Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Acting Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 13, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/IRAN/RUSSIA
BANGLADESH
YEMEN
RUSSIA
EGYPT
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
CHINA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:35 p.m. EDT
MS HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the daily briefing. I just have one item at the top, and then we'll get to your questions. Just a schedule update. As many of you heard the Secretary announce over the weekend, today, this afternoon, he will be briefing all members of the House in a classified session on the Iran negotiations. Tomorrow morning, he will be doing the same thing with the Senate, again, all on the Iran negotiations. And then tomorrow we will leave for Lubeck, Germany for the G7, as we announced last week, and we'll be back late on Wednesday from that. So that is my update at the top.
QUESTION: That's an awfully long way to go for such a short time.
MS HARF: Well, the G7 is very important. I know a number of topics will be discussed, including Iran I know will be discussed in depth while there. Under Secretary Sherman leaves today for the G7, actually. On the sidelines of that, she will be having a meeting with her European counterparts, the political directors, to update on the Iran talks since we left Lausanne. She'll be dealing with a number of other issues as well.
QUESTION: Is there anything to update them on? Has anything changed since --
MS HARF: To talk about the way forward.
QUESTION: -- Lausanne? In other words, like setting up the next round?
MS HARF: Correct. Yes, correct.
QUESTION: All right. I'm sure we'll get back --
QUESTION: So nothing's been set up yet for the next round, though.
MS HARF: Correct. No, we expect that possibly as early as next week the experts would reconvene and start working. We don't have anything nailed down yet, though.
QUESTION: So I'm sure we'll get back to the specifics of the Iran deal, but I just wanted to ask. The White House mentioned – also the Russians have said that Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- had a conversation today.
MS HARF: They did.
QUESTION: Your colleague at the White House said that one of the things that came up was the decision to reverse or end the ban --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- on the S-300 sale. Can you elaborate at all on what the Secretary – more on what the Secretary told Foreign Minister Lavrov and let us – and tell us what else was discussed, if anything?
MS HARF: Well, we've certainly made our concerns with the sale of the S-300 system to Iran known for some time. This certainly isn't new. The Secretary raised those concerns in a call with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning. We don't believe it's constructive at this time for Russia to move forward with this, but we've worked very closely with the Russians on the P5+1 negotiations. We don't think this will have an impact on unity in terms of inside the negotiating room. So they did discuss it, discussed the Iran negotiations in general as well, and I don't have more of a readout for you than that.
QUESTION: Did – and we'll get back to Iran in a second. Did they also discuss Ukraine at all?
MS HARF: I – let me check. I'm not sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it the Administration's position that the S-300s, the transfer of them to Iran would violate existing sanctions?
MS HARF: In terms of UN Security Council sanctions, it's my understanding that it would not.
QUESTION: It would not.
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: So your concern is – or your objections are based on what?
MS HARF: Well, there's a number of factors, obviously, here. And we think given Iran's destabilizing actions in the region in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon that this isn't the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them. So in general, that's what our concerns are based on.
QUESTION: Your understanding is --
MS HARF: And we have concerns about things separate and apart from whether they would be a violation of Security Council sanctions.
QUESTION: No, I know. But I just wanted to know if your objection was based in – based on – if your understanding of your objection was that it was a violation of sanctions.
MS HARF: It's my understanding that it's not.
QUESTION: Continuing on the Russia theme, yesterday on two of the Sunday shows, Secretary Kerry made mention of this statement from –
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- Deputy Foreign Minister --
MS HARF: Ryabkov.
QUESTION: -- Ryabkov.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you – in its entirety at least as reported –
MS HARF: By Interfax.
QUESTION: -- by Interfax --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- he does say that the parameters – the fact sheet issued by --
MS HARF: Reliable.
QUESTION: -- you guys is accurate and reliable.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But he also says that it leaves out things that --
MS HARF: That haven't been agreed to.
QUESTION: -- that have not been agreed to, meaning –
MS HARF: Which we've said as well.
QUESTION: Fair enough. But do you – so you agree with all of the – what Ryabkov said, not just the part where he says that it's accurate and reliable?
MS HARF: Well, I think he – well, it's my understanding, having looked at some of these reports, he then, as you said, went on to say there are things that haven't been agreed to yet. And I've spoken about those very clearly from this podium, whether it's specifics you've asked about others. So certainly, we agree with him that there are things that need to be worked out over the next two and a half months.
QUESTION: And is it not the case that those things that need to be worked out over the next two and a half, three months are potential deal breakers?
MS HARF: Correct. Yes. We need to get – what we need to get in terms of meeting our bottom lines on all of these different issues in order to get to an agreement, that's right.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: Anything else?
QUESTION: From me?
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, yeah. I was going to let someone else –
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- have a chance.
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: I just wanted to know if you could give us a sense of who the Secretary has spoken to so far in Congress, specifically Senators Cardin and Corker. How have those discussions gone?
MS HARF: He has spoken to both of them. He's spoken to a number of senators, as has the President, as has Ambassador Rice, Deputy Secretary Blinken. I think we've been doing calls sort of at all levels here with members of both the House and the Senate and with staff as well. I think I have some numbers here in terms of congressional outreach. Let me just see what I have here just to give you a sense for the sheer number of calls. I may not.
But yes, the Secretary has spoken to both of them. Obviously, he always likes talking to his former colleagues. I may not have the numbers. I'm happy to get them for you afterwards. But certainly done a robust amount of outreach. As I said at the beginning today, he'll be briefing all members of the House in a classified session tomorrow morning, all members of the Senate.
And in all of these calls, we're discussing – first hearing their ideas, obviously. This is a consultative process. He briefs them but also takes their questions, takes their ideas – I think this is something he's looking forward to doing today – and in all of these calls discussing with Congress what the oversight role could look like in terms of how this moves forward from here, what role they could play, while at the same time preserving our ability to implement an agreement if we can get to one and certainly preserving presidential prerogatives.
QUESTION: Do you feel like you're making progress in what you want, I mean, in terms of getting them to delay the bill or change the bill to your satisfaction?
MS HARF: Well, it's an ongoing conversation, of course. And I think the Secretary's looking forward to going up on the Hill today and tomorrow to really get into all of the details with his colleagues from across the interagency, with members of Congress, about what we already have agreed to, what we still need to work on. And we'll continue the conversation.
QUESTION: Is there any one concern that, like, is raised more commonly than others when they're talking to the lawmakers? I mean, is there any one issue that just really keeps coming up over and over from their side?
MS HARF: I'm just not going to characterize those private conversations more, I don't think.
QUESTION: Did you say, Marie, that you expect that the Secretary will be able to tell members of Congress more than what the Administration has said in general – generally in public about --
MS HARF: I think so. I mean, the purpose of doing this in a classified session is so he can be as forthcoming as possible. Obviously, I know that's the goal here. So yes, I think he will be able to tell them – obviously, the fact sheet had a lot of details in it. I think some people were surprised by how many details it had in it. But beyond that, I think he'll be able to share some more with Congress.
QUESTION: So – and without asking you to predict the future, when members of Congress, particularly those who are – had previously said that they are opposed to this, come out and say they've heard nothing new in what the Secretary said and that it's basically just a recitation of no previously known – previously publicly known things, you would say – you will – you would say that that would be wrong?
MS HARF: I expect that not just Secretary Kerry, but also the other cabinet members that are going up and briefing with him, whether it's Secretary Lew or Secretary Moniz, will be able to share more in a classified session than we are able to share publicly.
QUESTION: And then you said that – in your – that this is a consultative --
MS HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- process.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And that he – that the Administration is taking the ideas of lawmakers, taking their ideas and their questions. I'm just wondering – the opposition to this is not new. It's been around for quite some time now. Are you aware of anything in the – that – in the Administration's negotiating strategy that you have taken on board so far from members of Congress?
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: In other words, is there anything that has changed about the U.S. position or stance based on concerns from Congress?
MS HARF: Well, I'm not going to get into specifics about our negotiating position.
QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking you – I don't want the specifics, just --
MS HARF: Right. Let me finish, let me finish.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: But I do think that members of Congress highlight certainly for the Administration things we are already concerned about but make clear to us things they're particularly concerned about and things we need to make sure we address. A lot of this in some ways is we share many of the same concerns, whether it's on R&D, whether it's on the pace and scope of sanctions relief, so it is good for the Secretary to go talk to them to hear from them what's most important to them.
But our bottom lines haven't changed here, and I think a lot of – there's a lot of technical details here. And I think one of the things that will happen tonight and tomorrow morning is Secretary Moniz being able to sit down with members and say: Let's talk about the science behind this; I know there's a lot of politics, but let's talk about what we actually have here. And I think that'll be a helpful conversation.
QUESTION: Well, I guess my question is though: Can you say definitively that – without being specific – if any congressional concerns have thus far changed the way that --
MS HARF: I would say the consultations with Congress have undoubtedly played a role in how we've moved forward with our negotiating strategy.
QUESTION: Right. But that doesn't mean that any of their concerns have been addressed. You just say --
MS HARF: Well, they can speak about their concerns. I am saying it has – of course, these conversations and consultations have definitely impacted the way we've been negotiating and sort of what we focus on. And I know it's certainly had an effect.
QUESTION: But don't you think that if they – if they saw it that way, the objections would be less strenuous?
MS HARF: I'm not going to speak for them, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But I mean, I don't know – can you say then – if you say that it has had an impact, how, what impact that is?
MS HARF: As I said, I'm just not going to get into specifics inside the negotiating room. But we've been talking to them for a very long time about this, and how we formulate what we're most focused on, what we need to get to get in any agreement, is informed, certainly, by these consultations.
QUESTION: Marie, is this consultative in terms of what happened in the past – going back or going forward? I mean, what if they come up with new demands or new suggestions that basically would require you to take out a point, as illustrated --
MS HARF: Right.
QUESTION: -- with the factsheet? How would that impact or play?
MS HARF: Well, one thing we've said is Congress has an appropriate oversight role to play and that is very important. In terms of legislating what can be in a final deal, that is much harder for our negotiators and actually makes their job harder. So what we've said is we want to hear what your concerns are, we want to hear what you're focused on, but it needs to be up to the negotiating team and the experts inside the room to determine what substantively meets their bottoms lines, meets our bottom lines, meets their concerns. So I think that's where they have an oversight role but legislating what can be in a final deal is problematic, given that Iran needs to be negotiating with one executive branch, not 535.
QUESTION: Okay, but since this was really a lot more in depth than people expected, and suppose one of the legislators says, "I want to raise this point," would the Secretary say, "No, I'm sorry, we have already agreed on that point. We can go to another point"?
MS HARF: Well, certainly, if they raise an issue that there has been agreement on I think the Secretary and Secretary Moniz, particularly, will be able to say we already do have agreement there, or here's where we have some more work to do, and I really think that in a classified session, boring down on the details of what we have, what we still have left to do, I think that is really what they're looking forward to doing today.
QUESTION: Marie, could I ask on the UN part of this? One of the sections – one of the things still to be resolved is this whole sanctions issue, of course. And there was a suggestion in the factsheet that this would be done – there would some kind of component from the United Nations. Can I ask what your understanding is of the kind of mechanism that might – you might be thinking of putting in place for a snapback?
MS HARF: In terms of snapback. Mm-hmm. Yeah.
QUESTION: In terms of snapback. And also what you might be thinking of and what you are now doing at the UN to sort of trying to get that in motion.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, if Iran violates the JCPOA then all previous UN sanctions can be re-imposed, and Russia and China have agreed to this principle that's very important. We're still developing the exact modalities by which the UN sanctions would be re-imposed. This is one of the issues the details of which still needs to be worked out. We have already made clear to Iran and the P5+1 that we need clear procedures in place to trigger re-imposition of the UN sanctions if we have evidence that Iran is cheating. We believe there's a path forward to achieve this objective here over the next few months.
QUESTION: So this would only be for the UN sanctions?
MS HARF: Correct. I mean, U.S. --
QUESTION: What about the U.S. sanctions?
MS HARF: Well, U.S. sanctions are – it's just us, so it would be – we don't have to negotiate with anyone else about how U.S. sanctions would be imposed.
QUESTION: Is that how the Iranians are seeing it, though? Are they understanding that the – that you would retain the right to have your own snapback procedure?
MS HARF: Absolutely. That we – so would the EU. Now, there is a resolution mechanism if there is a disagreement about whether Iran is in compliance or noncompliance. But we absolutely retain the ability to snap U.S. sanctions back into place.
QUESTION: And it would be based on what evidence? On the evidence of the IEAA – IEE --
MS HARF: IAEA.
QUESTION: -- or your own determination or evaluation?
MS HARF: Well, I think both would play a role. Obviously, I don't want to get into hypotheticals, but we have a mechanism that we're working on for how if there are disagreements about whether there's compliance or noncompliance, how some of that can be worked out. But we certainly have our own ways of determining that. The IAEA, though, will play the principal role in determining compliance.
QUESTION: And your diplomats at the UN – Ambassador Power is already working with her counterparts from other P5+1 countries on what a mechanism could look like, is she?
MS HARF: Well, we're certainly working inside of the negotiating room with the P5, in terms of the actual teams out in Lausanne or wherever we will reconvene these talks. Ambassador Power's been very engaged in this as well. I don't have specifics of her conversations with counterparts at the UN, but we've been talking to all of them at different levels – obviously, the permanent members, given they're part of the talks.
QUESTION: But would you anticipate that the modality, as you call it, of such a snapback resolution at the UN would already be enshrined in any deal that comes out of June 30th?
MS HARF: Yes. Yes. That would have to be resolved. Yes.
QUESTION: Right. Okay.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Marie, on --
QUESTION: Can we go back to S-300 sale?
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: When you said that you believed that the S-300 sale would not violate any UN Security Council resolutions, do you also believe that the proposed oil-for-goods swaps that Russia says it has now begun with Iran violates any of those sanctions?
MS HARF: We saw those reports and we're actually right now looking into what exactly the ground truth is here. We're studying the details, and obviously just don't have an assessment yet of what was in the press is, in fact, happening. We know they've been talking about this for some time but don't have an assessment on whether it might – as we've said, if something does violate sanctions, obviously we would take action. But we just don't know about those reports yet.
QUESTION: Okay. And then one other one. You said that you did not think that the S-300 delivery would undermine the unanimity within the negotiating room.
MS HARF: That's true.
QUESTION: Why not? Wouldn't you have preferred to keep pressure on Iran in all sorts of ways, including the denial of transfer of such military weaponry, while you're negotiating for the next two and a half months?
MS HARF: Well, a couple points. First, we and Russia have been in lockstep inside the negotiating room in these negotiations, either when we – even when we disagree on many other issues, including, at times, Iran – other issues, not the nuclear issue, but other issues like this weapons deal; Syria; other things as well.
So we've been able to maintain unity. This is a little bit of a separate issue than the nuclear issue. So we don't – and I talked to the Secretary about this this morning. We don't think that this will – we don't expect it to impact the unity on the talks. Obviously, we don't think this is the time to be doing this. I think some of the press reports also mentioned that this might take a while to actually come to fruition, so I'd point people there as well.
QUESTION: And one more question about this. My understanding of the U.S. concerns about the S-300, should it ever be obtained by Iran, is that it could make it – it could make it easier for Iran to defend its nuclear or other facilities from attack. And so I thought it was related to the nuclear issue in the sense that an actual delivery would decrease the potential threat or – or of a military action.
MS HARF: I'm happy to check with our team on that, Arshad. I actually just don't know the facts here. I think that when I said separate, it's not – the S-300 isn't part of the negotiations over their – the composition of their nuclear program. But I'm happy to check with our team.
Elise, yes. Wait, let's have Elise.
QUESTION: I just want to go back to snapback for a second.
MS HARF: Yeah, and then I'm going to Elise.
QUESTION: You said that Russia and China have agreed that --
MS HARF: To the principle.
QUESTION: Yeah, to the principle, but isn't the --
MS HARF: But we're still working out the modalities.
QUESTION: Isn't the principle that they agreed to, that was agreed to in Lausanne, that one country cannot block snapback.
MS HARF: It's a little more, I think, complicated than that. That's what Secretary Moniz has said publicly. We're still working out the modalities of how this would all work. But as I said, I think last week, Secretary Moniz made that comment, certainly, but the principle is that all previous U.S. sanctions could snap back into place and we have to have a way to do that, and that's what we're working on.
QUESTION: But the question is: You don't have a way to do that now and --
MS HARF: We're talking. We have a path forward here. We – there are ideas on the table. We weren't able to resolve it before this last round ended, but we think we have a path forward here to get there. We're confident that we do, actually.
QUESTION: You're confident that you have a path forward to get there?
MS HARF: To get someplace that's acceptable to all of us.
QUESTION: On all levels of sanctions – UN, U.S. and EU?
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: So the thing is that it's not a guarantee; it's not a done deal, in other words?
MS HARF: No, and if we can't get agreement on this we won't get a deal.
QUESTION: Is the – so this is one that is a deal breaker is what --
MS HARF: Well, you keep using that word. We've always said that all of the issues need to be resolved. All the t's need to be crossed, the i's need to be dotted to get to a final agreement. How UN sanctions snap back into place, yes, would be a crucial part of this.
QUESTION: The impression that has been left by this is that the P5+1 – this was an issue within the P5+1, not necessarily with Iran because they don't have a vote on the council, they --
MS HARF: Right, although they care deeply about this issue.
QUESTION: Of course they do, but this is something that has to be resolved within the P5+1, not --
MS HARF: Correct, and there's a bunch of actually different ideas on the table, some from the Russians, some from others. So actually, we see a path forward here, it's just a little complicated and we're going to lock it down in the next two and a half months.
QUESTION: Right. Is it not the case that basically this was put on the shelf in order to maintain unity within the P5+1 in Lausanne?
MS HARF: No, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't say that. We – I mean, we had agreement in principle on the fact that there needed to be a snapback mechanism. That's what we needed to get by the end of last month, of March, which we got two days later. So no, it's not that this was shelved for any other reason other than this is one of the outstanding issues, we knew there would be details that we needed to keep working on, and this was one of them.
QUESTION: Well, the problem is that an agreement in principle really doesn't mean much of anything, because, I mean, you and the prime – the Administration and Prime Minister Netanyahu agree in principle that Iran should never be able to develop a nuclear weapon.
MS HARF: Well, this is a little more detailed. We agree --
QUESTION: I understand that, but --
MS HARF: No, I wouldn't – I would say on this that we believe we have a path forward here. There are a number of good ideas on the table. We think we're going to be able to get to agreement on what the snapback mechanism looks like. We have details still to work out, but this is not a place – I think this is a place we know there is a path forward and we are fairly confident we can get there.
QUESTION: Can you elaborate on what the ideas are?
MS HARF: I cannot at this point. I'm not going to get into internal negotiations.
QUESTION: All right. But you'll let us know when you can.
MS HARF: You'll be my first call.
QUESTION: Can I --
MS HARF: Wait, let's go to Elise. She just got here.
QUESTION: Let's go to Elise.
MS HARF: Welcome back to the briefing room, Elise.
QUESTION: Thank you. I was wondering if we could take it a little bit back, more to the Hill and the briefing of the Hill, and the idea of this Corker-Menendez pending legislation that does seem to have close, at least at this point, to a veto-proof majority. There was just a conversation with some former congressmen – Mike Rogers and John Tierney – on the Hill, and it seems as if Corker-Menendez is seen as either, on one hand, a potential deal killer if they're able to have an up-or-down vote, or just some people think, like, yes, Congress should have its say but not until the deal is completely done. I mean, if in fact Corker-Menendez would give the Congress a veto-proof majority on a deal, don't you think it would be better to kind of bring them in more – not that they would be negotiating the deal, but more into the discussions about shaping the final deal, as opposed to going through all of the effort, time, and energy to negotiate a deal with Iran that you feel is solid to only have it potentially voted down by Congress after the fact, which would be even harder to kind of re-litigate with Iran? I mean, how do you --
MS HARF: Well, I think you're – I think you're getting like six steps ahead of where we are right now. I would note a couple points. First, the President has been clear that if the Corker legislation in its current form comes to his desk, he will veto it. But as I've also said, he, Secretary Kerry, others have had conversations with Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, Senator Schumer, senators across the board, about what the proper oversight role might look like where we preserve our ability to implement an agreement – because if we don't start implementing, it would be sort of unthinkable that Iran would start implementing as well. That's an important principle. There are other important principles that are part of this discussion.
So I understand there will be a lot of activity up on the Hill over the coming days. The Secretary will be up there tonight and tomorrow morning to talk about really the details of the deal, but I am sure that what their proper oversight role could be might come up. So I actually wouldn't get ahead of those discussions. I think we'll see what sort of happens in the coming days.
QUESTION: But you're talking about Congress implementing a deal that you would agree to with Iran, but you might not even get to that point if they have a say on whether that deal would become --
MS HARF: Well, I think you're moving like four or five steps ahead of where we are here. I really just think we need to see how this plays out over the next few days, our conversations on the Hill, internal Hill conversations about what the legislation might look like, and I think we'll go from there.
QUESTION: Because I mean, as you know, you've heard – you've spoken about Senator McCain and some of that criticism, but there are – there is a lot of criticism in terms of there's concern about the deal that you negotiated going forward.
MS HARF: Which is the reason the Secretary is going to spend today and tomorrow with all members. He's offering a classified briefing to all members of the House and Senate with Secretary Lew, with Secretary Moniz – our lead nuclear scientists there with us – to say this is what we have, this is why we're confident it meets our bottom lines, this is what we still have to negotiate, and, oh, by the way, at the same time we're taking all these steps to protect Israel's security, to protect the Gulf states' security, we are countering Iranian activities in the region separate and apart from this. So I think that's really why you see the secretaries going up there today and tomorrow to have these conversations. And I really think that we shouldn't get ahead of where those are, and we should see what happens in the next few days.
QUESTION: But you don't anticipate, I guess is what I'm asking, of when you go back to negotiate the final comprehensive deal --
MS HARF: Well, the details that fill out the parameters.
QUESTION: -- the details that fill out the framework, re-litigating it, any of it, based on any concerns that Congress may vote it down afterwards?
MS HARF: Again, we're having these conversations, Elise, with Congress. We know what their concerns are. We share many of their concerns. And what we're focused on inside the negotiating room is getting a good deal that meets all of our bottom lines that we can defend to them, that we can defend publicly. I think the Secretary's been extremely clear about that, and I think that's what he's focused on.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I just ask – you probably dealt with this last week, and I apologize I wasn't here.
MS HARF: That's okay.
QUESTION: But obviously, there's been messages coming out of Iran, particularly about the sanctions, and President Rouhani said clearly last week that they would not sign a deal unless the sanctions were lifted from day one. Is your understanding that he means that all sanctions are lifted from day one? Now, clearly the fact sheet that was put out by the State Department says that there will be a lifting if – if they are in compliance with various steps.
MS HARF: After they undertake – and other Iranian officials have also said the same thing. Now, if they can do them all on day one, then they would be – then obviously, the relief would happen on day one. Some of these are a little more technical steps that may take a little longer.
But the Secretary, I think, was very clear about this over the weekend when he was asked about this, that we are confident of what we have in the parameters document that we released. Something similar happened after the Joint Plan of Action was finalized before it was implemented in January that they went out and said some things publicly to fit their narrative, we said things publicly, of course, as well. And what mattered is when it was implemented, Iran lived up to every obligation that we put out in terms of the facts. And we are confident that what we put out now is what has been agreed to. And look, if there's attempts to re-litigate or re-negotiate any of this, the Secretary has been very clear we won't get where we need to be here.
QUESTION: So you're confident that they will stand by a phased lifting of the sanctions if it comes to that in the future?
MS HARF: We are confident in what we've agreed to inside the room. That was outlined in our parameters document. And we have also said that is key to what happens here. Look, if Iran can take these steps more quickly, then they'll get the relief more quickly. So that's – and I think others, including other senior Iranian officials, have come out and said similar things.
QUESTION: Marie --
QUESTION: Is it just about your political posturing them from the – to fit their own domestic audiences?
MS HARF: Well, I'm not going to, I think, make judgments about --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS HARF: I'm going to answer this one first. Okay, thanks.
I think that I'm not going to get into why they say things publicly, but we've seen this before. And what matters to us is what actually happens if this is implemented. And under the JPOA, regardless of the fact that for two months we had said something, sometimes they had said things, that people took to be a little at odds, that they implemented it and that the IAEA verified that and continues to verify that. So I think that's what we're focused on.
QUESTION: Yes, Marie?
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead. Let's --
QUESTION: My name is Sharafat Hussain and I'm from Weekly Bangladesh.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS HARF: Wait, I'm not sure we're done on Iran yet. Hold on.
QUESTION: So no --
MS HARF: Is this on Iran?
QUESTION: I have a question about Bangladesh.
MS HARF: Let me finish Iran, and then we'll go to Bangladesh. I promise.
QUESTION: I just want to --
QUESTION: Can I just ask you real quick --
MS HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: -- just to clarify, on the S-300?
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: You're not having a – do you have a position yet? I mean, a --
MS HARF: I think I was very clear what our position is, that we have concerns.
QUESTION: Okay, because I think I came in a bit late.
MS HARF: I think – it's okay.
QUESTION: You're concerned, but you – you're not saying whether they have violated or they are violating – they have lifted or they are lifting?
MS HARF: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: I mean, they already lifted, or are they --
MS HARF: Lifted what?
QUESTION: The ban on selling the Russian --
MS HARF: Well, there – well, the – as I said before you came in, Secretary Kerry --
QUESTION: Right, sorry.
MS HARF: -- spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning to express and expressed our objections to this going forward. We've had these objections for a long time. I also said it's my understanding it's not a violation of UN Security Council sanctions or resolutions.
QUESTION: On this. The Israeli Government, or at least one prominent member of the Israeli Government – I believe it's Minister Steinitz – said that the Russian decision on this, on the S-300s, was a direct result of the Lausanne framework. Do you agree with that?
MS HARF: I'm not sure I follow the logic there. In what way?
QUESTION: His – I believe his suggestion is that this is a – that what happened in Lausanne and the arrival at the framework – at the parameters for the framework or however we're – whatever we're calling it – led the Russians to take – to make this decision.
MS HARF: Well, I don't – I – look, I can't speak to their decision-making, the Russians' decision-making process, but I understand they have been talking about doing this for a long time.
QUESTION: So you don't think that what happened in Lausanne or what's happening in the negotiations more broadly --
MS HARF: I have heard no --
QUESTION: You don't see this as having an impact?
MS HARF: I have heard no one indicate that whatsoever.
Anything else on Iran?
QUESTION: Marie?
MS HARF: Yes. And then I promise you're next.
QUESTION: You said that you are countering the Iranian influence in the region. Can you elaborate on that? How are you doing this?
MS HARF: Well, I think we've elaborated on this sort of ad nauseam over the past week and a half, but I'm happy to do a little more. Obviously, you are aware of our very close and continuing security relationship with Israel, the closest of any administration in history, most security funding. We're looking at other ways we can assist them going forward to increase their security even more. That's an ongoing conversation. When it comes to the GCC, we've taken a number of steps. As you know, the President will be hosting leaders from the GCC at Camp David in a few weeks. We are having constant communications at very high levels about how we can do even more to shore up their security as well.
QUESTION: But how are you countering the Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, for example?
MS HARF: Well, we have a couple of ways: first, supporting our partners and allies in the region who are working actively, whether it's supporting the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, whether it's supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces in Lebanon. We certainly take a number of steps in that regard. And then I would say we also have ways, like sanctions, of countering their destabilizing activities, like their support for terrorism. So we have our own way to do that as well.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hi. Mike Hughes, I'm with Sputnik News, by the way. Nice to meet you.
MS HARF: Nice to meet you. Thank you for coming.
QUESTION: Going back to the weapons sale.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: He did have reasoning, Lavrov – Foreign Minister Lavrov talked to those principles.
MS HARF: Foreign Minister Lavrov always has reasoning for things --
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MS HARF: -- I have learned in this job.
QUESTION: -- going back to what Matthew was saying about – he said they're put in place to support the nuclear talks. Now the ban – they want to lift the ban because he sees them as obsolete because there was a lot of progress made during that talk. So he made that connection earlier today.
MS HARF: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't see those comments. I just know what the Secretary spoke to him about, so I'm – apologize. I haven't seen those comments. But I think what I'm trying to indicate is we see this as separate from the negotiations, and we don't think this will have an impact on our unity. But I'm happy to take a look and see if there's more to say.
QUESTION: So why do you – why oppose it?
MS HARF: Well, we've long opposed it, for the reasons I think I laid out earlier, that Iran plays a destabilizing role in the region, that we would have concerns with these kinds of shipments being made to Iran at this time.
Yes. Actually, I promised him I would go here. Go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah. I'm talking about Bangladesh. After 92 days of political unrest, there's going to be an election held on April 28 in Dhaka and Chittagong, the major cities. So is there any update on political level playing field, that opposition parties going to get their political activity normal way, not the way they past six years been doing by (inaudible) government?
MS HARF: Well, let me check with our team. I don't have a lot on those upcoming elections. I think they're still a couple weeks away, so I'm happy to check with our team and see if we have some analysis to do beforehand. We've obviously expressed concern over the past weeks and months about the political unrest in Bangladesh and the situation on the ground, but I'm happy to check and see if there's more to share.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Sharafat Hussain and I'm weekly – from Weekly Bangladesh.
MS HARF: Great. Thank you for coming. We hope to have you more.
QUESTION: On Bangladesh?
QUESTION: I have a Bangladesh question, actually.
MS HARF: Let's – we have a few more, but you've started a few more Bangladesh questions.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, you put out a statement telling --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- calling on the Bangladeshis not to carry out the execution of the war crimes convict. And I don't know if it was an hour later or within several hours --
MS HARF: I think a few hours.
QUESTION: -- they went ahead and executed him. One, what do you think of that? And two, what does this say about American influence in Bangladesh?
MS HARF: Well, I don't have much more to say beyond the statement that we laid out this weekend in terms of the principles of how we see this process: that of course we support bringing to justice those who committed atrocities in the 1971 war. We understand this is an important process for Bangladesh to undertake.
We also, though – I think this is what you saw in the statement – believe that the trial should be fair and transparent and in accordance with international standards that Bangladesh itself has agreed to uphold. So we've seen progress in these – in this process, and that, I think, has been a good thing. But we still believe that further improvements to the ICT process could ensure that these kinds of proceedings meet domestic and international obligations. And that's something we're talking to the Bangladeshis about, I think something we'll keep talking to them about, but don't have much more analysis other than that of what happened.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but I mean they didn't do what you asked them to do. So is there any kind of consequence to that, or do they just get another stern talking-to?
MS HARF: Well, we'll continue – we understand this is a complicated issue and I think we'll continue having those conversations with the Bangladeshis.
QUESTION: Right, but your statement talked about how they should hold off because of the irreversibility – sorry – the irreversibility of capital punishment.
MS HARF: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: And they basically – either they didn't read it or it wasn't communicated to them directly, or in direct contravention of what the Administration would've preferred them to do, they went ahead and executed this guy.
MS HARF: Well, I don't think – we made our views clear, I think, and Ambassador Rapp has also talked publicly about other countries who have the death penalty and how it should be imposed – obviously with great care given the costs here. But look, Bangladesh has decisions to make on its own. We make our point of view known, but I wouldn't draw much more analysis from it than that.
Yes, another --
QUESTION: Do you think he faced a fair trial, by the way?
MS HARF: Well, as --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) I mean --
MS HARF: As we've said – I'm probably not going to on this specific trial, but we believe that trials in general should be fair and transparent, that Bangladesh has made some progress but there is still more work to do. And so that's a conversation we're having with them.
QUESTION: About Yemen?
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: So I know State Department talked to this a little bit last week, but we know that 41 U.S. citizens have filed a lawsuit against State Department and Defense Department for allegedly failing to evacuate them from Yemen. So I know that State Department said they advised people not to travel to Yemen and --
MS HARF: Since the mid-1990s we have.
QUESTION: Yes, and sent several travel alerts. But if they are trapped in Yemen, that this mean they have to find their own way get out of Yemen?
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: I mean, any new comments on that?
MS HARF: Just to put – not much new, just to put some numbers on this. Since January of 2014 alone, we have distributed 27 security messages and/or travel warnings, all of which urged U.S. citizens to defer travel to Yemen and urged those in Yemen to depart. So we are – as we've said, we're not going to comment on pending litigation. We're working with partners, having conversations with them about how people can get out.
And I just have a couple more minutes before we have a bilat upstairs, so let's do some – just a few more.
QUESTION: But many people are very curious about why the most powerful military cannot evacuate its own people. I mean, is America --
MS HARF: Well, it's not that we can't. These are decisions we make based on a variety of factors, including the security situation --
QUESTION: So what kind of factors? Is United States abandoning --
MS HARF: I think I just said one. The security --
QUESTION: -- abandoning American citizens in --
MS HARF: No. Wait, let's be clear here. I answered this at length last week, so I'm going to answer it and then move on, I think, because we're limited on time. But we've been warning Americans for a very long time not to go to Yemen. We are currently also warning them that the safest thing to do might be to shelter in place. So they need to look at their own security situation, and if they think it's safest to stay where they are in Yemen than try to get to a port, get on a boat, that may be the safer option. There are security challenges here with trying to use American assets to do this, and those are the kinds of factors we consider.
Yes.
QUESTION: But you did evacuate some people, right?
MS HARF: The United States?
QUESTION: But --
MS HARF: We have not, no.
QUESTION: Okay. But some Americans were evacuated from Yemen.
MS HARF: Correct. Some have gotten on boats that other countries have been able to dispatch.
QUESTION: But there is no – that's not a problem?
QUESTION: But if you're not abandoning, why don't you take more actions?
MS HARF: We are giving Americans opportunities – information about opportunities, I should say, to use other methods of leaving Yemen, and that's why we have been very clear since the mid-1990s that people should not travel to Yemen. We are doing what we can now, but there are obviously some constraints here.
QUESTION: Downstairs --
MS HARF: I think I'm going to move on, though. I answered this at length last week.
QUESTION: Well --
MS HARF: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: You did, but downstairs as you walk --
MS HARF: But you just don't like my answers.
QUESTION: I don't know if I would say that. It's just the – my question is that if you go walk downstairs, the – there's a sign that says the State Department's biggest or highest single --
MS HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- responsibility is the protection of American citizens abroad.
MS HARF: Absolutely. That's why we --
QUESTION: When --
MS HARF: -- have been telling them not to go to Yemen.
QUESTION: Yeah, I get that. And I know that the White House – your colleague there gave the same answer about these travel warnings that you put out, issued. Does that mean that you no longer believe that you have an obligation or a responsibility --
MS HARF: No.
QUESTION: -- to help protect American citizens?
MS HARF: Not all, but I – that's why we are providing information about opportunities for American citizens to leave Yemen. We are sending them messages, letting them know if there are certain boats or flights that they can possibly get on. We are giving them as much information as possible, but there are factors you have to take into account when you determine whether an American asset should be sent to a country, and this has been our determination about what's safest right now.
QUESTION: Is one of those factors you have to decide whether the people are actually worth saving?
MS HARF: Not at all, and that's a --
QUESTION: That's the impression that --
MS HARF: But that is an absolutely --
QUESTION: -- I think you're seeing.
MS HARF: -- offensive assertion.
QUESTION: Well, but that's what the critics of this are saying.
MS HARF: Well, I'm telling you it's patently wrong.
QUESTION: Okay. So other than the security of assets, what else is a factor?
MS HARF: I'm not sure – I mean, how – the security of trying to have all the Americans gather in one place.
QUESTION: So you're worried that if they gather in one place to be evacuated, they might become a target.
MS HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Is that --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Very quickly.
MS HARF: Just a couple more on this, guys.
QUESTION: Really quick one.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: For those who are in Djibouti and so on, will you help them come home and so on?
MS HARF: We provide – well, we provide consular assistance to Americans wherever they are --
QUESTION: But no transportation --
MS HARF: -- with the resources we have.
QUESTION: -- back to the United States?
MS HARF: I can check with the team and see what the facts are on that. Let's go – I'm just going to do three more, guys. In the back.
QUESTION: Hi there. Do you have anything on the Russian intercept of a U.S. reconnaissance plane near Poland? And did the Secretary bring it up with Lavrov?
MS HARF: I don't believe it came up in their conversation. This is really more of a DoD issue. But in general, yes, on the morning of April 7th, an RC-135U flying a routine route in international airspace was intercepted by a Russian SU-27 Flanker in an unsafe and unprofessional manner. The U.S. is raising this incident with Russia in the appropriate official and diplomatic channels, and I think that's all I have on that.
QUESTION: Sorry, and if the Secretary didn't bring it up, it wasn't of concern? Or is this --
MS HARF: No, and through the appropriate channels. As I said, this is more of a DoD thing.
QUESTION: What is that appropriate – is that like through the military attache at the embassy?
MS HARF: I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: Can you check that one for us?
MS HARF: Yeah, I'll check.
QUESTION: Any comment on the presidential elections in Sudan?
MS HARF: I don't have one. Let me check with our team.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, the Egyptian court sentenced 37 people to life in prison and 14 to death, and I know U.S. State Department released a statement, but only mentioned one person's name.
MS HARF: Mohamed Soltan?
QUESTION: U.S. citizen Mohamed Soltan.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I was wondering, do you have anything to say about other 50 people?
MS HARF: Well, I didn't see all the details on that. I know last week that another mass trial of 379 members took place actually. So in general, without knowing the details, we remain troubled by the practice of mass trials and sentencing, which we've said run counter to what we think due process under the law should look like. I'm happy to check and see if there are more details.
QUESTION: And just follow-up question on – just recently U.S. lifted the hold on military assistance to Egypt.
MS HARF: We did.
QUESTION: And considering the recent events, what has changed so far in Egypt regarding the human rights and democracy considering that the main motives for all this withheld was the human rights and democracy issues in Egypt?
MS HARF: Well, the recent decision regarding military assistance to Egypt neither, I think, suggests that the human rights situation in Egypt has improved nor represents some sort of endorsement of the Government of Egypt's approach to domestic dissent. I think we've been clear that the threats to Egypt's security have increased over the past few months, and obviously we are making decisions based on that. That includes the growth of ISIL and other things, but that's why we speak out very strongly and we still have concerns about the human rights situation, including with Mr. Soltan.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about this recent surge in fighting in Ukraine?
MS HARF: Not really. The Russians and the separatists need to implement Minsk. It's up to them. They need to pull back. I don't have much more than that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: Last one, guys. I really have to go.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction on the Chinese releasing three of the five women activists this morning?
MS HARF: We've seen that. We obviously believe that all of them should be released. I can't confirm those reports independently that they have, although I've seen them. We believe that all of the – let me bring out the exact language I have here – that we have issued public statements but also believe privately that they should all be immediately and unconditionally released.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS HARF: Abigail, last one.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the UNICEF report released today about the amount of children who are having to flee violence in Nigeria?
MS HARF: I hadn't seen it. I'm happy to check.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS HARF: Thanks, guys. Sorry for the – a little, abbreviated briefing today. We're having bilats moving around time-wise, so I appreciate it.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:16 p.m.)
DPB # 61
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
