up until that point, but is that to say – can we assume that the President, as you've said, believes Congress has a key role in this process?
MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Is that to say that the President supports congressional approval of any future deal after said deal is announced?
MS. HARF: No. I mean, we've spoken up very clearly --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: -- about the fact that we don't believe an up or down vote by Congress is something that is appropriate.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Now, who knows what proposals will look like for congressional action, so I can't predict. We have said that while we're in this very critical period of negotiations, legislation would potentially complicate them, potentially weaken our negotiating hand, which I know Congress doesn't want to do. And so we'd have to look at any proposal after we – that's a high-class problem – we can get to a deal.
QUESTION: Did the speech affect the negotiations with the Iranians yesterday and today?
MS. HARF: I haven't heard that it did. I haven't.
QUESTION: And did they discuss it, do you think, the Secretary with his counterpart?
MS. HARF: I have no idea. I can see if that's something we would want to share. I really don't know.
QUESTION: Since the 10-year sunset is in the public sphere at this point and the Iranians are --
MS. HARF: Also, Secretary Kerry said that that's not accurate in open testimony last week.
QUESTION: Well – oh. Okay. Well, the Iranians also spoke to it, and they said that it's unacceptable to them, so if it's inaccurate – I mean, if the Iranians are saying that's too short a period, are we to assume that it's --
MS. HARF: No. We have said --
QUESTION: Or too long a period, rather.
MS. HARF: We have said double-digit – has to be double-digit duration. Secretary Kerry last week said some of those reports were not accurate on specifics, but obviously, the negotiation continues. But we have said double-digit duration.
QUESTION: So reports are accurate that this is still a sticking point in the talks.
MS. HARF: I think there are a lot of sticking points in the talks.
QUESTION: Can I ask – at the end of the Montreux talks, there was a background briefing, I think, and there was a bit more confusion again on what you're actually aiming to produce by the end of March.
MS. HARF: Okay. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: This is a framework, or now it's being called an understanding? Is that right?
MS. HARF: We've used both terms.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: And either a framework or an understanding on the major elements of an agreement. So we've used both terms. I can't predict what form it would take or what, exactly, it would look like.
QUESTION: Okay. But just --
MS. HARF: And then the rest of the time for the specifics of annexes and really technical details.
QUESTION: Okay. Given that many in Congress are at least willing to wait until the end of March, especially on the Democratic side, even people who've opposed somewhat your negotiating position, like Senator Menendez, are you going to produce something public or something that clearly shows you've accomplished something if you do, in fact, say you've an understanding, framework, whatever?
MS. HARF: Well, certainly, when it comes to Congress that's not always public. I don't – the real answer is I don't know what will be public. Obviously, we push to share as much as we can, given that it's an important thing to do. But certainly, when it comes to Congress in whatever setting most appropriate, of course, we will have to walk through what we have and where we are.
QUESTION: But there's --
MS. HARF: And I – the real answer is I don't know how much or what form it might take publicly, but obviously, that's something we believe in in principle, right.
QUESTION: But there is the possibility still that this would be a secret understanding, that the larger public would just have to take your word for it?
MS. HARF: I really just don't want to predict, Brad. I really don't. Obviously, we know there's huge attention on that, and as much as we can share publicly, that's always our goal.
QUESTION: Well, it's partly because the Administration itself has set a high bar for doing this by the end of March.
MS. HARF: That is true. That is true.
QUESTION: And if it says, "Well we did it, trust us," as opposed to "Well, we did it and here's what we agreed to," and the Iranians say the same thing, those are two entirely different matters.
MS. HARF: I completely understand. And believe me, I don't want to be up here saying, "Trust me," so I don't disagree with you. And it just – it all depends on what's best for the negotiations. Obviously, we have to be and we will want to be as forthcoming with Congress as we can be given the interest there. So we'll see as we get closer. Again, that's a high-class problem to have.
QUESTION: Brad mentioned Senator Menendez, who at AIPAC said that what you're proposing is effectively an alarm system, which I thought I hadn't heard it put that way before.
MS. HARF: Yeah, I hadn't – I didn't hear --
QUESTION: Do you think that's accurate?
MS. HARF: I'm not sure what he means by that.
QUESTION: Well, basically, as Netanyahu said in his speech, inspectors can document but they can't really enforce, they can't stop. So as North Korea did, if the inspectors are kicked out and the cameras are turned off, it's an alarm system but it's not stopping them if they choose to proceed.
MS. HARF: Well, I would say a few points. Inspectors are one – and they're an incredibly important piece of this. And one thing inspectors and transparency gives you – and it's not just in where centrifuges are; it's starting with the uranium mines and mills and sort of the whole life of the cycle here – but they can give you enough warning to be able to act in another way if they are in noncompliance and attempt to break out. So it is an effective warning system if some of that happens.
But I would also say it's not just about putting inspectors in. The number of things they will have to do to cut off those four pathways, the changes that will have to come to Arak, that will have to come to Natanz, that will have to come to Fordow, those are things that they will have to do, and then there will be inspectors on top of that. So that's, I think, in our estimation, much better than not having inspectors, than not having eyes on, and then driving their program further underground, certainly. But that's – I hadn't heard him use that. That's interesting.
What else on Iran?
QUESTION: Just a technical question on the framework understanding. What will be the format of this document? It will be a political agreement signed by all the heads of states?
MS. HARF: We don't know yet. We don't know yet. We just don't know. I have no idea what format, what this might take. We're working on the substance of it right now, and then we'll figure out format. But we just don't know at this point.
QUESTION: Can we continue to call it a political understanding?
MS. HARF: Understanding? Yeah, absolutely. Mm-hmm.
Abigail, yes.
QUESTION: I know this has been discussed a few times in here, but --
MS. HARF: Let's do it again, then.
QUESTION: Absolutely. So it seems that senators are still using March 24th as the deadline, and I know within here it's been said before that it's March 31st. Is it --
MS. HARF: The negotiating team is operating under March 31st, so --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: And that's what – when we announced the extension in November, we didn't say an exact date. We said the last however many months were going to be reserved for annexes, which leads you to the 31st.
QUESTION: Since I'm very sensitive culturally --
MS. HARF: I always knew that about you.
QUESTION: -- can I ask again about the --
MS. HARF: Nowruz.
QUESTION: -- Persian holiday of Nowruz, whether negotiations will be taking place through the holiday season?
MS. HARF: And I will tell you again I don't know the answer. We have no negotiating schedule, except for probably having a meeting with the political directors soon. I would ask the Iranians, honestly.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. HARF: Or I can ask them, but --
QUESTION: I mean --
MS. HARF: We can all try to get an answer.
QUESTION: I can fly to Tehran and ask that question, but I figured --
MS. HARF: I think that Western journalists have other ways of talking to the Iranian negotiating team. Just from history I think that's true, but I could be wrong.
QUESTION: On Iran?
MS. HARF: Anything else on Iran?
QUESTION: On Iran, one more. To follow up one of the previous questions, for the last few days there are Shia militias in Tikrit. There is this operation underway, and apparently Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the IRCG, also around targets, lots of photos from there. So my question is: General Dempsey, I think, said that this is something positive. Is this --
MS. HARF: Well, let's be careful. He said – first he said he couldn't confirm that Qasem Soleimani was there – it's been on social media – and I think said, basically, that Iran's – any Iranian involvement would need to help counter sectarian tensions and not heighten sectarian tensions, and if they – if they did that, if they heightened sectarian tensions by their actions, that would be of concern. But certainly, we are aware of these reports and are going to be watching what happens here.
QUESTION: What is your assessment so far? Do you think this is kind of contributing to sectarian differences right now in the region?
MS. HARF: Well, I think, quite frankly, we're going to be watching. The Government of Iraq has – this is their operation that's underway to retake Tikrit from ISIL. It has Iraqi forces – security forces, militias, and tribes. And again, our approach in Iraq is to work with the Iraqi Security Forces and take a multi-sectarian government, work with this multi-sectarian government that takes an inclusive approach to fighting ISIL. If Iran's involvement in this operation, as I said, is counter to that and proves to heighten sectarian tensions, it will be of great concern. So it certainly has our attention and we're certainly going to be watching. I don't want to predict what's going to happen here.
QUESTION: The final point. This is because there is this argument that one of the biggest recruitment tools of the ISIS is to project that there is Shia-Sunni fight, and many people argue that Iranians, they are actually and openly and clearly contribute this place for ISIS hands, actually. Don't you think so?
MS. HARF: I'm not sure what your question is.
QUESTION: One of the recruitment tools of the ISIS is to say that there is a Shia and Sunni fight.
MS. HARF: Right. Okay. Is there a question?
QUESTION: Yes. So for many it's already the conclusion that Iran's contribution is already contributed these differences.
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: So you don't agree with this result yet? This is your --
MS. HARF: I think, as I said, we're watching what's happening. Prime Minister Abadi has made very clear that this is going to be a multi-sectarian government, a multi-sectarian approach, and that militias need to be under regulation of the government. So we're going to watch and see what happens. We're aware of the history here and Iranian involvement in Iraq, certainly, throughout many years, and we'll see what happens here.
QUESTION: On this, Marie, do you support this military operation?
MS. HARF: Do we support it in principle or with --
QUESTION: Yes, in principle, and does the U.S. working or helping the Iraqi army and the militia to enter Tikrit?
MS. HARF: No, this is an Iraqi operation. We are not supporting the operation militarily, but certainly are supporting the Iraqi Armed – Security Forces in very many ways, including training and assistance. But on this specific operation, we are not.
QUESTION: On this --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, Michael. Ali al-Alaa, a close aide to Prime Minister al-Abadi, expressed frustration with what he described as a sluggish American pace and pessimistic American estimates of how long it will take to drive the Islamic State from Mosul and the western province of Anbar. He said, "Americans continue procrastinating about the time it will take to liberate the country...Iraq will liberate Mosul and Anbar without them." What do you think about his statement, and do you think that the Iraqis are able to liberate Mosul without the American help?
MS. HARF: Well, what I would say is the Iraqi Security Forces got back up on their feet, started taking the fight to ISIL and are taking it to ISIL today with the help of the American military. So let's be very clear here. We have provided essential support to the Iraqi Security Forces as they got back on their feet after this summer and as they've been better equipped, better trained, certainly.
Now, the goal here is for these – there are obviously Iraqi-led operations, and that is the goal, period. But we are playing a supporting role where we can, and that will continue. And look, the fight against ISIL is going to be a big challenge here and it's going to take a long time. And I think that's just realistic; that is not pessimistic.
QUESTION: And do you agree that there is a difference with the Iraqi Government regarding these military operations?
MS. HARF: No, I would not say that there is. I would not say that there is. We're working with them and will continue to do so.
QUESTION: Marie?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Change of subject to North Korea?
MS. HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su Yong made a statement in Geneva, Switzerland. He said that if necessary, North Korea would preemptive nuclear attack on United States.
MS. HARF: I didn't see that.
QUESTION: How would you respond on --
MS. HARF: That sounds pretty aggressive.
QUESTION: -- his threat to United States?
MS. HARF: Well, I didn't hear it.
QUESTION: You better hear that before --
MS. HARF: Yeah, I would have remembered hearing that.
QUESTION: -- at the UN meeting.
MS. HARF: I will check. But clearly, that – if that is true, or whatever aggressive language he used, it's totally unacceptable, particularly when you're at a place like the Human Rights Council, which I think is where he was. So --
QUESTION: Can I do Turkey?
MS. HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: A couple days ago, there is – another Turkish journalist got arrested, and the reason for the arrest is getting and publishing state secrets. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. HARF: If we're talking about the same journalist that had to do with, I think, military officers?
QUESTION: Mehmet Baransu, yes. He was the one --
MS. HARF: Yes, the same one.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: We've seen the reports. Any investigations, as we've said, should be conducted in a fair, transparent, and democratic manner, and certainly remain concerned about due process and effective access to justice, and also about freedom of speech and freedom for journalists to operate in Turkey. Those are ongoing concerns.
QUESTION: Currently, Turkish prime minister and foreign minister and the deputy prime minister, all they are in New York and they'll stay there about two, three days. And it looks like they are not coming to D.C. Should we make any kind of --
MS. HARF: I hadn't heard that.
QUESTION: Yeah?
MS. HARF: So --
QUESTION: There is no meeting scheduled with the Turkish officials, right?
MS. HARF: I can check. I'm sorry, I hadn't heard that. I can check.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: On China, and I know you have addressed this a little bit yesterday on the President's remarks on the Chinese anti-terror law.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And the Chinese foreign ministry, actually, they are accusing that the United States – the government embedded spying software for surveillance in SIM card maker. What's your reaction on that?
MS. HARF: I saw those remarks and I think I'd go back to what I said yesterday. The President was speaking about these new restrictive practices that he said would ultimately hurt the Chinese economy over the long term, because countries won't want to do – or companies, excuse me, won't want to do business in a country that has those very, very restrictive requirements on companies. So I'd just go back to what he said and don't have much more for you than that.
QUESTION: How does the U.S. have moral high ground here? The Chinese Government, at least they inform the public about they are writing this to the legislation, while the United States Government doesn't even admit there is, like, the backdoor access to Google, Apple, or the civilian software?
MS. HARF: Well, I'm certainly not confirming that those reports are true. I'm also saying that this is – what we are focused on is this recent regulatory action. And the Chinese Government can try to deflect criticism of that, but what we're focused on is that they reconsider these restrictive banking regulations and consult with the U.S. Government and industry as they draft this counterterrorism law; and that many of these tools they claim will bolster cyber security actually aren't particularly effective at doing that, but also aren't consistent with the principles of free and open trade, and in the long term would hurt China's economy. So that's what we're focused on and that's what they should be focused on as well.
QUESTION: But if they are protecting their national security, how can you argue with that?
MS. HARF: Because we don't believe it's an effective way of bolstering cyber security, and we also don't believe it's – protecting national security also has to be in line with other competing principles and interests as well, and certainly, there are principles of free and open trade that we think are important as well.
QUESTION: Can we stay in China?
MS. HARF: We can, yes.
QUESTION: Chinese just announced about their defense budget, and saying that it's going to be 10 percent growth.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: But again, not clear whether it's including R&D or space development. Do you have a comment on that?
MS. HARF: Well, we continue to carefully monitor China's military developments to encourage China to exhibit greater transparency with respect to its capabilities and intentions, certainly, and to use these military capabilities in a manner that's conducive to maintenance of peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region. We're also committed to building a military-to-military relationship with China – to continuing to build it – through sustained and substantial dialogue, certainly, and other ways as well. So we'll watch and see but think there should be some transparency.
QUESTION: One more on that, please.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Chinese Government have a website claiming their sovereignty on Senkaku Island, and they just opened an English and Japanese version of that website. Do you have any reaction to that?
MS. HARF: I had not seen that website, but our policy on the Senkakus is longstanding and has not changed. I hadn't seen the reports of the website.
QUESTION: Okay. And actually, the English version have one column saying "basic facts," and it's saying that those islands was given back to China after the war, Japanese surrender, but in 1952, the United States arbitrarily expanded its jurisdiction of trusteeship, include those islands, illegally reverted power of administration to Japan. Do you have any comment?
MS. HARF: I'm happy to take a look at it, but again, our position on the Senkaku Islands is longstanding and has not changed.
Let's go behind you, and then I'll come up here.
QUESTION: Thank you. Different subject, Syria?
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: There are reports about Jabhat al-Nusrah severing its ties with al-Qaida and changing its name with potential financial support from Qatar. I don't know if Qatar is really doing that, but anyway – and also there was some pictures of Hazm Movement with some weapons allegedly provided by the United States handed over to Jabhat al-Nusrah. I was wondering if you were aware of those reports. If you do, what is your assessment of the situation and impact?
MS. HARF: So we have seen – yeah, we have seen the press reports about al-Nusrah Front contemplating disassociating itself from al-Qaida. Don't want to speculate about what al-Nusrah might do, but our position on al-Nusrah has not changed: It is al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria. It is a designated foreign terrorist organization, and it continues to work against the moderate opposition. We saw on Sunday when Nusrah seized Hazm's headquarters in Aleppo. So our position on al-Nusrah certainly hasn't changed, but we're watching the reports.
QUESTION: So even after this rebranding or whatever you want to call it, your position --
MS. HARF: Well, we won't speculate about what those reports might mean at this point. Our position is still that they are al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Abigail.
QUESTION: Sorry, going back to Clinton for a second.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So one of the arguments presented was that in general, the former Secretary would be using – even in using her personal email would be communicating to people who had a government email address.
MS. HARF: And a vast majority of those 55,000 pages were to other state.gov addresses – to or from.
QUESTION: Two of her closest aides, it's been reported, had their own personal email accounts, and it's been suggested that one of the reasons why FOIA requests to the State Department were rejected was because their communication did not fall under State Department's purview.
MS. HARF: It's my understanding that one of those former employees is addressing this – seems to be addressing that himself, so I'd point you to her team to address that. But again, a vast majority of her emails were to and from a state.gov address, certainly, and we have all of them now, and they are part of our permanent record.
QUESTION: So that communication did not violate any regulation as far as her not forwarding that on to --
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- the State Department (inaudible)?
MS. HARF: There was no prohibition. There was not then and there is not now a prohibition on using a personal email for official business, and at the time she was in office, there was no time requirement for when those needed to be preserved as records. They all have been preserved as records now. Her team has said that this is the extent of the records that she has, so that is where we are today.
QUESTION: Sorry, so just one more – so those records would not include a personal email to a personal email account?
MS. HARF: The 55,000 that we have today absolutely would.
QUESTION: They would include that?
MS. HARF: Correct. What we were saying was before the 55,000 pages were turned over to the State Department, anything to and from a state.gov address would already have been part of our record, right? So those already would've been part of the record. The entire 55,000 – those to and from state.gov and those to other people that weren't state.gov – are now all part of our record because she has turned them over.
QUESTION: But how good is this practice, given that it's 27 months since she's been Secretary – 26 months since she's been secretary of state and now you're saying you have everything, but you're confirming that a FOIA in her – over her entire duration plus the last two years and two months wouldn't have gotten these documents? They would've just slipped through. Is that – you don't see that as problematic?
MS. HARF: Unless they were to a state – to or from a state.gov address.
QUESTION: Right. But these ones that would've been outside would just have --
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- never come under anyone's purview or anyone's oversight or anyone's – it just – it would've fallen through the cracks.
MS. HARF: For the small number that weren't.
QUESTION: Do you think that's problematic?
MS. HARF: Every FOIA request and congressional request we get going forward will obviously include these, and that's what we are working very hard to do, Brad. And that's why for the select committee, we've already provided them with 300 emails from this batch.
And I would also note, in August 2013 when we sent a batch of documents to the select committee, that included emails – it included emails that included her email on that. So Congress has known about this email address for quite some time.
QUESTION: But even broader than the Benghazi Select Committee, I mean journalists or members of the public who file FOIA requests --
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- there would have been a section of emails that just never would have possibly gotten to them, even if they were pertinent to that request.
MS. HARF: And now they are able to be part of FOIA --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: -- if they are deemed to be responsive.
QUESTION: But do you think that --
MS. HARF: Not every email is automatically released or deemed responsive to a request, as you know.
QUESTION: Right, right. But do you think that that's problematic, that for the last six years, essentially, there's been a small section of emails that would have been cut out and their pertinence would never have been examined?
MS. HARF: Well, there was no prohibition on this practice, Brad, so I'm not going to make a judgment about appropriateness or not. I'm telling you what the regulations say and don't say. She operated under them, and that's as much as I can say.
QUESTION: If everybody had done this, would – what would that have meant for the FOIA system and for getting relevant information public?
MS. HARF: I don't think I'm going to make broad or sweeping generalizations about FOIA, but I will say we have provided tens of thousands of documents to Congress on a variety of issues. I mean, just on Benghazi tens of thousands of documents. But – and nothing – I would also say that nothing we have seen, for example, in her emails about Benghazi, the 300 that were responsive to the committee, that changes the record or the facts about what happened, which do think is an important point. It's not the answer to your question, but it's an important point.
QUESTION: All right, that's fine.
MS. HARF: Yes, Laura.
QUESTION: UAE unless there's something else on --
MS. HARF: Anything else on the emails?
QUESTION: Yes, a technical clarification. One is that – did those emails just get transferred or did she give the password or – it's on a separate server as – it's not on Gmail server or a State Department; it's a completely separate server, so there are passwords and all. So is there a kind of filtering that has been done?
MS. HARF: Well, what server it's on doesn't matter. The requirement is that all records she has be turned over to the State Department to be part of the permanent record. Her staff has stated that anything she had related to her work has been given to the State Department. They can speak to that, obviously, but that's what they have said.
QUESTION: And do we have any precedent for such high-level person using such a – this practice? Has it been used by any former secretary of defense, secretary of state, anybody in our history?
MS. HARF: Well, former secretaries of state – Secretary Powell – I think his representative has even been out in the last 24 hours saying he did use a personal email. He did the same – not the same exact thing, but had a personal email that he used, doesn't remember being made aware of any restrictions. His account has been closed for a number of years. He's looking to see if there's anything responsive he still has.
So Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account. Each secretary does it a little differently, but Secretary Kerry is the first one to rely primarily on a state.gov account. And this is evolving as records management regulations are clarified. Clearly, there is a need for clarity given the many questions out there. And people from former archivists to other NARA officials have said that nothing she did violated the law. So a couple have been out there recently saying the same thing, that what she did certainly was not prohibited.
QUESTION: Do you have an update on Venezuela?
QUESTION: One more on this. Why Secretary Kerry decided to rely on a state.gov account, not on a different one?
MS. HARF: I don't pretend to determine why people decide to use one email address or another. Our practices and procedures continue to evolve, and certainly, as email gets more prevalent and high-level officials start using it more, it just – each secretary makes their own decisions.
QUESTION: Sorry, I actually have one more on this. Do you know if there's any procedure for – if a State official is using a personal email address, is there anything that prevents them from deleting emails during their – while they're using it?
MS. HARF: I mean, their obligation to not do so and to properly preserve it.
QUESTION: Okay. So that would not be technically allowed?
MS. HARF: Right. I mean, your duty is if you are using a personal email for official business, you have to preserve it, either by cc'ing your official account, forwarding it to that. I'm sure some of you have emailed people on their personal accounts, and often they're forwarded to their State accounts, so that's just their responsibility as an employee.
QUESTION: One more question (inaudible). Is there any additional security measures the State Department takes when secretaries of state are using their personal email accounts?
MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into security and what we do or don't do.
QUESTION: Just one quick one. You mentioned about the NARA officials. And Jason Baron, the former director of NARA, he actually said that it's very difficult to conceive of a scenario short of nuclear winter where an agency would be justified in allowing --
MS. HARF: He also said that Secretary Clinton "did not violate the law" also, so --
QUESTION: Okay, okay.
QUESTION: Sort of cherry-picking here comments we run --
MS. HARF: No, he said she – I mean, he said she "did not violate the law," so – I was ready for that one. (Laughter.)
Yes.
QUESTION: Can we move on to the UAE?
MS. HARF: Thanks for asking it, though.
QUESTION: Can we talk about Venezuela? Is there --
MS. HARF: Yes, and then we'll go to UAE, yes.
QUESTION: Yeah. Is there an update on the – what the U.S. is going to do about the Venezuelan request to remove most of its diplomats from the country?
MS. HARF: We don't have an update for you. We're continuing to review the requests that they have asked for a plan in 15 days – now 14 days – for our staffing. And the point isn't the number, and I just want to make sure everyone – we've talked a lot about numbers in here. It's not about parity and it's not about numbers. I think the point yesterday was that the Venezuelans put out some inaccurate numbers for their side. But it's that in determining our staffing at a foreign post is driven by our interests, how we believe we can best support and promote those, whether it's American citizen services, whether it's cultural and educational exchanges, bilateral trade promotion. That drives what we think is the appropriate staffing. There's not a magic number to do that, but certainly, we are very focused on that and are looking at the request.
QUESTION: Brad and I had brought up the question over the past couple of days about whether Venezuela or any country can ask or demand or put limits on how many people the U.S. or any other country --
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- can put in their embassies.
MS. HARF: I got an answer for you today.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Third time's the charm. Staffing levels are determined via negotiations between the sending and receiving states. It is not a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for a country to place a limitation on the size of a foreign mission. Article 11 of the Convention allows it. So it's a negotiation, certainly, with any country.
QUESTION: Would you consider the current request to be the start of a negotiation on staffing levels, or do you view it as a demand?
MS. HARF: Can it be both? I think it's a --
QUESTION: A demand makes it sound as if there will be repercussions if the U.S. does not cut its staffing levels by a time certain.
MS. HARF: I think – and that's fair. I think that this is the start of a conversation that started in the meeting with the charge and the foreign minister about staffing. That was a pretty short meeting. We clearly believe that we need an embassy of a certain size to promote our interests, including things like bilateral trade, educational exchanges, Venezuelans wanting visas to come to the U.S., for example. So we're going to have the conversation with them and see what comes from it.
QUESTION: But given the allegations coming from the Maduro government about what U.S. diplomats in Venezuela are doing or aren't doing, how confident is this building that the start of the conversation will actually lead to a win-win, or at least a situation that the U.S. would consider tolerable for its foreign policy objectives?
MS. HARF: We'll see. We'll see. We'll see what comes from this.
QUESTION: The demand in no way pertains to level of diplomatic security, is that right?
MS. HARF: Oh, I do not know that. Let me check on that piece for you.
QUESTION: And is there a similar conversation about the staffing levels of Venezuelan diplomats both here and at its consulates around the U.S.?
MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into more details about what those diplomatic conversations look like, although I did find out where all eight of them are today when I looked online.
QUESTION: We'll ask you for them offline.
MS. HARF: I know.
QUESTION: Can you conceive of a situation where, if the restrictions are so severe or so unrealistic, the U.S. could simply say, well, we'll shut our Embassy until you let us staff it at a level that's reasonable?
MS. HARF: I don't know and I don't want to speculate. I do know that in the past, if there has been a reduction in staff at our Embassy, it has – we've put out statements. I have one here from 2002, I believe – 2002 – that when we have to reduce staff, it impacts things like visas for Venezuelans trying to come to the U.S., that some things can't be done when we have fewer staff. And I just don't want to predict what will happen at the end of this process.
QUESTION: That was in Venezuela in 2002, that --
MS. HARF: It was. January 3rd, 2002. And the Embassy had released a press – we had released a press statement that because of a reduction in staff, the nonimmigrant visa section would be closed to routine visa applications. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen here. It's just an example of when there's a reduction in staffing, it often impacts things like consular visa sections with people who want to get visas to come to the U.S.
QUESTION: That was before or after the short-lived coup on former President --
QUESTION: Chavez.
QUESTION: Yeah, Hugo Chavez.
MS. HARF: In 2002?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: Would have been before, right?
QUESTION: It was before, yeah.
MS. HARF: Or is my – you're playing the role of Matt very well today, Brad. (Laughter.) But this is just an example.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: I think there have been others with Venezuela, actually, even more recently about when we've had to reduce staffing and how that impacts things. I don't want to indicate this is what's going to happen here. It's just an example.
QUESTION: But is that going to be brought up during the conversation?
MS. HARF: What could happen if we don't --
QUESTION: Yeah. What could happen --
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- what the impact could be on --
MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- the Venezuelan public? What about on trade?
MS. HARF: I'm sure that what the impact would be on our ability to work on all these issues will be part of the conversation.
Yes. Laura.
QUESTION: UAE?
MS. HARF: The UAE. So patient on the UAE.
QUESTION: Thank you. There are reports that a U.S. citizen Ryan Pate was arrested in the UAE, that this was over a Facebook message that he posted while in the U.S. on temporary leave from his UAE-based job. One of the charges put against him – cyber slander, among others. He's, I guess, since been released but his passport's been taken and he's awaiting trial. Do you have anything on this case? Have consular officials been in touch with him? What can you say about it?
MS. HARF: We can confirm that U.S. citizen Ryan Pate was arrested on February 16th in Abu Dhabi. The U.S. embassy in Abu Dhabi is in contact with him and providing all possible consular assistance. The consular officer visited him on February 19th in prison. He was released on bail on February 24th. We will continue providing assistance to him. I believe his next court appearance is scheduled for March 17th, certainly. So we don't have much more than that, but we have been providing assistance.
QUESTION: Is the February 19th the only contact he's had with consular officials and --
MS. HARF: I think the only consular visit. I can check and see if there's been other contact. I just don't know.
QUESTION: And then --
QUESTION: And he's out on bail now?
MS. HARF: He is. On February 24th he was released.
QUESTION: Is he living in – at his own residence?
MS. HARF: I don't know and probably wouldn't get into that, for privacy reasons.
QUESTION: Have there been any concerns expressed to the UAE Government about this case?
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge. I think we're providing assistance, and if there's more to say as this moves forward, we will.
QUESTION: Do you consider this a domestic judicial procedure at this point?
MS. HARF: Well, certainly, U.S. citizens are subject to local laws when traveling or residing abroad. I don't have more details on it than that, though.
QUESTION: Does the fact that he was in the United States when he allegedly committed this cyber slander to you make a difference in terms of his case, the justice of his case?
MS. HARF: I'm not an expert on UAE law. I'm happy to see if there's more to share.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: A quick one on Ukraine?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: How many Russian soldiers are in eastern Ukraine, according to the U.S.?
MS. HARF: Why are you asking?
QUESTION: Sorry?
MS. HARF: Because some people – other people have spoken about numbers recently?
QUESTION: Yeah, your assistant secretary of state, she said thousands and thousands, and she referred to a speech of General Hodges in Berlin yesterday.
MS. HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: He said 12,000. So could you be (inaudible)?
MS. HARF: I'm not going to be more specific, I think, than they were. Certainly, I know the assistant secretary spoke to it. Obviously, it's a huge presence not just of people but of weapons and other things. But I'm not going to give more detail than that.
QUESTION: And where did you get your numbers? Is it firsthand information from the U.S. Government or --
MS. HARF: I can check and see. And obviously, I'd refer you to the Department of Defense on their numbers that their officials put out, but I can check and see with our team.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Great. And there's supposed to be snow tomorrow so we'll stay in touch.
QUESTION: Will you be briefing?
MS. HARF: Well, if there's a snow day, we will see.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:16 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
