Daily Press Briefing
Jeff Rathke
Acting Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 15, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY KERRY TRAVEL
LIBYA
DEPARTMENT
IRAN
CUBA
SYRIA
SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN
ISIL
LIBYA
DEPARTMENT
INDIA
COUNTERTERRORISM
YEMEN
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
TRANSCRIPT:
12:40 p.m. EDT
MR RATHKE: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR RATHKE: Hello.
QUESTION: Happy Wednesday.
MR RATHKE: Thank you, and likewise. I have three things to mention at the top. The Secretary is on his way back from Lubeck, Germany today where he participated in a meeting of G7 foreign ministers. The ministers discussed key global challenges such as the Iran nuclear negotiations, Yemen, and other key issues. They also issued a joint communique, which is available online and underscores G7 unity in responding to these and many other challenges.
Second item: We welcome the convening today of the next round of UN-led Libyan political dialogue talks in Morocco. As Secretary Kerry said in a statement on April 12th and the UN Security Council reiterated on April 13th, we strongly urge all Libyan stakeholders participating to agree on arrangements to end Libya's political, security, and institutional crisis. We condemn today's airstrikes in Tripoli and again call on all parties to cease hostilities as there can be no military solution to Libya's challenges. To that end, UN – U.S. officials – pardon me – met today in Washington with a delegation from the Libyan house of representatives to urge their continued engagement in the UN-led process to form a national unity government, which we believe is an essential prerequisite for any effective international support for Libya's successful democratic transition and security needs.
And lastly, just to welcome two guests. We are joined today by Lucy Poni and Michael Atit, who are here from South Sudan on an exchange program with Voice of America to learn more about U.S. democracy, diplomacy, and news reporting. So welcome to you. And with that, Matt, over to you.
QUESTION: Let's start with Iran, surprising – surprise, surprise.
MR RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering: Yesterday the Administration seemed to do kind of a backflip. While the Secretary was up on the Hill imploring senators not to do anything, the White House changed its mind and decided it could go along with and the President would sign this Corker-Menendez-Cardin bill. How much of a surprise was that to this building and the Secretary, and why is it that you think that you can – that this is okay and is not unwarranted congressional interference in the executive's prerogative on foreign policy?
MR RATHKE: Right. Well, as I think was mentioned yesterday, the Secretary was on the Hill. There were – there was also the markup happening and negotiations. I think Josh Earnest spoke to this extensively yesterday in the White House press briefing, so he's explained a lot of the background. And I think as the Secretary said in Lubeck today, we are confident in our ability for the President to negotiate an agreement, and to do so with the ability to make the world safer.
We've engaged with Congress extensively throughout this entire process. We've talked about the numbers of phone calls – over 130 phone calls from the President and cabinet members and other senior officials. And the reason we've engaged with Congress so extensively is because we acknowledge the important role that Congress has played thus far and that they should and would have a role in this process when it comes to voting on the sanctions that Congress put in place. So I think there's – I wouldn't categorize it as a surprise. We've been coordinating closely with the White House, and, of course, the Secretary and Secretary Moniz and Secretary Lew and other officials were up on the Hill yesterday to explain the framework understanding, and also to talk about the way forward.
QUESTION: You say that you acknowledge the important role of the Congress. What exactly do you mean by that? You weren't very happy about the letter that was sent by – well, weren't very happy; that's an understatement. You were furious at the Cotton letter to the Iranian leadership. I'm just wondering what it is that you appreciate so much about what Congress is doing right now.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, we had, of course, concerns about – I think we're speaking more directly about the legislation that was marked up yesterday and voted in the committee --
QUESTION: You think that that is – you appreciate that? You think it's constructive?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think --
QUESTION: You wouldn't have preferred it not happen?
MR RATHKE: I think it's important to point out that there were changes made to the legislation. Again, the White House has spoken to those --
QUESTION: Is it still the case, though, that you would have preferred they had done nothing?
MR RATHKE: Well, the point is that we believe that with the bill, as it was amended, that some of those concerns that we had were addressed. And of course we still need to see the final bill; it's at an early stage of the process, but then we'll be able to move forward. But I think the White House has laid out clearly their readiness to move ahead on that.
Anything more on Iran? Lucas.
QUESTION: Yes. Will the Corker – will this Corker bill now prevent the Administration from lifting sanctions immediately if a deal goes through?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, as I said in reference to Matt's question, this bill is not final yet; it's passed – it's been passed in the committee. It has to work its way through the Senate and the House. We'll wait to see and we'll defer to the White House, of course, on their final determination on supporting the bill. So I don't have anything to add to what the White House has already said on it.
QUESTION: But is it the view of this building that if Iran were to comply with the terms that are negotiated between the P5+1 and Iran, that it will – that the State Department is willing to lift all sanctions immediately?
MR RATHKE: Well, our position on sanctions relief also remains the same as it was negotiated in the framework understanding: that sanctions relief will come after Iran meets the key nuclear requirements.
QUESTION: But Marie indicated on Monday, I believe, that the State Department was willing to lift sanctions immediately if Iran were to abide by its terms.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, it depends on Iran fulfilling the requirements.
QUESTION: So if Iran fulfills its requirements, will sanctions be lifted immediately?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think we're in now an area of technical detail that is still to be further negotiated. Of course, we have to wait and see what bill is passed by Congress, so --
QUESTION: But you can't rule it out right now?
MR RATHKE: Rule what out?
QUESTION: Lifting of sanctions immediately.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, this is a bill that's making its way through Congress. We've got to see what the final result of that is. I'm not going to talk about – I'm not going to speak to the details of what the current bill right now would do. That's being discussed between the Administration and Congress.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR RATHKE: Sorry. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to make sure – not that – I don't think anything has changed; I just want to make sure. It is still the – excuse me – the Administration's position that once Iran complies and is found to be meeting the terms of any agreement, that you will – that the sanctions will be removed, right? At least the --
MR RATHKE: "Suspended," I think, is the --
QUESTION: Suspended, whatever.
MR RATHKE: Yeah. But the sanctions relief --
QUESTION: That hasn't changed, has it?
MR RATHKE: No, and the sanctions relief depends on --
QUESTION: I mean, Iran doesn't – if Iran complies, they don't get nothing, right?
MR RATHKE: No, right. No, the sanctions relief is dependent on Iran meeting its requirements.
QUESTION: Right.
MR RATHKE: Yes, Roz.
QUESTION: Let me try to take a run at Matt's question a slightly different way. Yes, the Secretary was on the Hill with his counterpart from Energy to explain the view of why they thought the Corker-Menendez bill was not a good idea. Is it reasonable to assume that at some point they switched from simply lobbying against this piece of legislation to actually being involved in the negotiations on the compromise, since the negotiations, as I understand it, were still ongoing yesterday morning while they were on the Hill?
MR RATHKE: Well, let me go back to the start of your question, though, because the Secretary, along with his cabinet counterparts who went to the Hill – they went there to explain the framework understanding. That was the first opportunity that they had in a classified session with all members available in town and able to participate to talk about the details in a classified setting of the framework understanding. So I think it would be a mischaracterization to say that they went up there to negotiate on the Corker bill. Of course, we have been involved; we've had discussions, including the President and the Secretary themselves directly, with Senator Corker, as well as with many other members of Congress, over the last several days about the bill. But I think it's – I think that's different from the purpose of yesterday's trip to the Hill, which was to provide a classified briefing on the framework understanding.
QUESTION: Okay, but that was the original purpose. Did their trip to Capitol Hill change over the course of the morning?
MR RATHKE: Well --
QUESTION: Did they end up having to call the White House and just say, "Look, these are the things that we are hearing from members coming out of this session that indicate that the bill that's going up for markup this afternoon is going to be very different from what we thought they would be discussing this afternoon"?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to get into the – again, it was classified session, so I'm not going to characterize those exchanges they had with members of Congress while they were on the Hill. Of course the Administration has been engaged with Congress, and as we saw yesterday, there were – some of the concerns that the Administration has were addressed in the markup. I'm not going to pinpoint – I'm not going to try to point to one specific conversation or engagement that led to that happening. We've been working, of course – reaching out directly to Senator Corker; also in touch with ranking member Senator Cardin – to talk through our concerns. And so that's what has yielded the bill that was passed in the committee yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, I guess I'm – I guess what I'm trying to suss out is whether or not Secretaries Kerry and Moniz were aware of what this piece of legislation was going to look like before 2:15 Eastern or whether they were in fact blind – sideswiped.
MR RATHKE: No, they were neither blindsided nor sideswiped, but I'm not going to get into the details of the back-and-forth on the legislation.
QUESTION: Or blind-swiped. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: It works for me.
MR RATHKE: I don't think that either. (Laughter.) Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: I just – I'm still a little bit perplexed about --
MR RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: -- what happened yesterday, because at the weekend, Secretary Kerry made it quite clear that he was going to go up to the Hill to brief them about the negotiations because he wanted to be able to continue the negotiations without interference – that was his quote – from Congress. So what is it about this bill, which would give them authority to review any agreement you strike on June 30th, before or after, that isn't interference? You believe that the Congress has – yeah, why isn't it interference in what the Secretary and his team are trying to do?
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, as the White House pointed to yesterday, we had a number of concerns about the original draft of the legislation that included linking the nuclear negotiations to other issues with Iran. It included the desire to have – of some to have Congress vote on the agreement itself rather than a future vote focused solely on congressional sanctions, as well as a review period that could delay implementation. So those concerns we have certainly highlighted, and some of those concerns were addressed, and as I think the White House has explained, the decision to support the bill as it was amended. And I don't have anything to add to that. And that is – but those factors taken together, I think the Secretary, as he put it today, we're confident in our ability for the President and our negotiators to negotiate an agreement that will make the world safer.
QUESTION: It's just if you dial back a few weeks or months, the message coming from the podium was always that Congress would have a vote, but it'd be mainly on having to lift – it'd be purely on having to lift the sanctions. There was no talk about giving it any kind of congressional oversight of the deal and being able to say yea or nay to the deal.
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have anything to add to that. We've been actively engaged with Congress. I think we've seen the results in Congress of that engagement. I don't have anything further to add.
QUESTION: Do you think this will strengthen your hand in the negotiations or weaken it?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to comment about how this is going to affect the --
QUESTION: Well, that's good. I hope – I would hope you wouldn't say it was weakening --
MR RATHKE: No, I'm not going to comment about how this is going to affect negotiators --
QUESTION: Are you communicating with your other partners or the P5+1 partners about the (inaudible)?
MR RATHKE: Well, of course, many of them are also in the G7, and the Secretary made the point of the trip to Germany so that they could talk about important issues, including the Iran negotiations. I don't believe there's been systematic outreach to each of the P5+1 at his level, but we remain in contact with our negotiating partners on an ongoing basis.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: So has the Administration's concern been alleviated regarding whether Congress is eventually going to vote, give a nay or yea vote, on the agreement in general, or not?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think the White House has spoken to this yesterday about the bill. I don't have anything to add to their comments.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR RATHKE: Is this the – just a moment.
QUESTION: Well, I don't --
MR RATHKE: Anything more on – excuse me?
QUESTION: I don't know if he really – if Josh Earnest really said anything directly in this regard. I don't know. From what I heard, I didn't get an answer to this question whether the Congress is still insisting on voting on the agreement – voting the – putting the agreement to vote or not, in general.
MR RATHKE: Well, it's a bill in the Senate. I'd refer you to them about their – about those details.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Several questions about Cuba.
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: And also, as we know, since President Obama is trying to, or intends to remove the list – I mean the Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism. So what was the evidence or basis that United States put Cuba into the list in 1980s? And why now? And what is the evidence now to remove Cuba from the list?
MR RATHKE: Well, the Secretary – the Secretary issued a statement yesterday, in addition to the statement from the White House press secretary. And the Secretary's statement goes into detail about that. There – the time when Cuba was listed as a state sponsor of terror, which was back in the 1980s, the world looked a lot different then; Cuba's activities also were different in terms of support for international terrorism. And as a result of the review, which was based on the facts and on the statutory standard, the Secretary of State made a recommendation to the President. And the President has made that recommendation – has adopted that decision now to rescind the designation. I'd refer you back to the Secretary's statement on that.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I know – but it seems that Cuba has done this kind of activity a long time ago. And why – how often do you update this kind of list? And why – I mean, six month – I mean, the evaluation for the time, because --
MR RATHKE: Well, this review was – if we go back to December 17th of last year, the President, in announcing his policy changes on Cuba, he asked the Secretary of State to conduct a review of Cuba's presence on the state sponsors of terrorism list. And so that's what the State Department has carried out.
QUESTION: Because some analysts say Cuba's designation has nothing to do with – I mean, terrorist activity – so it's more to do with politics. And to many people, the decision to remove Cuba from the list, affirmed obviously because U.S. is seeking normal ties with Cuba – is a kind of way of changing ideology, or any comments on the analysis?
MR RATHKE: Well, there were – as our submission to Congress points out, there were specific assurances that were provided by Cuba with regard to international terrorism and its – that it would not and had not supported international terrorism. We've looked at our own sources of information. We came to a conclusion that over the last six months, which is the relevant period under the statute, Cuba had not provided any support to international terrorism. And so in combination with those assurances, which dealt with, among other things, things related to terrorism, such as terrorist organizations like the FARC in Colombia and ETA in Spain and in Europe, that on the basis of that information and the thorough review, the State Department made its recommendation to the White House.
QUESTION: Isn't it correct, though, that the Cubans said that they couldn't see normalization proceeding without their being removed from the list?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'd refer you back to the Cubans on that. Our position on this is, then, that this is – that we see this as a separate – as an important process, but separate from the discussions about re-establishing diplomatic relations and opening embassies.
QUESTION: I mean, I'll have to go back and look at the record, but it seems at first that this building basically said there couldn't be a linkage between their removal from the list and the effort to try to establish diplomatic relations. And then suddenly, it's now just what you've done --
MR RATHKE: And we haven't drawn such a linkage. We have not made such a linkage.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Now --
QUESTION: But I had one other question, Matt. There is this 45-day period during which Congress could try to object. If Congress were able to pass a joint resolution that is veto-proof, that could override a presidential veto, and says no, we don't believe that Cuba should be removed from the list, what happens to the process of normalization?
MR RATHKE: Well, there's a couple layers of hypothetical there.
QUESTION: But it's a very real --
MR RATHKE: Now you're right --
QUESTION: But it's a very real possibility.
MR RATHKE: You're right that there is – but you're right; there is a provision that Congress can pass. If Congress passes a joint resolution opposing the rescission, then the Administration would have to respond to that. But again, I'm not aware of there being any particular discussion about such a joint resolution, so I'm not going to go down the road of speculating about a joint resolution that hasn't even been proposed and what its prospects would be and how the Administration would respond to it.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I – yeah, I want to ask the same two questions that I asked in the conference call – on-background conference call yesterday, neither of which I got a satisfactory answer to. The first one is: What public – what assurances did the Cubans give you that they would not engage in this kind of activity in the future? Because as far as I can tell, there hasn't been any kind of a statement out of Havana that resembles in any way the statements that you made – the North Koreans and the Libyans make in public – public declarations – before they were removed from the list.
MR RATHKE: Well, the Cuban Government provided the United States with assurances that it will not support acts of international terrorism in the future, consistent with the requirements --
QUESTION: When was that?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have a date, but it's been as part of our process of dialogue with them about this issue over the recent – over recent months.
QUESTION: But Jeff, they claim that they should – they claim that they never have supported terrorism in the past and that they never will, and think that they shouldn't have been on the list in the first place. That is irrelevant to my question, pretty much.
My question is: What assurances do you – are you referring to if – they've said since they were put on the list in the '80s that they shouldn't be on it, that they don't support terrorism. What, if it – what is different now?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think there's two --
QUESTION: Why didn't you make the Cubans do the same things that you made the North Koreans and the Libyans do when they – the last two countries to come off the list?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think I'd separate two things here. One is about the assurances and one is the public versus official nature of them. There's not a requirement in the statute for public – for a specific public statement by a government connected with removal from --
QUESTION: Well, it was – but it was important for the administration --
MR RATHKE: -- the state sponsor of terrorism list.
QUESTION: -- the previous administration to get public assurance from the Libyans and the North Koreans.
MR RATHKE: Okay. Well --
QUESTION: Why was it not important to get that – for this Administration to get that public assurance from the Cubans?
MR RATHKE: Well, I would --
QUESTION: Why was it decided that it was okay --
MR RATHKE: Maybe it'll help if I go into a little bit of the detail --
QUESTION: Sure.
MR RATHKE: -- surrounding the particular aspects of this that were addressed, because there certainly have been concerns and reasons that we have listed Cuba in the past. I mentioned, in particular, connections with FARC and with ETA. So as – just to talk to those two examples, the Cuban Government provided the United States in writing official assurances in connection with – that it will not support acts of international terrorism.
Now, if I go to those particular examples, with respect to ETA, there are – there are some ETA members who have been in Cuba. The Cuban Government has provided assurances that it would never permit the ETA members living in Cuba to use Cuban territory for activities against Spain or any other country. That was part of this review process, so this is recent. We have no information that Cuba has recently allowed any of these ETA members to plan or finance, lead or commit acts of international terrorism while residing in Cuba. And additionally, for those two ETA members whom Spain has requested extradition, Cuba and Spain have agreed to a bilateral process to resolve that matter, and that's now underway. The Government of Spain has assured the Government of the United States that it is satisfied with this process.
And then if we talk about Colombia and the FARC, our review process included a comprehensive review, and there is no credible evidence that the Government of Cuba has in the last six months provided material support, services, or resources to members of the FARC or to the ELN outside of the facilitation of the internationally recognized peace process between those organizations and the Government of Colombia. And the Government of Colombia has indicated to the United States that it has no evidence that Cuba has provided any political or material support in recent years to either of those organizations in support of any terrorist activity in Colombia. And the Government of Colombia believes that the Government of Cuba has played a constructive role in the peace negotiations.
So I think that gets at some of the particular details that are relevant.
QUESTION: Okay, yeah. I wonder why that couldn't have been said yesterday in the background call. I don't know if it's newsworthy, but it's certainly informative.
MR RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: And you have written assurances from the Cuban Government on both of those issues?
MR RATHKE: I don't have the level of detail to know whether all of those are written assurances.
QUESTION: All right.
MR RATHKE: But in the – we have gotten written assurances from the Cubans on key issues.
QUESTION: And then there are at least one and probably several American fugitives in Cuba, and I'm just wondering if that – if that was part of this process.
MR RATHKE: So the questions – let me speak to the question of the fugitives and then I'll connect it to the process, if that's all right.
So we share the concerns regarding fugitives from the United States in Cuba. We're working closely with the Department of Justice and other agencies to bring those fugitives to justice. And --
QUESTION: Well, but you have to – okay.
MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead. No, go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, don't you have to work with Cuba to get them back?
MR RATHKE: Of course.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: The return from Cuba of fugitives from U.S. Justice – it's an issue of longstanding concern to the United States, and it will be addressed in the broader context of normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba. We have been raising these fugitive cases, including Joanne Chesimard, William Guillermo Morales with the Cuban Government at every appropriate opportunity. I would point out that Cuba has expelled to the United States at least four non-Cuban national fugitives, fugitives from U.S. justice since 2011.
So we see the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the reopening of an embassy in Havana as the means by which we'll be able more effectively to press the Cuban Government on law enforcement issues such as fugitives. And Cuba has agreed to enter into a law enforcement dialogue with the United States that will work to resolve these cases.
QUESTION: So does that mean that by the time – that as a result of normalization the fugitives will be returned, or just that as a result of normalization the Cubans will talk to you about it?
MR RATHKE: Well, there's been – I can't say we've got an agreement on any specific outcome of that dialogue, but Cuba has agreed to open a law enforcement dialogue and this will be part of it.
QUESTION: All right. And then the second question which was not answered, at least that I didn't think was answered because it was said to be a hypothetical, which is how long – it would appear that Cuba has not engaged in this kind of activity not just for the last six months but for a period prior to that. And I just – and my question is: When could they have been taken off this list – a year ago, 18 months ago, 24 months ago, 30 months ago, 36 months ago?
MR RATHKE: Well, it's – that's quite hard to say, Matt, because as I mentioned in going into the details of the written assurances and in the question of the ETA and the FARC issues, that involved a process of dialogue with Cuban authorities in order to clarify and also to get the proper assurances that enabled the State Department to make its recommendation to the White House. So it's – that was an essential part of the process, so without that kind of dialogue in order to establish to our sort of statutory but also for our own confidence, that had to be a part of it. So --
QUESTION: And --
MR RATHKE: I can't go back in time and pinpoint something on the timeline.
QUESTION: All right. Well – and then in terms of the state sponsor designation, in the terrorism – annual terrorism – country reports on terrorism, when was the last incident that you have documented proof that Cuba was involved in international terrorism?
MR RATHKE: I don't have that in front of me. I'd have to go back and look at the previous report.
QUESTION: Well, didn't one of the officials who briefed yesterday --
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Didn't one of the officials who briefed reporters yesterday say that there wasn't a periodic review component of the SSOT list, and that – and essentially, it would have to be a request from the President to take a look at whether a country still merited being on this list?
MR RATHKE: No, I wouldn't put it that way. It is accurate that, as was stated yesterday in that call, there is not a process neither in the statute – there's not a process in the statute for there to be a periodic review of countries that are on the state sponsor of terrorism list. That's correct. But you can't jump from there to say that the only means by which a review could be undertaken is because the President asks for one. That's how it happened in this case: The President instructed the State Department to do the review, which we did. But that's – that is not the sole exclusive means by which a review could be undertaken.
QUESTION: Does that mean that at some point or at several points in the past, that State did take a look at all of the countries on the list and do its own review just to see whether or not the designation was still merited – doing a proactive review, if we can call it that?
MR RATHKE: Again, we don't have a timeline or a periodicity of those kinds of reviews. Of course, as you're aware, we do an annual – we do annual country reports on terrorism that cover the entire world, and our list of state sponsors is part of that. So we are regularly looking at the terrorism situation across the globe, but we don't have a specific timeframe for reviewing that.
QUESTION: But you wouldn't be able to --
MR RATHKE: I --
QUESTION: But you wouldn't be able to say that during the annual review that there wouldn't have been someone --
MR RATHKE: Well --
QUESTION: -- in counterterrorism or in some other part of the building who would have said maybe we should take a closer look at whether Country X really should still be on the list and perhaps send a recommendation --
MR RATHKE: I don't have that level of detail. But also I would point out that this is – this review of Cuba for the – on the state sponsor of terrorism list has been quite extensive. It's taken four months and a lot of – it requires a lot of resources. So that's – it is a – it is not unique, but it is different from our normal process of looking at patterns of global terrorism.
QUESTION: Can I --
MR RATHKE: Sorry, I think we're going to move on.
QUESTION: Cuba?
MR RATHKE: On Cuba? Yes.
QUESTION: Jeff, after 50 years or so, the Soviet or the now-Russian influence or domination on Cuba, you think it has gone down? And what made Cuba now to turn around all the way and – to this agreement and other agreements? You think they are leaving Russians or influence no longer in the area?
MR RATHKE: Well, I would let the Cubans speak to their own relationship with Russia or any other country. I think that our decision and the policy change that the President initiated four months ago is based on what's in U.S. interests and the interests of the people of Cuba. For decades, the United States tried a policy of isolation to bring about change in Cuba, and we did not succeed through doing that. And so we are pursuing a new policy of engagement, and we see a strong majority in the United States, and in Cuba in fact, that says that our engagement and our opening up of commerce and travel and people-to-people exchanges is ultimately going to be good for the Cuban people and also for the United States.
QUESTION: And Jeff, finally --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Finally, Cuba is also being helped or have close relations with North Korea, and you know North Korea is – I mean, what North Korea is doing?
MR RATHKE: We've spoken to those issues. Again, that's separate from the terrorism issue.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: On Cuba or can we move on?
QUESTION: One more on Cuba.
QUESTION: Another one.
MR RATHKE: Okay. All right. Go ahead, Elliot, and then Lucas.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks. I just wanted to jump back to the fugitive issue --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because Assistant Secretary of State Jacobson has said in the past that when they bring up the issue of Joanne Chesimard and others who are being harbored in Cuba, that the Cubans just refuse to talk about it, that they don't get any traction at all. And I was wondering if there's been any change in that recently, if you've gotten to the point where they're actually talking about it, if there's more of a constructive process going on.
MR RATHKE: I don't have details from those discussions to read out, but again, as I said, we've agreed to a law enforcement dialogue that will address law enforcement cooperation, including issues related to fugitives.
Lucas.
QUESTION: Just a few days ago, Senator Bob Menendez said that while the United States is making all these concessions, Cuba really isn't doing much in return. I know you just answered Matt's question on this subject. My question is: Do you disagree with Senator Menendez's characterization?
MR RATHKE: That characterization being?
QUESTION: That the United States has made a lot of concessions with Cuba, not received much in return.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, as I said in response to the earlier question, we have had a policy for 50 years of trying to isolate Cuba, and the end result of that was to isolate the United States substantially from many of our partners in the hemisphere and not to affect positively the situation in Cuba. So we believe that new approach to Cuba is going to expand our contact with the Cuban people. It's going to expand commerce and people-to-people ties, and we think that this new direction, which also provides opportunities for U.S. business and our – has support in the United States, in Cuba, in the international community. I think if you look at the Summit of the Americas and the positive dynamic there, we think that this is – that there is ample evidence that this is the right way forward. So that's the way we look at it.
QUESTION: So just simply, do you disagree with Senator Menendez?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think I've laid out pretty clearly how we look at it.
Yeah. Go ahead, Jo. Yes.
QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait.
MR RATHKE: Oh.
QUESTION: I just have one more, because you talk about this 50 years of isolation, you succeeded in isolating only yourselves, which is totally accurate, especially at the UN, where every year this farce of a vote comes up where the entire world votes against you and Israel, who're the only members that support it. But ending the embargo – it's the embargo I'm talking about – ending the embargo will take congressional action, and it may take some time. When this vote comes up at the United Nations the next time, if the embargo hasn't been lifted, will the U.S. Government continue to vote against it, or will you vote in favor of ending the embargo in the General Assembly?
MR RATHKE: Oh my goodness. Well, that's – I don't have a prediction to make about what resolution may be --
QUESTION: Well, why wouldn't you? You no longer --
MR RATHKE: -- may be made in the UN General Assembly. We are --
QUESTION: But the Administration no longer supports the embargo.
MR RATHKE: My count is five months away from the General Assembly.
QUESTION: Right, but the Administration no longer supports the embargo. Isn't that correct? And would like Congress to see it – to remove it.
MR RATHKE: Well, but that's – it's a leap to go from there to say that – how we would vote on a specific resolution --
QUESTION: Would you vote against your own legislature?
MR RATHKE: -- and that we would vote against our own legislature.
QUESTION: Would you?
MR RATHKE: I'm not going to suggest that that would be our vote. Again --
QUESTION: Because it would be pretty silly if you continued to vote against.
MR RATHKE: Let's also see whether there would be such a resolution given the --
QUESTION: If the embargo still exists, there's still --
MR RATHKE: -- change in the international environment.
QUESTION: Well, but if the embargo still exists, if Congress hasn't moved to remove it, the resolution is going to come up then.
MR RATHKE: Well, I think it's also quite clear that the Administration has taken what steps it can under existing authorities.
QUESTION: I understand. I just want to know if you'll vote against Congress at the United Nations.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) so is it your --
MR RATHKE: Again, I don't think we're planning to --
QUESTION: Is your prediction that you'll – we'll have --
MR RATHKE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- the reopening of the embassies within the next five months, then?
MR RATHKE: I don't have a prediction on that. Of course, we want to see that happen quickly, but it requires --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: -- making progress in those talks.
QUESTION: I wanted to move to Syria, thanks.
MR RATHKE: Yes, please. Let's do.
QUESTION: Yes. So the UN envoy, Staffan de Mistura, is holding consultations and wants to hold separate consultations next month in Geneva with anyone who has influence in – all those who have influence in the conflict in Syria. So I think separate negotiations with the regime, separate negotiations with the opposition, obviously in a bid to try and get some kind of peace process moving again. Firstly, is this something that you would support?
And secondly, is it something that the United States has – he says he's still putting his guest list together, but is it something, as a party to – because you support the moderate opposition, would it be something that the United States would expect to be involved in?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think we're at a pretty early stage here. We're aware of reports of this idea, but at this stage we don't have any comment on those ideas. They haven't really taken shape in a form that we can comment on, so I would refer you at this point to the special envoy's office for how they see this developing.
QUESTION: Not even as a – that is a good idea to try and get some kind of peace process moving again?
MR RATHKE: Well, of course we've always been supportive of a process consistent with the Geneva framework that – but the problem has been the regime's readiness to engage. So if it's possible to get to that process, that's something we have supported and continue to support. But the particular – which particular steps may get us there is hard for us to predict right (inaudible) stage.
QUESTION: What about the involvement of Iran in any such process? Obviously, you've said – or from this podium it's been said time and again that Iran has an influence in Syria, so that would suggest that if it's going to be talks for all those with influence, that Iran should therefore be invited.
MR RATHKE: Well, I think at this stage, we would refer back to the special envoy's office about how they conceive of this. I think the nature and the scope and the participation in such possible talks is still not clear, so I don't have anything further to add on that.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Considering what America's position was on Iran's involvement or invitation to Geneva II, has the stance changed at all? I mean, de Mistura's trying to get this process going with the goal that there could be some sort of a peace conference, whenever that may be, into this process. So do you support or not support Iran getting invited to that, or are you --
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think this idea has just been aired in the last day or so. It's unclear what the scope, what the participation, what the nature of these talks would be. So at this point, I don't have anything to add to our position on it.
QUESTION: But what about the principle of discussing ways forward and ending the conflict in Syria with Iran?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I don't have anything to add on that at this point.
QUESTION: And so you cannot talk about the – I mean, the rumor is that after these Geneva talks, there might be a possibility of some kind of peace conference later on in the year, maybe in New York in June.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think that's pretty far down the road. I don't have – I don't have a comment.
QUESTION: There's – you're not involved in anything like that?
MR RATHKE: I don't have – I'd refer you back to the special envoy's office about that.
QUESTION: So you don't see --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: You don't see any reason to just categorically rule out Iran's participation in trying to resolve this?
MR RATHKE: I said we don't have anything new to offer on these talks. Again, the idea behind these talks is – this particular idea is new, and I don't have further comment on it.
QUESTION: Ambassador Power has been in consultations, though, with de Mistura about this.
MR RATHKE: Well, we remain in regular contact with the special envoy and his team, but – and we've always supported efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution, but I don't have any details to offer from our ongoing contacts with them.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Jeff – thank you, Jeff. Deputy Secretary Blinken will host a trilateral meeting with South Korea and Japanese vice foreign minister on Thursday this week. Will this meeting be prepared for the Six-Party Talks or other issue they going to discuss about?
MR RATHKE: Well, this meeting which, as you said, will happen tomorrow between Deputy Secretary Blinken, Japanese vice foreign minister, and the Republic of Korea vice foreign minister will be a reflection of the close cooperation between our three countries on regional and global priorities. We – I think you asked last week and I answered with respect to Six-Party Talks. I have nothing new to add on Six-Party Talks. Our position on that remains the same. So we have a broad relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea, so I anticipate those discussions will cover the breadth of our relationship. They're not focused exclusively on the North Korea issues.
QUESTION: What is the main issue that you're going to talking about (inaudible)?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, we have a variety of regional and global priorities. I think we'll have more to say on this tomorrow when the talks happen.
Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah, Jeff, two things. One on – this afternoon Deputy Secretary Blinken will participate in a chief of mission plenary session of the counter-ISIL coalition at the State Department, and the Iraqi prime minister will be attending this session. Can you tell us anything about it?
MR RATHKE: Well, you're right that today we will have a meeting – today later in the day with Deputy Secretary Blinken and General Allen. They are going to host a plenary session of ambassadors from coalition countries, those countries involved in the counter-ISIL coalition. And Prime Minister Abadi is expected to address the group to provide an update from his perspective on the fight against ISIL. General Allen will also be updating the plenary on coalition activities and he'll give a readout of the small group meeting that happened last week in Jordan. We anticipate putting out a readout of this session a little bit later today, so we should have more to share with you as we get closer to the end of the day after the meeting has concluded.
QUESTION: And my second question on Libya. You said that the State Department officials have met with a Libyan parliamentary --
MR RATHKE: Will be meeting, yes.
QUESTION: Will be. And --
MR RATHKE: So this delegation from the Libyan house of representatives, they are going to meet with the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Jerry Feierstein in our Near East Bureau. Assistant Secretary Anne Patterson is traveling so she's not available to meet with them, but our senior Middle East official who's in town will be meeting with that delegation.
QUESTION: You've invited them to come to Washington?
MR RATHKE: The Libyan embassy invited the delegation to come to Washington is my understanding.
QUESTION: And is this visit related to the peace talks that are happening in Algeria and Morocco between the Libyans now?
MR RATHKE: Well, of course, we see our meetings with the house of representatives officials as an important opportunity to reaffirm our support for the UN-led political dialogue talks, and so certainly that is a component of the discussion.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) India?
MR RATHKE: We'll come to you in a second. Abby, you had a question?
QUESTION: The New York Times had a report out today showing that Congress – or Chairman Issa sent a letter to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State asking about her use of personal email, and the State Department got back after she had left in March of 2013. Do you have any response to that or --
MR RATHKE: Response to what particular aspect of it?
QUESTION: The reason for the delay in response or why it was that the response didn't occur in December of 2012 when the letter was first --
MR RATHKE: Well, I think as you're probably aware but maybe it bears repeating, we receive thousands of requests from Congress every year. We responded to this request in – it was in December of 2012 that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sent a letter to the State Department and other cabinet agencies, and it requested information on the department's policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications. And so in March 2013 the department responded to the inquiry. We described our policies in detail. We included also relevant attachments that governed the department's policies. So that's – that was the nature of the response, and we continue to work closely with Congress on various issues related to the policies and procedures of the State Department.
Yeah.
QUESTION: But the (inaudible) did not answer the questions from Issa's letter, did you?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, the chairman's letter asked about the department's policies and practices, and we responded on those policies and practices.
QUESTION: But the first question from Chairman Issa's letter was: Does any senior official at the State Department use a private email account? And I did not see that in the response.
MR RATHKE: Well, we responded to the committee in detail on our policy. I don't have anything more to add.
QUESTION: But do you acknowledge you didn't answer the question?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, the question was focused on on the policies and practices. I don't have anything further to add.
QUESTION: But the first question is: Does – was very specific. It said: Does anybody, any senior official, have a private email account?
MR RATHKE: Yeah. I just don't have anything more to add on that.
QUESTION: Well, in March '13 did any senior official have a private email account?
MR RATHKE: Did any of them have a private email account? How do you --
QUESTION: Well, when you answered the letter, did any of them have – first of all, why – is three months the normal timeframe that it takes to respond to a --
MR RATHKE: I don't know if I have the statistics on the length of time to respond to congressional inquiries. I mean, sometimes the response takes some time. I don't --
QUESTION: Three months? I mean, is that --
MR RATHKE: Again, we get --
QUESTION: You said you're deluged with them, and I'm just wondering.
MR RATHKE: We get thousands of requests. I don't have a timeline of the average response time.
QUESTION: Okay. But the question that Lucas raises – well, the question that Chairman Issa raised in the letter was not answered, correct? I mean, it may be that by the time that you got around to answering the letter the people who had private email accounts had already left and weren't working for the State Department anymore and --
MR RATHKE: Yeah, I'm happy to look and see if there's – if there's more detail on that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
MR RATHKE: Yeah. Yes, Goyal.
QUESTION: On India, thank you. It's been, Jeff, eight months since the Prime Minister of India Mr. Modi was in Washington and four months since President was in January in India. So many agreements were made in Washington and also in Delhi, and now prime minister is visiting or traveling in France, Germany, and now in Canada for the same agreements that he's making with those countries. My question is: What is the future of India-U.S. agreements made and several high-level visits from the U.S. were in India for making all those agreements in place and also changing the rules and all that?
MR RATHKE: Well, of course, the Secretary has been there. Secretary of Commerce Pritzker has been to India as well, as have many other senior officials. I don't have the full catalogue in my head. But of course, we are very excited about continuing to build our relationship with India, so that remains a focus of our diplomacy and that will continue.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Was the State Department able to confirm that the spiritual leader of AQAP, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, was killed in a drone strike in the last 48 hours?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not in a position to comment on those reports. We – I can say generally when it comes to our counterterrorism strategy, we continue to monitor actively terrorist threats that emanate from Yemen and we have capabilities postured in the area to address them. And as we've also said, we will take action to disrupt continuing imminent threats to the U.S. and our citizens. That remains a priority, but I don't have any specific comment on that particular report.
QUESTION: Even though there was a multimillion dollar price on his head, would it make a difference, do you believe, to the government? Does the government believe it makes a difference whether or not he's still alive? Does it affect AQAP's ability to launch terror attacks?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I'm not in a position to confirm those particular reports. I can certainly remind that the State Department in the past has described Ibrahim al-Rubaysh as a senior leader of AQAP who had been engaged in attack planning and also serving as a senior AQAP advisor providing the warped justification for the group's terrorist actions. He's also made public statements including one in August – excuse me – August 2014 where he called on Muslims to wage war against the United States. The United States designated him a specially designated global terrorist last December, so our views about him and his activities are pretty well known.
I think --
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: I have some on Yemen.
MR RATHKE: Yes, Yemen. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I have just a couple quick ones really. There's news out that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are considering having military exercises in Saudi Arabia, and that is causing some concern or some speculation that there could be – that the air campaign could expand into a ground operation in Yemen. Have you been apprised of any possible military exercises between those two countries?
MR RATHKE: I'm not familiar with those reports, but I would have to check to see whether that's something we had heard about.
QUESTION: And what would the U.S. position be on any kind of possible military ground operation by any of those countries in the region?
MR RATHKE: Again, I think the deputy secretary spoke to this on his trip to the region last week, that he was – that we were not aware of discussions of a ground – of ground activity. But again, I'm not familiar with that report you've referred to. So let me take a look and see what --
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: Thank you.
QUESTION: Quick one – one more?
MR RATHKE: What's that?
QUESTION: Just a quick one – excuse me.
MR RATHKE: Will you indulge, Matt?
QUESTION: Matt, if you don't mind?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR RATHKE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: A quick one on Russia, Russia and Ukraine.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: From this podium many times, I've heard you want OSC in E monitors inside Ukraine.
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And Chairman Wes Clark recently came back from the Ukraine and spoke at the Atlantic Council in late March, and he said that half the OSC in E are former Russian military. Is that true?
MR RATHKE: I don't have the details of the makeup of the OSCE monitoring mission, but let me just say that we certainly stand by the fact that the OSCE has a role under the Minsk commitments, it has a responsibility, and it is essential that the OSCE carry out that role.
QUESTION: But if half the OSC in E are former Russian military and allegedly Russian spies and they're reporting on the Ukraine military's positions back to Russia, how are they being helpful?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I'm not in a position to confirm those reports, but certainly the OSCE has a role to play. They've been denied access in many cases by Russian-backed separatists, and that's clearly been a problem in implementing the Minsk agreements.
QUESTION: And one more, a follow-up from the intercept of the Russian flanker on the air force recon aircraft over the Baltic Sea. DOD said the State Department would be filing a complaint. Has a complaint been filed to the Russian Government?
MR RATHKE: I'll have to check about the status of our sort of diplomatic communications with Russian officials on that. I don't have that at my fingertips.
Okay. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:31 p.m.)
DPB #63
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
