Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Acting Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 6, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
AFGHANISTAN
IRAN/REGION
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
IRAN/REGION
YEMEN
MOROCCO
SYRIA/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
CZECH REPUBLIC/REGION
JAPAN
TRANSCRIPT:
MS HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the daily press briefing. I have one item at the top.
QUESTION: Does it have to do with opening day?
MS HARF: It doesn't, although I tweeted about it. Happy opening day, everyone. I bought my Cardinals tickets for when they're in town to play the Nats in a few weeks, so very excited about that.
One item at the top on Afghanistan. Today we honor the memory of Anne Smedinghoff, a Foreign Service officer who was taken from her family, her friends, and this department in an attack two years ago today in Zabul province, Afghanistan. We also honor the memories of three U.S. soldiers, an Afghan-American translator and an Afghan doctor who were also lost that day. In honor of Anne Smedinghoff and the others killed in Zabul as well as the seven individuals wounded who still carry their injuries with them to this day, the Embassy in Kabul today continued her mission by delivering textbooks to Afghan school children in Zabul province, part of our ongoing public diplomacy efforts similar to the ones she was working on there. We honor their memories and their service to the United States and Afghanistan.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. I recognize that Secretary Moniz was at the White House and --
MS HARF: I know. I'm sorry. I don't have a special guest today like the White House did, but --
QUESTION: Well, you know. Whatever.
MS HARF: I know. The Secretary of Energy can only be in one place at one time.
QUESTION: Well, we'll take you, Marie.
MS HARF: Thank you.
QUESTION: Okay. And I – he said something that I have a question about.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: And this has to do with plutonium --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- and the spent fuel to sent – to be sent out of the country for --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- the entire lifetime of the Arak heavy water reactor.
MS HARF: That is correct.
QUESTION: And then that any excess heavy water will be sold on the international market.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So what is the point of running these things if the product of it for R&D is not for electricity or energy, but it's just to produce this excess, what will all be sent out of the country or sold?
MS HARF: Well, I think I would ask the Iranians what the purpose of that is. Of course, as we've said, the goal with Arak was to shut down the plutonium pathway. It does – it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. And as he said – you mentioned some of the other things he said about what will happen to what comes out of that process. But you'd have to ask Iran what the purpose would be of having that reactor there.
QUESTION: Well, I mean is it turning – basically it turns into like a money-making proposition where they can sell what – I mean, is that the idea here?
MS HARF: I am quite honestly not sure. I'm happy to check with our team.
QUESTION: Because it --
MS HARF: And just to follow up on a question someone had the other day about heavy water reactors – sorry, then you can go on – a number of other countries have heavy water reactors for the production of civil nuclear energy or medical isotope production, including Argentina, Algeria, Canada, China, Romania, the ROK, and some others. So other people had asked if other countries had --
QUESTION: Right. But --
MS HARF: -- heavy water reactors for non-weapons purposes.
QUESTION: Right. But you're saying you don't know what they would use them for. I mean, and it doesn't say – I mean, maybe they will use them for power generation.
MS HARF: It will support peaceful nuclear research and radio isotope production.
QUESTION: But if they have to send everything out of the country or they're going to, I mean, this seems to be a money-making thing for them.
MS HARF: Well, no. I think it's a research thing on – research effort on radio isotope production, so non-weapons-related research.
QUESTION: Right, but if they have to sell everything – I mean I guess my issue is --
MS HARF: It will still support this radio isotope production is my understanding.
QUESTION: But isn't that what the Fordow and that – all that is already going to do?
MS HARF: Well, I think it's a little different technically.
QUESTION: But I mean, here's my – my issue with – well, issue. Not issue. My question is, I mean, it seems to me like you're – this isn't a lemonade stand that's being set up for them to make a little money.
MS HARF: No.
QUESTION: I mean, it seems like they'll make a little money on the side here.
MS HARF: I don't think this has anything to do with money, making money.
QUESTION: It doesn't? Okay.
MS HARF: I have not heard that --
QUESTION: All right.
MS HARF: -- from the team in the last several weeks we've been there.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: I'm happy to check and see if that's a part of this, but I haven't heard that.
QUESTION: Okay. And then I just – I wanted to know: Is it correct that verification – transparent verification, IAEA, is still – IAEA is still to be negotiated, like their access and that kind of thing is still --
MS HARF: Well, to which piece of it? A lot of the details of that have already been worked out. Are you talking about a specific facility or --
QUESTION: I'm talking about the whole thing. I mean, are there details of the IAEA access and what they will actually be able to do and when they will be able to do it that are still to be negotiated between now and --
MS HARF: There are some that are still to be negotiated, but as we've said, they will have daily access to the three overt facilities through a mix of inspections and other means, like technical means such as cameras. That's obviously the overt pathways. In terms of the covert pathway, we will have monitoring of the entire supply chain from uranium mines and mills up through centrifuge production. We've also said that under the Additional Protocol, which is obviously something Iran has said they will first provisionally implement, then ultimately ratify, we will have additional transparency measures that are built into the Additional Protocol.
QUESTION: So what is left to be determined as it relates to verification and access for the IAEA?
MS HARF: Well, I think some of the technicalities about how it will actually work. These are obviously the parameters and the principles that we have agreed to, but there are a lot of details about how this will actually work. But everything we've outlined publicly has been agreed to.
QUESTION: I understand, but like what? What still needs – can you give me an example of, like, what --
MS HARF: I'm happy to see what more details still need to be looked at on this.
QUESTION: Because, I mean, that seems like a – if there's a technicality that has to be still negotiated and it ends up that Iran can say no, then that would seem to be a big problem, right?
MS HARF: Well, they can't say no. As you say – I mean, everything that we have in the parameters was already agreed to transparency measures, including most importantly the Additional Protocol, which is the forever commitment which says that Iran will be able to – or the IAEA will be able to request inspections anywhere in Iran whenever they wanted to. There is a mechanism to resolve disputes that may arise from those requests to do so in a timely manner, as Secretary Moniz has said, to get the IAEA the access it needs.
QUESTION: Right, I understand that, but I mean you say, as you just pointed out, it gives them the ability to request. Does it not – it does not give Iran the ability to say no?
MS HARF: Well, as we've said – I said on Friday, we negotiated a specific provision for the JCPA that would essentially guarantee the IAEA could access where it wants to go in a timely manner if Iran initially refuses. So there's a resolution mechanism for that that we have negotiated.
QUESTION: And that – okay. And that is done? I mean --
MS HARF: Well, nothing is final until everything is agreed.
QUESTION: Right, but I want to know --
MS HARF: Nothing is, quote --
QUESTION: -- but you're saying that there are still --
MS HARF: -- finalized till the final agreement is done.
QUESTION: But there still are some things about access and inspections that --
MS HARF: I'm happy to check if there are specifics --
QUESTION: All right. And then the last one --
MS HARF: -- to share.
QUESTION: -- and your colleague at the White House made a valiant attempt to answer this, but I'm not sure he did, and that is on the sanctions relief.
MS HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: What – there does seem to be a discrepancy between what you guys are saying, or what the Secretary – if we go back to Thursday in Lausanne, what the Secretary said and what Foreign Minister Zarif said, and this has continued through the weekend, about the timing of the sanctions relief. Is there any part of that that still is to be negotiated?
MS HARF: There is not a – I think in some of the comments the foreign minister made over the weekend there's actually not a discrepancy. He acknowledged that as soon as Iran undertakes these steps, they will have the sanctions relief. His – the foreign minister's point, I think, without speaking for him, is that Iran, if they can do these very quickly, will get the relief very quickly. It's tied to how fast they can take these nuclear-related steps. I believe he even said it could take five weeks. He put a time period on it.
QUESTION: So in other words --
MS HARF: So there's no discrepancy between us --
QUESTION: So it --
MS HARF: -- about the fact that after they undertake the key nuclear-related steps, the sanctions suspension, the initial relief will occur. If they can do that more quickly, the relief will come more quickly.
QUESTION: But there isn't any relief more – there isn't any relief beyond that already provided by the JPOA on – immediately on the signing of the final deal. Is that correct?
MS HARF: That is – immediately on day one?
QUESTION: Like, June – say, June 30th or who knows, July 1st or 2nd hopefully.
MS HARF: Good estimate. Right.
QUESTION: Hopefully it doesn't bleed into Independence Day.
QUESTION: Yes, on day one.
QUESTION: But on day one, there isn't any sanctions relief that – I mean, unless they can do everything – unless they can implement everything --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- in 30 seconds, there is no implementation on day one of more relief?
MS HARF: Correct. Now – that's correct – the JPOA relief will continue for the next three months. So that continues.
QUESTION: Right. No, but the additional stuff.
MS HARF: But additional relief. But again, if Iran can undertake these steps very quickly, that relief will come very quickly. That's why what I said on Friday was purely an estimate.
QUESTION: Got you.
MS HARF: And I think that's what Foreign Minister Zarif said as well over the weekend.
QUESTION: And that relief, when it does come if there is an agreement, will only come after the IAEA or whoever it is that's going to be – is able to verify that they have taken the steps that they have agreed to do. Yes? Is that correct?
MS HARF: I can double check whether that's the IAEA. I would assume so. They've been doing so under the JPOA.
QUESTION: Whoever it is.
MS HARF: But it would be after those are verified, yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: And, Marie, one follow-up on what Matt was asking about, specifically on the question of a circumstance in which Iran might refuse access to a site that the IAEA wanted to go to. You said that there was a mechanism that would be set up that would allow for IAEA inspectors to visit such a site --
MS HARF: That is correct.
QUESTION: -- in a timely manner.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What does – how do you define "in a timely manner"? Is that within a day or a week or a month?
MS HARF: I can check and see if there are more details to share on that for you.
QUESTION: Okay. The reason I ask is that because of --
MS HARF: I understand the reason, I think, but I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: Do you? Oh, I'm so glad you understand it.
MS HARF: Go ahead. Yes.
QUESTION: The question was asked on Friday: Do you have a sense of the schedule, the timeline of the next round of talks?
MS HARF: We don't quite yet. Obviously, our experts will get back to work, I think, in short order given so many of these are very technical issues. I don't have more of a schedule than that for you. I would like one as well.
QUESTION: Marie, on this, when the Secretary participates in the negotiations and --
MS HARF: We just don't – I mean, I certainly expect him to participate in much of these discussions, we just don't know yet what the schedule or the work plan will look like.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS HARF: On the Secretary's schedule, though, I'm sorry I forgot to announce at the top: This Thursday and Friday, the Secretary will be going to Panama City for the Summit of the Americas with President Obama. I will have more details to share about his trip in the coming days. But I forgot to do that at the top, sorry.
QUESTION: I knew there was something that you were missing.
MS HARF: Sorry.
QUESTION: One other thing that Secretary --
MS HARF: You're keeping me honest, Matt.
QUESTION: So one other thing that Secretary Moniz said, which was about – this is about sanctions and snapback in particular.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: He said no one country can block snapback.
MS HARF: On UN sanctions.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS HARF: Obviously, not on unilateral sanctions.
QUESTION: I understand that. So does that mean that two countries could? I'm thinking of two veto-wielding Security Council members.
MS HARF: I – let me check and see. I – let me check and see on the specifics of that.
QUESTION: But is that – is he correct when he – and I realize he is the --
MS HARF: He is correct in --
QUESTION: -- scientific expert, not necessarily the political expert, so --
MS HARF: He is correct in what he said that no one country can.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: Let me check and see if there are more specifics.
QUESTION: Well, so in other words, if the Russians and the Chinese both decide --
MS HARF: Let me check, Matt. I'm not sure that's the case. Let me check.
QUESTION: Well, it seems to be a pretty --
MS HARF: I'm not sure that's what he was trying to indicate, is my point, by saying no one country can.
QUESTION: As far as you know, is the snapback provision within the P5+1, is that done?
MS HARF: Well, as I've said, nothing is done until it's all agreed.
QUESTION: I understand, but this --
MS HARF: Let's be careful saying that term.
QUESTION: -- particular issue --
MS HARF: Let me check with our team and see if we can say more about how the UN snapback would work.
QUESTION: Marie, just to clarify this very point.
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: So in laymen's terms, if, let's say, Russia decides to go ahead and do business as usual with Iran, it can or cannot?
MS HARF: I'm sorry, what are you --
QUESTION: In terms of trade and breaking sanctions and so on. I mean --
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: -- could, let's say, Russia or China or any of the permanent five do trade and so on independent of the rest.
MS HARF: Well, each country is a little different because we all have a little bit different sanctions.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: When it comes to UN sanctions, though, as we've said, the current Security Council resolutions will be replaced by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPA and provide sanctions relief, again, only when Iran has taken steps to resolve key nuclear issues. The new UNSCR will impose ongoing restrictions on Iran's nuclear procurement, requiring states to get approval before supplying sensitive items or engaging in certain nuclear activities with Iran. And as part of this arrangement, restrictions relating to Iran's arms transfers and ballistic missile activities will also remain in place for a period of time.
So I think I can't answer that generally. There will still be some restrictions in place; and obviously, everyone will have to operate under those.
QUESTION: And I know you probably addressed this before I got in. Sorry for being late. In terms of the talks, when are they going to resume?
MS HARF: We don't know yet.
QUESTION: You don't? Okay. Thank you.
MS HARF: Yes. On this topic still?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I was hoping you could shed additional light at a point that was --
MS HARF: Can you speak up a little bit?
QUESTION: Oh, sure. Sorry about that.
MS HARF: Thank you.
QUESTION: There was a point in the key parameters that you published, a reference to a conflict resolution mechanism that the sides are about to create. What – well, any meat --
MS HARF: Which – there's a – we have a couple resolution mechanisms we've talked about. Specifically regarding which issue?
QUESTION: To be honest with you, I don't remember. I remember that --
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- only one.
MS HARF: Let me see if I can find the one you may be referring to in the parameters.
QUESTION: Yeah. I was wondering if --
MS HARF: So there's a dispute resolution process under sanctions. Is that what you're referring to?
QUESTION: And what is the other one?
MS HARF: Well, there's also one on inspections.
QUESTION: I would take both if you can do both. (Laughter.)
MS HARF: Okay. What's your question, I guess, regarding that?
QUESTION: Any additional meat on that? Who's going to be the arbiter --
MS HARF: I'm about to sneeze.
QUESTION: -- who is going to be taking --
MS HARF: (Sneeze.)
QUESTION: Bless you.
QUESTION: Bless you.
MS HARF: Excuse me.
When it comes to – I don't have more details to share about either. When it comes to the dispute resolution process for sanctions and whether sanctions – whether any parties not in compliance with the JCPA and therefore sanctions would be snapped back on Iran, there is a process that will enable any JCPA participant to seek to resolve disagreements about commitments through that specific process. There's a separate process that resolves disputes about requested IAEA access to sites inside Iran, and I don't have more details about either of those to share at this point. I'm happy to see if there's more we can say publicly.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Marie?
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: You've probably seen the new article in New York Times regarding Israel's proposal to this understanding. The Israeli intelligence minister has put out a few points and has said that he's – or Israel's going to be talking to the U.S. and the P5+1 in general.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Number one, has – as in before, has anybody from the Administration already spoken with the Israelis on the details of this understanding? And what would you say regarding these points that've been offered?
MS HARF: Do you have any – there are a number of points in there.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: Do you have any specifics you want to ask about?
QUESTION: Well, regarding research and development in Fordow, there is one. And also they want further reduction in number of centrifuges.
MS HARF: Yeah, and actually, I would say a couple points. The first – and I heard Prime Minister Netanyahu make this argument over the weekend on the Sunday shows about dismantling centrifuges, so I have a little bit more on that that I'm happy to share.
He said that Iran would not dismantle any of its centrifuges; but under the JCPA, Iran will physically remove about 13,000 centrifuges from where they stand today in Iran's nuclear facilities. All of the pipework that connects these centrifuges to actually enriched uranium – they have to be connected in order to enrich – will be dismantled and also removed. This dismantling will ensure that these centrifuges cannot be brought back online for a long time. And to be very precise, it would take well over two years for Iran to build back what it has today; so in order to reconnect everything that will be disconnected, all those 13,000, as part of this deal.
Obviously, international inspectors would detect within days if they tried to do that, especially given how long it would take them to rebuild. So I think that's a key point that the prime minister mentioned, and I think I just wanted to give a little more clarity to what will actually happen to the centrifuges that are indeed removed.
QUESTION: Right. They've also – there're also – they want Iran to actually be more transparent about the PMD. Did that come up during the talks at all?
MS HARF: Well, as we said last week, it did come up. Obviously, we want them to be as transparent as possible as well. And as I said on Friday, we are still negotiating over all of the people and places where the IAEA will have access. But we have a path forward: an agreement that Iran will undertake a PMD access list process. I said that very clearly on Friday. That's one of the things we still have to negotiate the specifics of, but they have agreed in principle to that concept.
QUESTION: So will U.S. Administration officials be speaking with the Israelis soon?
MS HARF: We have spoken to them a number of times. I believe that the President has, although I'm happy to check. Under Secretary Sherman has. Secretary Kerry, I believe, either has or will be speaking to the Israelis today. We have engaged with them throughout this process at the political level, at the expert level. And I think beyond all the details, which we are, of course, sharing with them, the notion that today Iran is only two to three months away from breakout time, and we have pushed that with this agreement to up to six times that – so to a year, at least a year. And so I think at a very top level, our argument is that, of course, makes Israel more secure and safer than the situation they're in today.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, I haven't been following everything minute by minute. But this question – is there any possibility that you might not come to an agreement at the end of June?
MS HARF: Of course there is. There are a lot of – there's a lot of work still to be done, as the President and the Secretary have said. The details really matter here. We came quite a long way. I think people – many people were surprised about all the details we were able to announce at the end of this last round of talks. But there is a lot of work to be done, and we are very committed to seeing if we can get it done. But we have to have our bottom lines met in that process, and we don't know if we'll be able to. We certainly hope we can.
Yes.
QUESTION: Marie --
MS HARF: Hold on, Said. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Marie, I have a couple questions. The first one deals with Iran's regional influence. And you've talked about this prior, but not since we've had this framework plan and some of the nuts and bolts of what a final agreement might look like. So my first question is: How does State feel at this point about a deal, and how would – it can impact Iran's relationship with some of its neighbors, in particular in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon? Going forward, how do you feel about this, and is there any additional concern that an agreement could broaden Iran's influence and destabilize these countries?
MS HARF: Well, at the same time we negotiate over the nuclear issue, we have consistently raised our concerns with Iran's destabilizing activities in a number of countries you just mentioned there, whether it's Yemen, whether it's Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and others. So that's something we're very focused on. And I think one of the reasons we are so committed to seeing if we can prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon is if you can imagine how much power they're able to project today, they would be able to project even more power if that was backed up by a nuclear weapon. So that's part of the reason we're so focused on this, and we will continue to speak up and to take actions to counter their destabilizing activities in the region.
QUESTION: And my second --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS HARF: Wait, she has a couple –
QUESTION: A follow-up on the --
MS HARF: Wait. Michel, let's let her finish all her questions, and then we'll go around. Yes.
QUESTION: My second question deals with the U.S. position on how an Iran nuclear deal might affect U.S. relations with Afghanistan. In particular, Afghanistan has received development assistance support from Iran. Could a nuclear deal and an eventual lifting of sanctions allow Iran to broaden its influence with Afghanistan at a time when the U.S. is still involved in efforts to help stabilize the country?
MS HARF: I, quite frankly, haven't heard anyone raise that, and I'm not sure exactly how it – how it would impact Afghanistan. I just haven't heard that mentioned.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Marie, a follow-up on Pam's question. Will you start to talk to the Iranians about the issues that concern the United States and the Middle East, especially the states that Pam mentioned? Or you will be waiting for the end of the three-month, and then you will see if you will talk to them?
MS HARF: Well, we've said that from time to time these other regional issues have come up on the sidelines of these negotiations. So we've said that and been very open about that for some months now. But we're certainly not coordinating with them or working with them on any of these, and we have publicly been very clear about our condemnation of much of what they're doing in the region.
QUESTION: But you were saying in the past that the negotiations are concentrating on the nuclear file only, and --
MS HARF: That's true. And we've also said in the past repeatedly on the sidelines of these talks some of these other issues have, at times, come up. It would be sort of odd if they didn't, given what's going on in the world. But these are negotiations just about the nuclear issue.
Yes.
QUESTION: Marie, very quickly, you mentioned the prime minister of Israel on all the talk shows. He told CNN that, contrary to your position, Iran now will be able to walk its way into a nuclear bomb. So why such, I mean, diametrically opposed positions and so on between you and his?
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: Why does he feel that things have been made a lot easier for Iran to --
MS HARF: Well, you'll have to ask him. I can't speak for him, Said.
QUESTION: No, I mean --
MS HARF: But look, from our perspective, right now Iran sits at about two to three months of breakout time. That's the amount of months it could take it if decided to break out to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. We have pushed them in this agreement to at least a year breakout time, so that's actually the opposite of prime minister – what Prime Minister Netanyahu says. We are pushing them further away from nuclear material, so I'm a bit perplexed about some of his arguments, to be honest with you, because they just don't line up with the facts as our experts and as our P5+1 experts see them.
At the – and this is not a sunsetted agreement, as the Secretary said. There're some 10-year commitments, some 15-year, some 25-year, and some forever commitments. And under this deal, under this agreement, if we can indeed get to one, we will have more transparency, more visibility into Iran's nuclear program than with any other option that's on the table.
QUESTION: Marie?
MS HARF: Yes, Michel.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) to Yemen?
QUESTION: No, wait, wait. I've got just a few brief – very brief ones.
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: So on the centrifuges, on the 13,000 --
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that will be dismantled.
MS HARF: Removed. Mm-hmm. Physically removed from there.
QUESTION: And put where? In a closet someplace?
MS HARF: In IAEA-monitored storage.
QUESTION: In Iran?
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: And they won't have – actually they won't have the key to the door?
MS HARF: Well, they may have the key. I can check. But it's going to be IAEA-monitored access.
QUESTION: Right. Well, if --
MS HARF: I believe some of them will be able to be used if the other – if the current centrifuges, they'll be able to maintain, crash or fail, as they often do, the IR-1s that they will still have installed. So I believe that's part of what they'll be able to use some of the excess centrifuges for, only to replace ones that have crashed. But they will be under IAEA-monitored storage. And again, if they decided to take them out and try to put them back in and connect them all again, that would take, we said, well over two years for them to do so.
QUESTION: Okay. I don't expect that you would know this, because I know that you're not a scientific expert. Maybe this is --
MS HARF: I have learned more about this in the last two years in this job --
QUESTION: Right. But I mean, do they really need 13,000 centrifuges to serve as replacement – do they fail that often? I mean, are they that crappy, these things?
MS HARF: I think – you're right, I do not know the fail rate for the IR-1 centrifuge.
QUESTION: So why would they – all right, so why --
MS HARF: I'm not saying that's the only reason they have them in storage. But they will be placed in IAEA-monitored storage, and that's where they will be, that's where they'll be kept.
QUESTION: So they're not going to be, like, running blood samples or something like that? They're not going – they'll be doing nothing? They're basically going to be collecting cobwebs?
MS HARF: That is my understanding.
QUESTION: All right.
MS HARF: Because they will be disconnected.
QUESTION: All right. And then – although I'm still not sure I understand why they need to have them. Even if they're just sitting off to the side, they could be destroyed, right? Or taken out of the country or sold, since --
MS HARF: You're obsessed with the selling concept today.
QUESTION: Anyway, the Administration has for some months denied over and over again suggestions that you're trying to achieve some kind of grand bargain with Iran --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that you hope that your – it is not the goal of these negotiations to open up a – necessarily open up a broader rapprochement.
MS HARF: That is true.
QUESTION: But the President, in his interview yesterday with Tom Friedman, seemed to suggest otherwise.
MS HARF: No, I don't think that's true at all.
QUESTION: No?
MS HARF: The President has, in multiple Nowruz messages, in messages to the Iranian people, said that in the future, the United States would like to have a different relationship with the people of Iran. We don't want to have this kind of relationship that we have now.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: That does not mean we would open a broader rapprochement with the Iranian regime on issues like, for example, Yemen. So I think these are a little separate concepts, but obviously, we don't want the kind of relationship we have with Iran, but there's a reason for it.
QUESTION: But don't you – doesn't the Administration see this as the first successful – successfully completed as a first step?
MS HARF: To a rapprochement with the regime?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: I would not – no, I would not say that. Do we think this can improve people-to-people ties with the Iranian people? Possibly. That's obviously always something we've said we hope could improve. But I want to be very clear that we are not looking at a broader rapprochement with the Iranian regime on all of these issues that you all have mentioned that we have very serious concerns on.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, why not have a broader rapprochement with Iran? On all these issues, wouldn't that be better for the rest of the world, for anybody --
MS HARF: Well, because these are very serious problems we have with Iran's behavior.
QUESTION: I mean, it would be the ultimate goal, is to really have good relationship and bring back Iran into the community of nations.
MS HARF: Well, the ultimate goal would be for Iran to stop being a state sponsor of terror, to stop having gross human rights violations, to release the Americans it continues to detain. And there are all these things that Iran needs to do on issues separate from the nuclear issue.
QUESTION: By the way, is there a precedent where the IAEA did keep something in storage, centrifuges in storage, and was able to monitor it (inaudible)?
MS HARF: I'm happy to check, Said.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: How is that different --
QUESTION: On the centrifuges --
MS HARF: Let's do one at a time. Go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: Well, how is that different from the efforts to normalize relations with Cuba? Cuba is still considered a state-sponsor of terrorists.
MS HARF: Our review is undergoing right now.
QUESTION: Right. But that wasn't under review until the U.S. decided to pursue normalization. The Cubans still have, in the U.S. view, a very poor human rights record.
MS HARF: But that's different than the state sponsor of terror issue. (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Right. But you just said that Iran – both state sponsor of terror, terrible human rights record – what's the difference between the two countries?
MS HARF: Well, there's massive differences between the two countries. I would note that the Cuba policy was one that has been outdated for decades now, that is based in a decades-old way of thinking about Cuba that has quite frankly lessened the U.S. influence in Cuba, in promoting our values and our interests in Cuba, and indeed in the entire region. So they're just a wholly different situation. They're in different regions, they are just different politically – they're just wholly different situations.
QUESTION: Is it because – and I'm trying to follow your argument – is it because Iran presents more of a direct challenge to U.S. interests across the greater Middle East? Would that be fair?
MS HARF: It's for – 500 reasons Iran and Cuba are different. And I'm not going to go into all of them. I think I just named a number of the top ones.
QUESTION: Marie, on the centrifuges, you just mentioned there's a possibility of them breaking down and everything.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm. There is a crash rate, technically speaking, for IR-1 centrifuges, given they're first generation.
QUESTION: Right. According to the interim agreement two years ago, each generation is supposed to be replaced by the same generation. Is that, do you think, still going to hold or is that still up for discussion?
MS HARF: Well, they won't have installed, as we talked about, the further-out generations of centrifuges, so it's a little bit different. I'm happy to check with our team. I would also note that we haven't lost anything we got in the JPOA in the JCPA, so obviously all of those provisions will still stand, but let me check with our team.
QUESTION: So there might be some limitations on the generation of the centrifuges?
MS HARF: Correct, and I think a lot of that's being worked out. But when we look at the – what's still installed, obviously we've been clear about what that is.
Still on this?
QUESTION: So – no, another question, another subject.
QUESTION: Can I go to --
QUESTION: No, no, no, can we stay on --
MS HARF: Let's go to – wait. Is there anything else on Iran?
QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran? Yeah, yeah.
MS HARF: Last one, then Michel is going to go to Yemen.
QUESTION: Spent fuel from Arak reactor supposedly is going away from the country.
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: Highly enriched uranium, part – at least part of it has been – well, it's confirmed on Thursday – is also – well, might also leave the country.
MS HARF: Might also.
QUESTION: Might also leave the country.
MS HARF: Correct. That's one of the options.
QUESTION: I'm guessing you discussed specific countries that will be a destination point.
MS HARF: Do you have any specifics you're interested in?
QUESTION: Yeah. I – one of them you – as you guessed, is Russia. And I was hoping to hear if you discussed all this between not only yourselves, and I mean the P5+1, but also with Iran. Are they aware of that?
MS HARF: So we did walk within the P5+1 and with Iran about the different options they will have to ship the stockpile that they – or to dispose of the stockpile, whether it's shipping it out, whether it's selling it on the international market, whether it's diluting it and disposing of it in country. So we've certainly discussed all of those options within the P5+1, including Russia, of course, and with Iran. That's one of the things that still needs to be worked out in the next three months, the disposition of that stockpile, which is about 90 – a little over 97 percent of it will be going away.
QUESTION: Can I ask about last week you talked about that there are no plans to evacuate Americans from Yemen.
MS HARF: That is true.
QUESTION: But over the weekend the Indians have been able to evacuate people, other countries have been able to evacuate people. With the U.S., with having so many military assets in the area, why can't you?
MS HARF: It's not that we can't. There's always a decision – different factors are weighed, whether it's the security situation, whether it's how we would be able to do this. We have sent out emergency messages to U.S. citizens remaining in Yemen to alert them to opportunities to leave the country. We're continuing to reevaluate the situation, and if we have any changes to whether or not we'll evacuate people, we will certainly let folks know.
At this point, we have encouraged all U.S. citizens to shelter in secure locations until they are able to depart safely. The airports are still closed is my understanding, which is part of the challenge. When we evacuate citizens from countries, sometimes we do it commercially through aircraft or through chartered aircraft, so that's obviously not a possibility at this time there.
QUESTION: And do you have a sense of how many there are? There's a group that's --
MS HARF: We don't.
QUESTION: -- this CAIR and others have said that about 200 have signed up to their website, stuckinyemen.com.
MS HARF: Well, they should sign up to the U.S. State Department website, which asks U.S. citizens overseas to do so, so we have some accounting. People are not required to, but that is the place we go to to determine U.S. citizens overseas.
QUESTION: But surely you would have a number of --
QUESTION: You must --
QUESTION: -- who have so far.
MS HARF: But we just have no idea if that's 10 percent or 70.
QUESTION: Right, I know. Right. But I mean, at least you have an idea of – I mean, you know how many people have --
MS HARF: Who signed up?
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: I'm happy to see if we can share that number.
QUESTION: And when you say – how did this message get to the people?
MS HARF: We send emergency messages out.
QUESTION: So how many messages did you send out?
MS HARF: We – overall?
QUESTION: Well, no, no.
MS HARF: We sent out two this weekend.
QUESTION: I mean for this specifically – I – no, no, no, no. How do they get to the people who are there?
MS HARF: They are --
QUESTION: Are they --
MS HARF: I believe they are sent out online on our website --
QUESTION: Okay, so --
MS HARF: I believe if you register online, I think you may get them over text message or email. I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: So there is a number that you have of known – of people who have registered.
MS HARF: Yes, but we just don't know --
QUESTION: There is a number. I understand that that's not all of the ---
MS HARF: -- if that represents 10 percent or 80 percent.
QUESTION: I know, but it gives you an idea.
MS HARF: But we don't know what it gives us an idea of.
QUESTION: All right. And when you that you alerted them of opportunities to leave the country --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- what are those opportunities now, like swim? Well, come on. I mean, the airports are closed. How are they going to get --
MS HARF: So the one that we sent out on April --
QUESTION: Go to Aden, jump in the water? What – I mean, what --
MS HARF: The one we sent out on April 5th was a specific boat that was crossing from Aden to Djibouti.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: The one we sent out on the 6th was from an Indian naval ship that was boarding passengers as well. So we are alerting people to – these are mainly maritime opportunities.
QUESTION: So maritime. So --
MS HARF: Because the airports are closed.
QUESTION: Understood. So – but you have ships there too, right?
MS HARF: At this point, there are no plans for U.S. assets to be used to do this.
QUESTION: All right. And --
QUESTION: And there was a --
MS HARF: Yes. Wait, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- mention made of the fact that some international operations were going on, such as the Indian and the Chinese. Have any of these U.S. citizens taken advantage of those other international operations?
MS HARF: It's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. I'm happy to see if there's anything we can confirm.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: I have a question.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: So another session of strategic dialogue between Morocco and U.S. will be --
QUESTION: Wait, I – Yemen?
QUESTION: -- this week.
MS HARF: Is this on Yemen?
QUESTION: Yemen.
QUESTION: No, no, it's about Morocco.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.
MS HARF: Okay, I think we need to finish Yemen. I'm going to do one topic at a time.
QUESTION: Sorry. Answer me later?
MS HARF: I will ask to you later. Yes, I promise.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Russia has put forward some kind of proposal at the UN Security Council for a 24-hour pause in fighting. Is the U.S. supporting that?
MS HARF: I haven't seen specifics about a Russian proposal at the UN. I have seen some specifics about possibly getting a humanitarian pause.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: It's my understanding that the Red Cross, actually, on April 4th called for an immediate 24-hour humanitarian pause so they could get medical supplies in. It's my understanding this has not happened yet. I think the details about why not are a little unclear at this point. Obviously, we believe that they should be able to get medical supplies in, but more broadly, we don't think there should be a 24-hour pause. We think there should be just a pause and that the parties should get back to political dialogue and end the fighting.
QUESTION: So how does that leave the U.S. support for what the Saudis and others are doing there, given that they're supporting a military operation which is only going to lead to more conflict?
MS HARF: Well, it was a military operation in response to aggressive unilateral offensive action by the Houthis. The legitimate president of Yemen, obviously forced out of his position and out of the country – he remains the president. We have said that's one of – the main goal of this military action is to ensure, actually, that they get back to political dialogue, and to push back on this aggressive action by the Houthis. So our position on that remains unchanged.
QUESTION: But, Marie, today the – or, yeah, this morning, the Houthis said that they are willing to indulge in dialogue if the bombardment stops. Would you support such a --
MS HARF: Well, any return to dialogue must involve all of Yemen's key political parties and figures.
QUESTION: Right, right.
MS HARF: That includes President Hadi. I'm not sure their statement said that. It would not be possible to hold this process without the presence of the president.
QUESTION: Okay. But it is not unrealistic of them to ask for that? I mean, "If you stop the bombing, we'll go into talks"?
MS HARF: Well, let's see what the other details are.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Marie, are you aware of the news reports that said that a Russian airplane has shipped arms to the Houthis?
MS HARF: I had not seen those. I'm happy to look into them.
Yes, Matt.
QUESTION: Just on – back to Am Cits who are there. I mean, if you're an American citizen in Yemen right now, your advice to them is to shelter in place, but there's nowhere that they can go to --
MS HARF: Until they can find a way to leave.
QUESTION: I understand, but there's nowhere that they can go. You still don't have a protecting power, right?
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: I mean, so there isn't – so why --
MS HARF: I would also note that we have issued 24 travel warning --
QUESTION: Okay, okay.
MS HARF: -- well, no – for the last – over the last 10 years on Yemen. So we are very clear with American citizens that this is not a place they should go, that we have limited ability, particularly now, to assist from a consular perspective.
QUESTION: Can you explain why it is – I mean, when did the embassy get closed down?
MS HARF: The embassy closed on February 11th, 2015.
QUESTION: Right, right, which is a month and a half ago.
MS HARF: But for the last 10 years, we've issued 24 separate travel warnings for Yemen --
QUESTION: I understand. Why has there --
MS HARF: -- so this is not a surprise that the security situation was a poor one.
QUESTION: Why is there no protecting power yet?
MS HARF: I'm happy to check and see on the latest.
QUESTION: Have you asked Iran? They might be able to help.
MS HARF: You're just feeling feisty today.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I'm serious. Have you asked anybody?
MS HARF: I'm happy to check and see.
QUESTION: Is there anybody to ask?
MS HARF: I am happy to check and see for you, okay?
QUESTION: All right, thank you.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: One more on Yemen. Pakistan's parliament is considering this Saudi request to send in ground troops among other things. Considering that Pakistan shares part of its border with Iran and Iran has been supporting the Houthis, how would the U.S. feel about Pakistani involvement at this level? Would you consider it beneficial or would you consider it destabilizing?
MS HARF: Well, every country can make their own decisions about whether to join these kinds of efforts. The same goes for the Pakistanis, certainly.
QUESTION: But how would the U.S. feel about it?
MS HARF: I don't have much more analysis on it to do for you.
Yes.
QUESTION: On the Palestinian issue?
MS HARF: Actually, I promised I'd go to Morocco.
QUESTION: Oh, yes.
QUESTION: Please, by all means.
QUESTION: Yes, that's fine. So this week on Thursday – so there is another session of Strategic Dialogue between the U.S. and Morocco with the – with Mr. Secretary John Kerry and Morocco's foreign minister. So how much is Morocco a big ally for U.S., especially regarding the trade cooperation and security cooperation?
MS HARF: Well, I think it's important that the Secretary participates in these kinds of activities and strategic dialogues. There's a reason we put them in place and are very committed to them. I'm happy to check with our folks and see if there are specific agenda items for the Strategic Dialogue, and I'm happy to get those to you afterwards.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. First, I want to ask you about the Yarmouk camp, which you are following the situation --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- in the Palestinian refugee camp --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- near Damascus, if you could comment?
MS HARF: Yes. The U.S. strongly condemns ISIL's attacks against the besieged Palestinian neighborhood of Yarmouk, which is in southern Damascus, as you know. ISIL's violent advance on Yarmouk, reportedly with the support of al-Nusrah Front, has put the roughly 18,000 civilians in the area at severe risk. They've been under siege by regime forces since 2013, but really, the situation has deteriorated quite significantly. Recently, they're experiencing severe restrictions on food, medicine, clean water, and electricity. They've left the population on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. We are calling on all parties of the conflict to allow regular, uninterrupted humanitarian access to the population in Yarmouk. Obviously, this is something that's quite concerning to us.
QUESTION: Would you assess the – and providing or delivering humanitarian aid to the refugees?
MS HARF: I'm not sure what that would look like from a logistical perspective, Said.
QUESTION: All right. Let me ask you this: Would you support perhaps to relocate them in their home country, in the West Bank, or in present-day Israel?
MS HARF: Well, we certainly believe that those who want to leave should be able to do so with safety and dignity. They must not be arrested, subject to interrogations, or separated from their families. But I don't have much more than that on whether or not they should be able to leave.
QUESTION: So if it's feasible or plausible, you will support their return, let's say, to the West Bank?
MS HARF: That is not at all what I said, Said. You are just putting words in my mouth. I said they --
QUESTION: No, I'm just asking your --
MS HARF: I said they should be able to leave Yarmouk if they want to.
QUESTION: Okay. But it is the humanitarian thing to do, correct?
MS HARF: I am not going to --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: I am just not going to get into that, Said.
QUESTION: Let me just ask you on – the Israelis arrested a Palestinian legislator over the weekend and put him under administrative detention for six months because they basically exiled her from her home to Jericho and she refused to go. Do you have any comment on that?
MS HARF: We've seen the reports. I think the Israeli Government is best equipped to speak to this.
QUESTION: Okay. And finally, the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that he will not take a partial payment of the tax money that had been frozen by Israel. Do you support his call for the total release of all the amount?
MS HARF: Well, we've long expressed our concern over the fiscal viability of the Palestinian Authority. We welcome the decision of the prime minister to release the withheld revenues, and we understand there is currently disagreement over deductions. We encourage the parties to work this issue out in a fair and equitable manner.
QUESTION: So these deductions, I think to pay for electric bills and things of that nature – is that your understanding?
MS HARF: I don't have more details on what the deductions are.
QUESTION: Just on the middle question there about the woman who was arrested --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- you – basically you have no comment on it. Is that --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: Then on the – is it your understanding that there is a mechanism for them to solve the debit from the tax money?
MS HARF: The deductions?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: We've encouraged them to do so.
QUESTION: Well, I know. But is there one?
MS HARF: I don't know – I do not know that. I am happy to check.
QUESTION: And if there – but you're not – you are not involved in that process at all?
MS HARF: No, we're not currently involved other than expressing our desire for the parties to work this issue out.
QUESTION: But presumably you are – well, not presumably; you said you welcome the prime minister's move, so you think that the Palestinians should get the money.
MS HARF: We've long expressed our concern about their fiscal viability.
QUESTION: But you take no position on the deductions?
MS HARF: We think they should work this out in an equitable manner.
QUESTION: But let me ask you: Why don't you have a position on the arrest of a legislator who was not really enticing or incitement or doing something like this?
MS HARF: I am happy to see if there is more we can say, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead. Hold on, Matt. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Ukraine.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But this is about the Palestinians.
MS HARF: Okay, never mind. Go ahead.
QUESTION: The International Criminal Court --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: My understanding the last week is that you guys are just not – you're just refusing to accept that the ICC --
MS HARF: Our position is well known on this.
QUESTION: And your position is that the – Palestine is not --
MS HARF: They are not eligible to accede to the Rome Statute and the ICC.
QUESTION: Okay. But are you in any – I mean, you're not in – you're not a party to the Rome Statute. You are a member of the Security Council, which has something to do with the ICC. But I'm wondering, if the ICC itself accepts Palestine as a state party, I mean, how are you in any position to say or – I don't understand how you can insist or just close your eyes to the fact that they are in fact recognized by the ICC as a state party.
MS HARF: Well, it's our opinion, and it's a legal one. It's based in our legal assessment that they are not a party – they're not able to accede.
QUESTION: Is --
MS HARF: I'm happy to check with our team --
QUESTION: Is there any way you can act on that?
MS HARF: That's what I was going to say. I'm happy to check with our teams and – I got the crux of where you were going with that, so – yes, we'll go to Ukraine now.
QUESTION: Probably a month ago, Assistant Secretary Nuland testified before Senate and before House foreign committees. And she was asked about a report on military assistance to Ukraine --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that was supposed to be submitted – the deadline was February 15. And she --
MS HARF: What deadline are you referring to? Was it based on the legislation that was passed?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: It was on Ukraine Freedom Support Act.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And she told it will be submitted in days or weeks, or was it --
MS HARF: I believe it has been. Let me check for you.
QUESTION: It has? Okay.
MS HARF: I believe it has been, but let me check.
QUESTION: Okay. And a second question. There's a donor conference, financial donor conference planned in the end of month of – in Ukraine. It will be – any participation from the United States?
MS HARF: I will check. I hadn't heard of that.
QUESTION: Okay. And the last one.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: Similar. We are months ago from the 70th anniversary of the victory of the end of World War in Europe. And probably you know that there will be a big event in Moscow. According to reports, the invitation was sent to United States, but President Obama probably will not go. So will somebody represent United States?
MS HARF: We haven't made decisions about our participation yet.
QUESTION: But somebody will --
MS HARF: So I'm sure someone will go; we just haven't made decisions about participation yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Marie, on Ukraine? Just I'm wondering if – President Poroshenko said today that he would accept a referendum in the east. And I'm just wondering if – what your thoughts are about that. Is that okay with you guys, not --
MS HARF: Well, today – and he made those comments at the first meeting of Ukraine's new constitutional commission. So obviously, we welcome – we congratulate Ukraine on this meeting. This is where he made his remarks. To be clear, though, he was referring to the Ukrainian Government's commitment to the decentralization of powers to all of the regions of Ukraine. This isn't specific to eastern Ukraine. It's meant to bring the government closer to the people and to strengthen regional and local institutions. These commitments were made by President Poroshenko and others in his government immediately following the Revolution of Dignity on the Maidan and applies to all of Ukraine. Again, it's not limited to the Minsk process in the east.
QUESTION: So that means that the referendum, as far as you understand, would be across the entire country --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- and the people in the east, even if they voted no, if the majority voted yes, they would still be subject to that result; is that correct?
MS HARF: Well, as the Ukrainian Government has said before, it will confer the benefits of decentralization on the conflict areas in the east after legitimate local elections have been held under Ukrainian law and with international monitoring. In the meantime, Ukraine will continue discussion of how to implement the decentralization with the Russia-backed separatists in the context of the Trilateral Contact Group, as called for in the Minsk agreement.
QUESTION: I understand. So what you – but the referenda would be country-wide --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- including the conflict areas. So if in the conflict areas they voted against or voted differently to what the majority – the whole country did, they would be stuck with the result of the – right? Is that correct?
MS HARF: I'm happy to see the details of how it would work, Matt. I don't want to speak imprecisely here.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Staying in eastern Europe, there has been a public clash between President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman and U.S. Ambassador to Prague Andrew Shapiro. Apparently, the president was not too happy when the ambassador inserted himself into a debate on whether or not the Czech leadership was supposed to be in Moscow on May 9th to take part in the celebration of the VE Day events. And the president went on publicly to say that from now on, the U.S. ambassador is barred from his presidential palace. I was hoping you might say something on that, and I also wanted to ask you if you think your ambassador acted appropriately in the situation.
MS HARF: Well, as the ambassador said, the United States certainly understands the desire to honor all those who sacrificed in World War II. And of course, each country can make its own decisions about attendance. As I just said, we haven't decided about ours yet.
We've also said, though, broadly speaking, that this isn't the time for business as usual with Russia. And the Czech Republic is obviously a NATO ally; we share a close and collaborative partnership with them and have stressed the importance of unity with our European allies and partners in pressing Russia to stop fueling the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
So I think that pretty much sums up where we are on this issue. I know there'll be lots of questions about this over the coming weeks. And again, we haven't decided on our participation.
QUESTION: But in terms of – so will there be some kind of a ramification or implication if – within NATO if the Czech president does attend?
MS HARF: Each country can make their own decisions about participation in these kinds of events.
QUESTION: I understand. But you just said that – you noted that they were a NATO ally, so I'm just wondering if there's some kind of --
MS HARF: That was a positive statement. I was --
QUESTION: Yeah, but you're also saying that it's a negative statement for a NATO ally to send its head of state to --
MS HARF: That's not – I certainly did not just say that. I said we enjoy a close and collaborative relationship with the Czech Republic. They are a valued NATO ally. And we understand that countries want to recognize those who sacrificed in World War II. We've also said this isn't time for business as usual.
QUESTION: So you don't agree with Ambassador Shapiro that it is – that it is inappropriate for a head of state --
MS HARF: I didn't comment one way or the other on whether I agree with what he said.
QUESTION: Well, can you – do you stand by Ambassador Shapiro?
MS HARF: I think I just made – absolutely. We stand by Ambassador Shapiro.
QUESTION: So he said --
MS HARF: Wait. Let me finish, Matt. Let me finish.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: He has our full confidence. What I said is, is basically a version of what he said, that we understand that countries want to honor those who sacrificed in World War II.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: He also said this isn't time for business as usual with Russia. It's an ongoing conversation with our partners about whether they travel there, the kind of relationship that they have with Russia. We certainly believe European unity is important.
QUESTION: And this is – this would be a display of disunity; is that what you're saying?
MS HARF: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying in general that's the principle that guides our conversations.
QUESTION: Well, yeah but --
MS HARF: I think you're --
QUESTION: Well, no. He was decidedly more negative about the prospect of the president going than you are being. And I'm just wondering if there's some – if you're attempting to walk away somewhat from what the ambassador said or if you're --
MS HARF: No, I think – I think we're saying the same thing from a conceptual argument. I'm not sure I would have used the exact same words he did, but conceptually, we're in the same place that this isn't time for business as usual with Russia. We know people want to honor those who sacrificed in World War II. We want to as well. We're just talking through it with our partners about how this might play out.
QUESTION: Okay. But you say business as usual, but this is a big event, right? It's an unusual event, it's – because that it doesn't happen every day.
MS HARF: I understand.
QUESTION: So it's not really usual. But I'm just wondering, is there any implication – is it causing Ambassador Shapiro any problem to be banned from the presidential palace?
MS HARF: I can't confirm that he has been. I'm happy to check with him and see.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Can I follow up on --
MS HARF: I understand that as well. So thank you, Arshad.
QUESTION: But why do you think that the celebrations or attending celebrations of VE Day should be a part of business? You're saying that it's not time for business as usual, but this is just a historic event. It's not a question of having good or bad relations with Russia if you attend or not the --
MS HARF: Well, and I said we'll attend. We just don't know who will attend yet. So we'll keep everyone posted as we make those decisions.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: Let's move on. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, this is Sekae Toiyama with Ryukyu Shimpo, the Okinawa newspaper. And the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga and Okinawa Governor Onaga and they discussed about Futenma base and relocation on last Sunday. The two sides remained as far apart as ever, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga failed to persuade the governor. How do you think the U.S. Government think about that?
MS HARF: Well, I'm happy – I'm not familiar with those conversations last week, I think you said. I'm happy to check with our team. But we've said that construction of the replacement facility is a meaningful result of many years of sustained work between the United States and Japan, and a critical step forward toward realizing our shared vision for the realignment of U.S. forces on Okinawa. I'm happy to check with our team. It was my understanding that we expect that construction will proceed as planned, so I'm happy to get the latest for you.
Yes.
QUESTION: So if the relocation plan doesn't go forward, then is it safe to assume that the U.S. Government will continue to use Futenma Air Base?
MS HARF: It's my understanding it will proceed, so let me check with our team and see if there's more to share on that.
Anything else?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS HARF: Happy Monday, everyone. Happy Opening Day.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)
DPB #56
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
