Daily Press Briefing
Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 18, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION
YEMEN/REGION
BURUNDI/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
SOUTH KOREA/REGION
CHINA/REGION
EGYPT
RUSSIA/UKRAINE/REGION
NORTH KOREA/CHINA/REGION
MACEDONIA/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
JAPAN
QATAR
TRANSCRIPT:
12:55 p.m. EDT
MR RATHKE: Good afternoon. So I have just one thing to mention at the start. The Secretary is on his way back from his trip to Beijing and Seoul. He's on his way to Seattle, as I'm sure you're aware. He will visit Seattle tomorrow and will give remarks about the strategic and economic importance of trade. So with that, we'll pass it over to you, Brad.
QUESTION: Could you give us a review of, I guess, what would be the good, the bad, and the ugly of your fight against the Islamic State this weekend? Specifically on Ramadi, what you're doing now to reverse this setback, and where you stand with the Iraqi forces on trying to --
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Okay. Well, the news about Ramadi, of course, got a lot of attention over the weekend. I would point out a couple of things. First, Ramadi has been contested for the last 18 months. ISIL first moved openly into Ramadi on January 1st, 2014, and Iraqi forces and local fighters have fought back against them throughout this period. Starting late last week, ISIL launched a series of suicide vehicle bombs that had a large impact, and this also – and since then we've also heard from ISIL's own comments that the suicide bombers were foreign fighters.
We've always known that the fight would be long and difficult, especially in Anbar province, and so there's no denying that this is a setback, but there's also no denying that the United States will help the Iraqis take back Ramadi. As of today, we are supporting the Iraqi Security Forces and the Government of Iraq with precision airstrikes and advice to the Iraqi forces. Our aircraft are in the air searching for ISIL targets, and they will continue to do so until Ramadi is retaken. Since the beginning of May, we've conducted 35 airstrikes in Ramadi, and that includes nine over the last 24 hours, and those strikes will continue. My colleagues at the Pentagon will have more details, perhaps, to share about that.
But we believe that the Iraqi Security Forces have the capacity and the will to retake Ramadi, with coalition support, and as we've always said, this fight against ISIL will be difficult and would take time.
I would – just one larger context point I would say: There's also no question that overall, since the formation of the international coalition to fight ISIL that ISIL has been driven back in Iraq. It has lost as much as 25 percent of the area that it once controlled. And I would also highlight that on Saturday, thanks to the skill and extraordinary competency of some of our forces, a major ISIL leader who was responsible for its funding mechanism, through the oil sales, was eliminated from the battlefield and significant intelligence gains were achieved. And so while this was an American operation, it was also done in close coordination with our Iraqi partners.
QUESTION: One --
QUESTION: Before we get to --
QUESTION: Can I ask one real simple (inaudible)? You said, "We believe the Iraqi military have the capacity and the will to take back Ramadi." Why do you believe that?
MR RATHKE: Well, we've been working with Prime Minister Abadi and with the Iraqi Security Forces since the formation of his government, and through our joint operation centers we've been intensifying our training and equipping program with the Iraqi Security Forces. We've also seen Prime Minister Abadi reach out to the Sunni population of Iraq. We – and in addition, he has worked to build bridges and is working now to – with the Popular Mobilization Forces, to focus on retaking Ramadi. So we think this is – that they are capable of doing that.
QUESTION: But at the same time, for a --
QUESTION: One follow-up from me, if I may, and it's the only one I'll ask you. You believed that the Iraqi forces were capable of defending Iraq when the United States withdrew all of its forces in December of 2011. You had at that point been involved in training and equipping the Iraqi forces in a massive way, for multiple years, and you were wrong. They didn't have the will to fight, and they didn't seem to have the ability to defend their territory – witness ISIL's rise. Why are you right now that they have the ability and the will – your words – to take back Ramadi when you were wrong in the previous judgment?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think there's a very different situation Iraq right now. First of all, if you look at the shared understanding among Iraq's leadership of the need to fight ISIL, that ISIL is the primary threat, and the focus on that, I think that's different. Second, you see Prime Minister Abadi reaching out across sectarian lines to all communities in Iraq in ways that we hadn't seen before. And also you have – I think the experience over the last 18 months has focused Iraqi minds, and especially the Iraqi leadership, on the urgent task of confronting ISIL. I think that's what we see as different.
Brad, did you have further --
QUESTION: Just last week you mentioned that – I asked if Ramadi was a strategic priority, and you said that it was important. Is regaining control of that city now a strategic priority?
MR RATHKE: Well, as we discussed last week, I think we'll let the Iraqis define their strategic priorities. Clearly, it is important to retake Ramadi, and we are confident that Ramadi will be retaken. And I would point out that over the weekend, there – in consultation with the leaders in Anbar, with Anbari leaders as well as the tribes there, Prime Minister Abadi has ordered the Popular Mobilization Forces to assist in that fight. This was a unanimous vote, and I think that's also a clear indication of shared purpose.
QUESTION: Just – you've – what do you assess – why do you assess that they lost? I mean, they have better equipment, they have American equipment; they've been getting training now from the U.S. military. Why can't they hold what is clearly, in your words, an important city?
MR RATHKE: Well, as I said as well, this is – the city has been contested for some time. I'm not in a position to do a battlefield analysis from here. I think my colleagues in uniform would be better positioned to offer thoughts about the particular circumstances on the ground. As I mentioned, there was a series of large suicide vehicle bomb attacks, which also --
QUESTION: This isn't new. This tactic has been used elsewhere. Why haven't they learned to adapt to these yet?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I'm not going to be – I'm not in a position to do an analysis of their operational tactics from here, so – but go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one last one?
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: You said that the long-term trend shows ISIL is losing ground, and you cited the area – losing 25 percent. I mean, the majority of Iraq is uninhabitable desert, so I don't quite understand why you think it's important to gain 25 percent of arid nothingness and lose a city of a million people. How do you square those two as a positive?
MR RATHKE: I'm not trying to suggest – I'm not trying to downplay the importance of Ramadi. I'm simply pointing out that over the last 12 months, the trend has been for ISIL to be pushed back in Iraq. You see this in Tikrit most recently, and you've seen it in other places where the siege – going all the way back into last summer, when there were real fears about whether Baghdad itself might even come under threat. We don't have those fears now. We don't see Baghdad as under threat, and we see in a number of places, including in Anbar and other parts of northern Iraq, ISIL being pushed back. It's not a uniform positive message or a uniform positive picture; there are setbacks like in Ramadi. But we are confident that the Iraqi political leadership and their security forces working with us will be successful.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I ask if the fall of Ramadi is causing any rethink within the department and beyond within the Administration about the policy of using Popular Mobilization Forces? We're now seeing that the Shiite militias are now converging on Ramadi because they were kept out of the battle, and I just wondered if this is causing any kind of re-analysis of what has been the focus so far, of training up local mobilization forces – Iraqis – to do the battle and retake some of these strategic towns.
MR RATHKE: No, I'm not aware of any rethink of the strategy. We --
QUESTION: Why not? Because it didn't work for Ramadi.
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to do a next-day analysis of Ramadi. I think there are others who are better qualified than me at this podium to look into that. But the point is that, as we've said all along, this is a long fight. We have – we are working with an Iraqi political leadership that is focused on building ties across all of its communities and on mobilizing the population to fight back against ISIL. I think if you look at the Popular Mobilization Forces – again, the decision by the Anbari leadership and tribes to support their coming into Anbar to help retake Ramadi is an important step, and we see this as part of Abadi's outreach, again, across sectarian lines.
QUESTION: But clearly, it would seem to have --
QUESTION: Can I just follow up --
MR RATHKE: Yeah, let's let Jo follow up, then we'll come across.
QUESTION: But clearly, it would seem to have been a mistake to have kept the Shiite militias on the margins of this battle so far. Would you agree with that?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to get into that analysis from here.
Barbara.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just – just to follow up on that, I appreciate that it's a uniform decision and the Sunnis have asked for the Popular Mobilization Forces to come in. But how much of it is a concern that a year later the ground forces in Iraq are still Iran-backed Shiite groups and the efforts to build up the Sunni militias have clearly failed?
MR RATHKE: Well, I wouldn't describe that effort as a failure. The prime --
QUESTION: You don't think it was a failure in Ramadi?
MR RATHKE: Well, you asked a more general question. And we have seen over the last months and indeed even in just the last few weeks Prime Minister Abadi giving additional impetus to the effort to arm Sunni tribesmen and train them so they can operate as part of – under unified command and control with the Iraqi Security Forces. So we see that as the policy that is best going to engage the Sunni leadership. Perhaps the fall of Ramadi will lead to renewed commitment to that, but I'm not going to make that judgment the day after.
QUESTION: Jeff --
MR RATHKE: Yes, Arshad, and then we'll come --
QUESTION: Do you agree with the premise of Jo's question that the Shia militias were kept out of the latest battles in Ramadi, or do you believe that they – rather than being excluded, they simply chose not to fight there?
MR RATHKE: I'd refer you to the Iraqis on that. I don't have – I don't have analysis on that to offer.
QUESTION: And the second question: Do you think there is a risk that the introduction of Shia militias to fight against a Sunni militant force in a Sunni-majority area could actually make matters worse by re-introducing the kind of – by re-introducing the factor of sectarian violence and animus to the equation?
MR RATHKE: Well, this is a decision that was – that was made by the Iraqi Government with the unanimous support of Anbari political as well as tribal leaders. So I think that's significant to remember. We will continue to assist the Iraqi Security Forces as they fight to degrade and defeat ISIL, and we call on all of the anti-ISIL forces – the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi forces, the Popular Mobilization Forces, the Peshmerga, and so forth – under clear Iraqi Security Forces command and control in coordination with local leaders to join their efforts in this fight. So – but we see this in Anbar as being a decision by local leaders.
QUESTION: Do you support that decision? Do you think it's a good idea?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, this is an Iraqi – the Iraqis are in the lead in this fight, and we are supportive of Prime Minister Abadi and his government, and so we are supportive of this decision.
QUESTION: And do you think that Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Armed Forces actually have command and control over the Shia militias?
MR RATHKE: Well, this is a discussion we've had as well with respect to Tikrit and other military engagements around Anbar and throughout Iraq. That has been – that has been the case in the specific case of Tikrit, and we expect that would be the same in this case.
QUESTION: Jeff?
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: What is going to be the impact on this on the upcoming possible battle to retake Mosul?
MR RATHKE: I don't have an analysis to offer on that. We've always said it's important to retake Mosul. The Iraqis have to do that when they are ready. So we haven't set a timeline for it.
QUESTION: Would you anticipate this would put it back?
MR RATHKE: I'm not going to offer an analysis on that. I would – I don't have – I don't have a comment on it.
QUESTION: And can I ask if anyone has been in touch with the Iraqi authorities from this building, with Prime Minister Abadi for instance? Have anybody – has anybody from this building talked to him about what happened over the weekend?
MR RATHKE: I don't have any calls to read out from the Secretary to Iraqi counterparts. I think you saw on Friday there was an announcement put out by the White House, and – but I don't – I don't have any Washington calls. Of course, through our team on the ground at Embassy Baghdad we've been in regular contact with --
QUESTION: And is Brett McGurk in town or is he planning to go to Iraq?
MR RATHKE: I'd have to look and see what his – I'm not – I'm not certain what his schedule is. I haven't seen him today, but I'm not certain whether he's in Washington or traveling.
Yeah, go ahead, John. Then we'll come to you.
QUESTION: Just on that point, since the fall of Ramadi, has the Iraqi Government asked for U.S. assistance in any way? If so, what are they asking for and what is the U.S. providing?
MR RATHKE: Well, I've talked a little bit about our airstrikes, and of course, we have two joint operations centers in Iraq and we have several locations where we – where our train and equip efforts are being carried out. So we're in regular contact on a daily basis at all levels. I don't have any specific sort of headline request to read out. But again, we've – we are working together in so many ways through so many different contacts that I can't say for certain that there haven't been specific requests made. Certainly, our airstrikes, for example, and those kinds of support efforts are things that we coordinate with – with our Iraqi counterparts.
Yeah, Michel.
QUESTION: Yeah. There were reports during the liberation of Tikrit that the militia have committed some crimes at that time. And the U.S. has asked for the withdrawal of the militia to help the Iraqi forces in liberating Tikrit. Do you have any guarantees that this will never happen in Ramadi?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not sure what kind of guarantees you're asking for. We've certainly spoken to our view that militias should be under the command and control of Iraqi Security Forces. And so that is an important point for the United States, for unity of effort, and for effective military operations. I don't have any details about Ramadi to offer in that regard.
Yes, go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: One more on this, please.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: You said that the Iraqi forces have the capacity, the will, and the experience to retake Ramadi. If they have the capacity and the will and the experience, why have they allowed the fall of Ramadi in the hands of ISIL?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, this has been a contested area for a year and a half. It's a setback, but I don't have further analysis of the developments on the ground over the last couple of days to offer.
QUESTION: You keep mentioning that it's been contested for a long time. Now it's not contested; they've lost. So why does the argument that it's been contested – so if the Islamic State contests something for a long time, it will naturally win eventually?
MR RATHKE: No, that --
QUESTION: I mean, what's the – I don't --
MR RATHKE: -- isn't what I'm trying to suggest.
QUESTION: Okay. So explain why that explains why they lost, that it's been contested for a long time.
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not offering that as an explanation for why they – for why Ramadi fell.
QUESTION: That was his question, though.
MR RATHKE: No, my – and – but my point is that I'm not here from this podium in a position to offer a military analysis for the fall of Ramadi. I'm simply highlighting that this is an area that has been under attack for a year and a half, and there are other areas that have been contested. In some cases, the battle has gone the other way, as we saw in Tikrit. And in other cases there have been setbacks, like over the weekend in Ramadi.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just kind of going off that a little bit further, you use the language, they've "been driven back," and it's the long game. But right now, can the U.S. say that the coalition is winning its fight against ISIL?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think the Secretary was asked a similar question today or yesterday in Seoul. And we see the overall trend in the fight against ISIL in Iraq as positive. We see them overall losing control of territory. We see increased unity and solidarity in fighting back against them. We see increased international support. That doesn't diminish the setback in Ramadi; but we are confident that our efforts, in conjunction with the Iraqi leadership and with Iraqi forces, will be successful.
Go ahead, Pam. Same topic?
QUESTION: Yes, a couple of questions. Last year, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad prepared contingency plans to evacuate its staff after the Islamic State seized Mosul, Tikrit, and Fallujah. Now that the Islamic State has taken control of Ramadi, are those plans being updated or are they being refreshed and looked at again, first of all?
MR RATHKE: Well, you know we don't talk about those kinds of plans, but I can say we have not changed our posture in Baghdad. Of course, we continually monitor the security environment, but we have not changed our posture. And I think you may – in reference to another question, I've indicated we don't see Baghdad as under threat at this time. We – the Iraqi Government has a tight security perimeter around Baghdad.
QUESTION: Can you say general if the coordination would include the United States and other foreign organizations that are present in Baghdad? And then also, if you're looking at --
MR RATHKE: I'm sorry, what coordination are you referring to?
QUESTION: In reference to the contingency plans.
MR RATHKE: Well, as I've said --
QUESTION: If that is taking place, would that be --
MR RATHKE: -- we don't talk about those kinds of plans and we don't – and we haven't changed our posture in Baghdad. We see the Iraqi Government having a tight security perimeter around Baghdad.
QUESTION: Jeff?
MR RATHKE: Yes?
QUESTION: Do you think that the Iraqi Government bears any responsibility in the fall of Ramadi?
MR RATHKE: Well, what is --
QUESTION: Because they haven't provided the arms to the Sunnis, to the --
QUESTION: To the tribes.
QUESTION: -- and the tribes that they've asked for.
MR RATHKE: Well, clearly, the fall of Ramadi is not a success, if that's what you're asking. I'm not going to point fingers and assign specific responsibility, but clearly, it is a setback. So – and that's – and I think, as we see by Prime Minister Abadi's response, a commitment to finding ways to move forward and to take back Ramadi.
Yes.
QUESTION: But it's not late, do you think --
QUESTION: If it's not the Iraqi Government's fault --
QUESTION: It's the same in a different way --
QUESTION: If it's not their fault, whose fault is it? I mean, it's their city, it's in their country, they didn't defend it. Is it – how can you not say it's their fault? I mean --
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't – it's not my judgment to make from here about whose fault it is for a development inside Iraq of this sort. As I've said in response to Michel's question, it's clearly not a success. I'll let the Iraqi leadership talk about --
QUESTION: Jeff, I'll ask --
MR RATHKE: -- questions of responsibility and what they would change.
Yes.
QUESTION: I'll ask Michel question in a different way.
MR RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied by the level of support and arming by the government to their – the tribes in Al Anbar?
MR RATHKE: Well, this has been a priority for Prime Minister Abadi. He has devoted a lot of time and effort to it. We see it as an important component of the way forward. I'm not going to give a grade to it.
Nicole.
QUESTION: Is some --
MR RATHKE: Sorry.
QUESTION: Because the tribes were still complaining about how the government was dealing with them.
MR RATHKE: Well, I understand, but I'm not going to affix a grade to that.
Nicole, go ahead.
QUESTION: If Samir is done.
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you done? Okay. There are reports that a large amount of U.S. military equipment was seized in the course of Daesh taking the city. Can you give us some comment on that?
MR RATHKE: Well, we know some equipment was lost. I don't have an inventory, and I think my colleagues at the Pentagon would have closer information about that. This is something we're in discussion with Iraqi partners about as well to get a better picture of that situation, but I don't have details to share at this point.
QUESTION: Are you confident that the Sunni tribes will continue or, in greater number, will fight against ISIL given that political problems remain, and now we're seeing potentially hundreds if not thousands of tribesmen being executed in Ramadi – members of tribes that fought against ISIL as well as people who were in security forces or police units?
MR RATHKE: Well, we've also seen thousands of Sunnis coming out to join forces and fight ISIL in other places. So I can't speak to the long-term effect. But what we see happening, more broadly speaking, in Anbar is Sunnis coming out wanting to fight against ISIL, wanting to push them out. And so that's --
QUESTION: So you don't --
MR RATHKE: You could also argue that that feeling might be intensified as a result.
QUESTION: So you don't fear that the atrocities that are being committed supposedly – burning bodies, dumping them into the river – this is going to have a chilling effect on Sunni tribesmen who might otherwise fight against ISIL?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think it could equally mobilize people, so I don't – I'm not going to make a prediction of that sort.
New topic or anything more on this topic?
QUESTION: One more.
MR RATHKE: One more. Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: Do you know how many the U.S. trained from the Anbar tribes, how many militia?
MR RATHKE: I don't have that number at my disposal. Again, my Pentagon colleagues might have.
New topic?
QUESTION: Can we talk about --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the weekend operation in Syria?
MR RATHKE: Sure.
QUESTION: Semi-related, at least?
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Was there any contact between the U.S. and Syrian Government either before or after the operation?
MR RATHKE: There was no contact of that sort before or after.
QUESTION: And then can you just provide any more information on Abu Sayyaf beyond what apparently was a oil and gas – lucrative oil and gas operations? What other crimes do you accuse him of having committed?
MR RATHKE: Well, Abu Sayyaf, as you referred to, Brad, was – he had a senior role in the oil and gas operations that ISIL carries out. This is a major source of revenue for this terrorist organization. And he was also involved in ISIL's military operations, and so that is the focal point of the U.S. Government's interest and indeed the operation to capture him.
QUESTION: But do you have information linking him directly to killings, or was – is primarily your interest in him because of this lucrative oil and gas operations?
MR RATHKE: Right. I mean, that – the financing of ISIL, which is extremely important to them and is extremely important to their reach and their ability to carry out operations, was the focal point of that. And it was the President's decision – on the basis of a recommendation from the national security team that this could be carried out successfully, that decision was made to move forward.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one more?
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, is this unprecedented – I mean, essentially the way you guys have described him is a businessman of sorts, however nefarious; a money guy – to actually send special forces into a country that we don't have permission to enter and kill him on that territory? Is that an unprecedented act for the United States?
MR RATHKE: I don't know if I can speak to precedent. I would add one – maybe one or two things, though, to your characterization. As I said, he was also in – it's our information that he was involved in military operations in addition to being involved in oil and gas. And while – and you're also aware of the two women who were brought back from the raid, and he may have been complicit in the enslavement of the young Yezidi woman, but that is something that's being investigated, so I don't have more detail on that.
QUESTION: But the U.S. isn't in the general business of sending special operations teams to invade countries if there's a sex slave that somebody's holding. This has to be --
MR RATHKE: This has to do with the oil and gas and his – also involvement with their military operations.
QUESTION: But without linking him directly to killings or to mass human rights atrocities, is this a new kind of operation that – I mean, I just find it unique that you're not accusing him of massive killings or anything like that. You're saying he made a lot money and therefore you could kill him.
MR RATHKE: Well, this isn't about his making a lot of money. He was central to ISIL's financing, and that's – that is the focus. I understand your question about precedent. I don't have an answer on the top of my head. If we can come back to you with more, I'll see if we have anything.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Can I ask about his wife?
MR RATHKE: Sorry?
QUESTION: Can I ask about his wife --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- who was captured, I believe, in the operation?
MR RATHKE: That's right.
QUESTION: And do you have her name, and where is she now?
MR RATHKE: Well, his wife Umm Sayyaf – that's spelled Umm Sayyaf.
QUESTION: That just means "Mrs." though.
MR RATHKE: Yes, right, right.
QUESTION: What's her name?
MR RATHKE: Umm Sayyaf. We suspect that she is a member of ISIL as well and played an important role in their terrorist activities, and that she may also have been complicit in the situation of the Yezidi woman who was rescued. But we – our understanding, our information is that she is also a member of ISIL and was involved in their terrorist activities.
QUESTION: And are you able to tell us where she is now?
MR RATHKE: Let me – we're currently debriefing the detainee to obtain intelligence about ISIL operations. I don't have further detail to share about location.
QUESTION: Okay. And could --
QUESTION: Or about her terrorist activities?
QUESTION: Yeah, I was going to ask more – yes – more about what exactly she might have done.
MR RATHKE: I don't have more detail to offer than that at this point.
QUESTION: And I saw a report over the weekend that there was some indication that the U.S. thought that she might have information about hostages, Western hostages who are being held. Is that correct? Is that something you can give us?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have – it's possible that they may have had information about that, but I think that's also what we're working to determine now, any information that she may have regarding hostages. I don't have any information to share, but that's part of the debriefing, to determine if she might have any information about hostages.
QUESTION: Okay. And could I ask, if – she's being debriefed. I'm sure that's an acronym for something else – euphemism for something else, but what does that – what – where could this lead to eventually? Could she be seen by the United States as an enemy combatant? Are you possibly talking about eventual charges being brought against her? And if so, where would they be laid?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have any information to share about possible charges or prosecution. What's going on right now is, again, a debriefing of the detainee to obtain intelligence about ISIL's operations. We're also working to determine if she has information about hostages. I don't have anything to share on that. And as far as the – where that might lead, the – that is something we'll see. I don't have any information about a prosecution. If you're – if there's a – if you're asking about sort of the legal authorities --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR RATHKE: -- for detention, the President has authority under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, and the international legal basis for this detention is the consent of the Government of Iraq in the context of the ongoing military operations in Iraq and Syria against ISIL.
QUESTION: So should we assume by that that she's no longer in Syria and she's in Iraq?
MR RATHKE: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Should we assume from that that she could be in Iraq rather than in Syria?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I don't have further details to share about location. But that's the legal justification for the detention.
QUESTION: Is she Iraqi or Syrian?
MR RATHKE: She is Iraqi.
QUESTION: She's Iraqi.
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have a full name for her?
MR RATHKE: I only have the --
QUESTION: Would it be possible to find out? Because Umm isn't a name; it's just --
MR RATHKE: Yeah. Right. I'll see if we have anything more that we can offer. I don't have anything beyond that.
QUESTION: And age, approximate age?
MR RATHKE: I can check and see if we have her approximate age.
QUESTION: Jeff, would you say in general that – has she been cooperative in --
MR RATHKE: I don't have any feedback on that to share.
Go ahead, Brad.
QUESTION: That was in the – over the weekend and you mentioned it again as well. You believe she might have been involved in this sexual enslavement of the Yezidi woman? Did I understand that right?
QUESTION: You said enslavement.
QUESTION: Sexual?
MR RATHKE: I said enslavement. No, I said enslavement.
QUESTION: Okay. But you also believe she was a sex slave? Is --
MR RATHKE: I – we've never said that. So I'm not sure where --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: We've used the word "enslavement," but again, that's something that we're seeking to determine more about.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: And what happened to the Yezidi woman?
MR RATHKE: So with respect to the Yezidi woman – if you bear with me for a moment – let me come back to you. I know I've got the information; I can't put my hands on it. But my understanding is that she would be debriefed and then to be reunited with her family, but I don't have a timeline for that.
Same topic?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR RATHKE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there any concern about the optics of this operation and that the U.S. is seen as willing to go into, inside Syria to go after IS but to date hasn't really been willing to go in to act against Assad or his government? Any concern about the optics in the Arab world about that?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think the reasoning and the decision are clear. The President authorized this operation because of the information we had about Abu Sayyaf and about his wife. And it was consistent with the mission as well as carried out with the consent of the Iraqi Government. So we don't see an inconsistency there.
QUESTION: It's not so much about the reasoning; I'm not questioning the reasoning. I'm talking about the way it's going to be perceived or is being perceived.
MR RATHKE: Well --
QUESTION: You don't think it's a problem?
MR RATHKE: No, I don't think that's – we'll see if countries raise concerns, but I think this was an effort to strike at the financing network of ISIL, which is certainly a – why we have so many countries joining us in this international coalition.
Anything else on this topic, or I move on?
QUESTION: On that point --
MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- what about reassuring people who are worried about the U.S. getting too involved in Syria? It seems like it would be a rather dangerous mission. Is this opening the U.S. to doing any kind of special forces operation to take out somebody of this level?
MR RATHKE: Well, this – again, I think this was a specific case, and it was planned and executed in response to specific intelligence about a specific individual. I'm not going to suggest that it's a pattern, but it was a specific operation with specific objectives. So we don't see that as – and we see it as consistent with the AUMFs.
QUESTION: But there are a number of ISIS officials who could also warrant attractive targets for the United States. Are we going to launch special forces operations and go after them if we're able to?
MR RATHKE: Well, this was a distinctive operation that was backed up by credible intelligence about a specific opportunity to go after a targeted individual. So our preference, of course, always is to detain and interrogate and prosecute suspected terrorists where it's feasible, but this is a – this specific operation was carried out for specific reasons.
Yeah, Barbara.
QUESTION: This is a different topic.
MR RATHKE: Okay.
QUESTION: Yemen?
MR RATHKE: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: There are reports that the Saudis have started their airstrikes again. Is it your understanding that the ceasefire is over now? And have you been in touch with the government – the Saudis about it?
MR RATHKE: Well, the ceasefire expired yesterday, of course. It was a five-day ceasefire --
QUESTION: But I mean the chances of extending it, because you were saying you were hoping it could be a longer term affair. So is that the – kind of the window for that is closed now and we go back to the conflict as it was?
MR RATHKE: Well, I would say that that's a question for the Saudi-led coalition. The ceasefire took place at the proposal of – at the initiation of the Saudi-led coalition. And they – I'm sure you've heard from the Saudis, but the Saudis have also indicated that during the ceasefire that there were Houthi movements of long – of missile-launching capabilities to the border and other activities, as a result of which Saudi Arabia took action against those – against that equipment. So I would refer you back to them for the details on their decision.
Certainly, we see ultimately that the only solution to the crisis in Yemen is to get back to the political dialogue process. We support that, but also we've been clear that the Houthis have to cease unilateral aggressive actions inside Yemen in order for that to have a chance, and they need to indicate their readiness and their willingness to come back to the table, as part of the UN-led process.
QUESTION: So the end of the ceasefire is the Houthis' fault?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, we – the Houthis shelled Saudi territory numerous times during the pause and we think the Saudis exercised restraint during this pause, which enabled food, fuel, and humanitarian aid to reach vulnerable Yemeni citizens.
QUESTION: What do you (inaudible) the humanitarian aid (inaudible) of the ceasefire?
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, there were multiple humanitarian aid organizations that were able to deliver aid during the pause. It's our understanding that yesterday, May 17th, the fifth and sixth UNHCR flights, since May 15th, reached Yemen. They had about 138 metric tons of nonfood items. There was also a World Food Program vessel that was scheduled – or, sorry, was confirmed to have arrived on May 17th. The World Food Program has delivered 420,000 liters of fuel, which will enable humanitarian agencies to deliver assistance throughout the country, and these were just the latest in a series of deliveries during the five-day pause. The UN would have more comprehensive details about all of those things.
We certainly urge Saudi and other authorities to continue to allow commercial shipments of fuel and food to avert a humanitarian crisis for the 16 million Yemenis in need of assistance. And we also understand that humanitarian aid organizations and the United Nations will continue to try to deliver aid, as conditions permit.
QUESTION: And on the Iranian ship, do you have any information? Where is it now? And – because they are insisting to send this ship to Yemen.
MR RATHKE: So the – with regard to the Iranian ship, the location – it remains in – sorry – in the waters near Yemen. We certainly have been following carefully the position of the ship as well. There has been – there have been efforts to reach out to the UN and, as we stressed at the end of last week, it's important that humanitarian aid be coordinated through international mechanisms. I don't have a further update on the specific position of the ship though and its intentions.
QUESTION: And have you talked to the Iranians directly about it?
MR RATHKE: I don't have any direct contacts to read out. I think we've made our position on this quite clear publicly. We've also been working through the UN to stress the importance from the United States perspective of international coordination mechanisms being adhered to in this case.
Yes, Samir.
QUESTION: Did they accept for the ship to be searched by the UN, or they going to go there as a provocation to the standards that the UN put --
MR RATHKE: I don't have an update on the – on where the ship will be headed and what steps the Iranians will undertake. We'll refer back to them. But our position on what we would like to see happen and why it's important to coordinate internationally given the situation in Yemen is clear, I think.
QUESTION: Burundi?
MR RATHKE: Yeah. Anything else on this topic?
Okay, yeah, go ahead. Burundi.
QUESTION: So I don't know if you saw a statement that was posted on the Burundi foreign ministry website saying that demonstrators against the president will be treated as accomplices of the generals who allegedly staged last week's failed coup. What do you think about treating anti – protesters who are against the president as – the same way as one would treat alleged coup plotters?
MR RATHKE: Well, those charged with involvement in the attempted seizure of power must be treated in accord with relevant laws, and their rights must be respected. Also, we believe that the Burundian military must conduct itself professionally in dealing with civilians. We remain – overall, we remain concerned by the volatile situation in Burundi. While the situation is generally calm, there have been some protests, and the potential for violence remains.
There are also reports of retaliatory violence against people who were involved in or supportive of the attempted seizure of power. And as you said, Arshad, opponents of a third term for President Nkurunziza have announced that they will continue protests.
QUESTION: Could I sort of go back?
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I appreciate that you had a long answer to that, but you began by saying, "those accused of involvement in." And the point I was trying to get at was it's quite conceivable that protesters may not have been involved in a coup. They might favor one, they might like the idea of one, they might oppose the president, but that doesn't mean they actually staged or executed a coup.
MR RATHKE: Right.
QUESTION: And I guess what I was wondering was whether you might be able to address the importance of not treating peaceful protesters as coup plotters if in fact they weren't coup plotters, they were just protesters.
MR RATHKE: Yes, I agree, and thanks for the opportunity to clarify. We – what we've seen over the last couple of weeks is that, in fact, the president's decision to announce his candidacy for a third term has and will continue to exacerbate instability and foment violence in the country. But certainly, peaceful protesters should not be equated with people who participated in an attempted seizure of power.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: Anything else on Burundi?
QUESTION: Can I – yes. Can I ask --
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- for just some – a bit more clarification on the assistance that you provided over the weekend --
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- to American and some Canadian citizens, and other countries as well?
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Was this – could you describe what this assistance was? Did you actually put on your own charter flight, or was it that you helped people to get onto existing flights to Kigali or (inaudible)?
MR RATHKE: Sure, I'm happy – some of you probably saw a note that we put out on this, but to go into a little more detail and answer Jo's question – so as a result of the deteriorating security situation, we ordered the departure of non-emergency U.S. Government personnel as well as family members – dependents – on May 14th. And in response to the requests from several diplomatic missions in Bujumbura, we provided evacuation assistance both to U.S. citizens and to other foreign citizens in Burundi. So the United States Government chartered three commercial flights. Those departed May 17th from Burundi, and in addition to approximately 20 American citizens, there were several other foreign citizens on that – on those flights.
QUESTION: Are you able to break down beyond Canada? Can you give us any other nationalities of the citizens?
MR RATHKE: I can check and see if we have more information. In general, we would let them – let those countries speak to that and not speak on their behalf. But there were – there were a few countries whose citizens were on the flights. I would also highlight that as a result of these flights, all U.S. and foreign citizens who expressed an interest in departing Burundi on the charter flights were assisted. So we, of course, remain in contact with American citizens and will continue to do so, but it's our understanding that this has taken care of those citizens who wished to depart.
QUESTION: So no further evacuations of that nature --
MR RATHKE: Well, again, as far we're aware right now, those were all of the people who had a desire to depart. We remain in contact and we'll see how that situation might change.
I would also add with respect to the airport, we understand that a – that one commercial flight arrived in Bujumbura on Sunday, but we – our embassy has reports that the land borders continue to be closed. So we're continuing to monitor the transportation situation as well and to share that information as appropriate with American citizens there.
Any other questions on Burundi? No? Okay, John.
QUESTION: Yeah, Israel-Palestine. The White House and State Department has said it's going to watch closely how the prime minister of Israel is going to form his new government in terms of how it's going to reassess solutions for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's now being reported that Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom has been made responsible for talks with the Palestinians. Shalom has never publicly supported a two-state solution, according to Haaretz, and has even expressed support for West Bank settlement construction. Is this a concern for the U.S.?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have a reaction to that specific appointment, but let's go back to how the United States views the situation overall. As the President has said and other senior officials, we look forward to working with this Israeli Government as we have with every Israeli Government that has preceded it. We continue to believe that a two-state solution is vital not only for peace between Israelis and Palestinians but also for the long-term security of Israel and as a democratic and Jewish state. So it's not a secret that the new Israeli Government includes cabinet members who do not necessarily believe in that premise, but our goal and this goal for the United States continues to be a top priority for us, and that isn't going to change. So that's what we will continue working towards, and our policy hasn't changed at all.
QUESTION: But these – I mean, these are two pretty crucial points specifically that following the elections and before the elections the U.S. has said are problematic; it needs to see signs that the Israelis are no longer going to publicly disavow the creation of a Palestinian state. Let's say – this has been reported that he is the next official responsible for the Palestinian talks. Would it be a problem if someone were to be appointed in this position who hasn't publicly supported this two-state solution and has been supportive of settlements?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, the United States policy is that we support a two-state solution reached through direct negotiations between – between the parties. And we are looking for policies and also actions from both sides now that an Israeli Government has been formed that advance toward that end. So that's – that I think is where I'll leave it.
QUESTION: Isn't the U.S. position that – on the Palestinian side, at least, that to be included in negotiations you must accept in principle a two-state solution?
MR RATHKE: Well, as prime minister – sorry, as Palestinian Authority President Abbas has done. But that's --
QUESTION: But here, in this case, if you have an Israeli official who doesn't accept a two-state solution necessarily or hasn't publicly endorsed it, do you find that okay?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I haven't seen the report that John referred to, so I'm not confirming that report. But the --
QUESTION: How about the principle of that suggestion?
MR RATHKE: The point is that U.S. policy is to support a two-state solution. We are looking for policies and actions that advance a two-state solution. And I think I'll leave it at that for now.
QUESTION: But if the Palestinians were to appoint, let's say, in their unity government, let's say a Hamas official who doesn't support the two-state solution as their intended interlocutor for the process, would you have problems with that?
MR RATHKE: Well, that's a hypothetical I'm not going to comment on. That's not – they haven't taken that step, so I think I'll leave it at what I said.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, my question is: I thought that the road – that the next benchmark that the U.S. Government had been sending is, all right, this is how the election turned out, but we're going to be – we're going to wait to see how this coalition government is being formed. Is the U.S. now pushing it down the road to say, okay, well, they might be appointing whoever they want for their coalition government, but it's going to be about the policies and what we see next? Is this the U.S. sort of kicking the can down the road?
MR RATHKE: No, no, not at all. We've said consistently that what will matter are not just words but actions, and so that's why we're looking to the policies and the actions of the Israeli Government. And we're – the government has just been formed, and so we are looking for policies and actions. But I don't have more than that at the moment.
Yes, go ahead, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you. On South Korea?
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Secretary Kerry at the joint press conference in Seoul, Korea and he expressed his strong support for Korean efforts to realize the opening of the Korea-Japan-China summit in the near future. What particular diplomatic actions would the U.S. be taking to support this?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have specific actions to read out. Certainly, we support those trilateral contacts, and it was among the many things that the Secretary discussed with his counterpart as well as with President Park. And we see the U.S.-South Korea relationship as an essential alliance, and we're going to work to advance it. But I don't have – I don't have further details from the meeting to read out in that regard.
Why don't we go here and then we'll go all the way to the back. Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout of Secretary Kerry's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping?
MR RATHKE: I have a couple of – a couple of details. They discussed the importance of President Xi's upcoming visit to Washington. They addressed a range of global issues on which we work together. That includes climate change, the nuclear negotiations with Iran, providing development aid around the world as well as Afghanistan. And they also share – they discussed our shared commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. They agreed on the importance of maintaining pressure on the DPRK. And the Secretary also expressed U.S. concern about ongoing land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea and highlighted the need to lower tensions, resolve disputes peacefully, to respect international law, and to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: And you don't have any readout of Kerry's meeting with the South Korean –
MR RATHKE: Those meetings happened much more recently. I don't have a detailed readout of those yet. If I get more, I'm happy to share that.
Sorry, a follow-up?
QUESTION: China.
MR RATHKE: Yeah, okay, and then we'll go to you, Michele. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. New York Times noted that Secretary Kerry declined to answer about the news about the Pentagon was considering sending ships and aircrafts to the South China Sea. And instead, he stressed that smart diplomacy. So is that still the official position that the U.S. Government thinking of pursuing the diplomatic solution to resolve the issue in the South China Sea?
MR RATHKE: Well, we certainly support steps to resolve the issues diplomatically. We support the ASEAN-China discussions on a code of conduct. We are against any unilateral efforts to determine sovereignty. There are multiple claimants to many of the land features in the South China Sea, and those need to be resolved diplomatically and in accordance with international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. So our policy on that issue hasn't changed.
QUESTION: And also still --
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- on the – also, Chinese media quoted that Secretary Kerry said the U.S. does not want to be a safe haven for corrupt fugitives. So in terms of starting talks on the extradition treaty, how will that proceed?
MR RATHKE: I don't have – I don't have any announcement to make about the – about starting talks toward an extradition treaty. I think the Secretary's words speak for themselves. I don't have any further announcement or elaboration to offer on it.
Michele. Sorry, I think we need to keep moving because we're going to run out of time here. Michele, go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a question on Egypt --
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- and whether or not you have any reaction to the sentence handed down to Mohamed Morsy and whether the U.S. has shared any of those thoughts or concerns with Egyptian officials.
MR RATHKE: Yes. We are deeply concerned by yet another mass death sentence handed down by an Egyptian court to more than 100 defendants, including former President Morsy. We have consistently spoken out against the practice of mass trials and sentences which are conducted in a manner that's inconsistent with Egypt's international obligations and which are frequently used against members of the opposition and nonviolent activists. This practice, which in this instance was directed against, among others, a former elected president, is unjust and undermines confidence in the rule of law.
QUESTION: And did you – I mean, has this message been sent to Egyptian authorities somehow?
MR RATHKE: Well, we continue to have frank discussions with the Government of Egypt about our human rights concerns, including this. I don't have a detailed readout to share, but this is certainly a topic that we continue to have conversations about.
Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: I think similar statement was told on Sunday morning by an unnamed State Department official, and shortly after the readout Egyptian court hanged six people. One of them was high school student, which is described by the Amnesty International as grossly unfair. So it's clear that U.S. – or Egyptian authorities does not really care about U.S. concern or other countries' condemnation, and I'm wondering if U.S. is planning any other measures regarding the human right abuses in Egypt.
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, I don't have steps to preview, but we continue to stress the need for – with our Egyptian counterparts, we stress both publicly and privately the need for due process and for individualized judicial processes for all in the interest – in the interest of justice. We think the right to due process is critical to the stability and the prosperity that Egypt seeks. And so we certainly continue to make that point to our Egyptian colleagues.
QUESTION: The court's final decision will be on June 2nd, I guess. And any U.S. official present or Secretary planning to call any counterpart in Egypt?
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. I don't have – I don't have calls to preview, but we do – we do note that this is a preliminary sentence that was handed down over the weekend. And as I said, we continue to have frank conversations with our counterparts.
Yes.
QUESTION: Since this is a preliminary sentence, which was going to be my next question, what's the threat to Egypt if they actually go forward, confirm this sentence, and then hang or otherwise kill the former president?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to make a prediction about that. We have made our views and we continue to make our views clear to the Egyptian Government. We believe that all Egyptians, regardless of their political affiliation, are entitled to equal and fair treatment before the law. That includes full respect for their rights to due process, and we remain opposed to politicized arrests and detentions.
QUESTION: So you can't spell out any possible repercussion to Egypt if they --
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to spell out in advance ---
QUESTION: -- if they flagrantly ignore what you just said and do what you just said was so unjust – in your words?
MR RATHKE: Well, what I also said is we continue to have frank, private discussions with the Government of Egypt. I'm not going to --
QUESTION: Yeah. But that's --
MR RATHKE: I'm not going to --
QUESTION: -- that's not a punishment. Frank discussions is sometimes even a reward for countries that have problems as well with you. So I mean, is that it? If you do this, we'll have frank discussions?
MR RATHKE: Well, look, I'm not going to spell out in advance what the United States reaction would be to --
QUESTION: Can I change topic?
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: And just picking up on the frank discussions, another country you had frank discussions with last week was Russia. And I wondered if you had any readout on the meetings today of the Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland in Moscow, which obviously comes hot on the heels of those visits by – of the visit by Secretary Kerry and his talks with President Putin last week.
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, Assistant Secretary Nuland was in Moscow. She's on her way back now, if I understand correctly, and she was there to discuss the next steps in implementing the Minsk agreements. And these follow on, of course, to the Secretary's meetings May 12th in Sochi. The United States is actively engaged in deepening our engagement and our support for seeing Minsk fully implemented in all of its aspects, including a full ceasefire, increased humanitarian assistance and access, control and monitoring of the international border, and free, fair local elections in eastern Ukraine. Of course, after the meeting with NATO foreign ministers in Antalya, Assistant Secretary Nuland went to Kyiv, where she had meetings with the full range of the Ukrainian political leadership, and then went from there to Moscow. So she has been actively engaged over the last week to try to move Minsk forward. We don't have breakthroughs to report, but this is continued, active engagement to try to push forward the discussions that the Secretary had at Sochi.
QUESTION: Who did she meet with in Moscow today?
MR RATHKE: Let me check and see if I can get a name for you. I don't have the name in front of me.
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- what would be your – what would the deepening U.S. engagement in implementing Minsk look like? What exactly, concretely, are you thinking of doing? Because she did say actually afterwards – she talked to some journalists; she said "we talked about concrete steps." What might those be?
MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Well, the United States focus from the outset of the crisis in Ukraine has been to support Ukraine and to pursue a diplomatic solution that respects Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity. We remain in close contact with our European allies and partners as well as with countries around the world to help accomplish this. That's – I don't have specific steps to read out from her meetings. Again, this is – we didn't – we don't see this as a breakthrough; we see this as continued, active engagement to try to move Minsk forward.
QUESTION: But you guys aren't actually – the United States is not actually part of the Normandy process that's been led by France and Germany at the moment with Russia and Ukraine.
MR RATHKE: That's correct.
QUESTION: Would you see some kind of involvement, some deep engagement in that process on the U.S. side?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think regardless of format, what we're talking about is the U.S. engagement to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. I don't have a format announcement or preference to spell out right here, though.
Same topic?
QUESTION: No. It's --
MR RATHKE: Anything else on --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry has been harangued by a number of think-tankers and critics about the meeting in Russia. What is the State Department's response? The general criticism being that this was a gift to Putin and the way that it's being interpreted in Russia is a sign of how important Russia is on the world stage and how people must come to Sochi and meet with the president – with the premier.
MR RATHKE: Well, I think you meant with the president.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR RATHKE: Yeah. So the – I think the purpose of the trip to Sochi was to speak directly to the top decision maker in Russia about a number of issues, including Ukraine, and to express clearly the U.S. view with regard to Ukraine, to talk about the consequences for failure to implement Minsk. And so it was a valuable opportunity for that reason, and that's also why Assistant Secretary Nuland has been so actively engaged in the week following his trip to Sochi. So we think it's always good to express that view directly and clearly. And the Secretary went right afterwards to talk to his NATO foreign minister counterparts as well with his Ukrainian counterparts to make that clear to them as well.
QUESTION: Jeff, on this?
QUESTION: I believe – can I just ask --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry, Michel. I believe this was – I believe the last time Secretary Nuland was – Assistant Secretary Nuland, sorry – was actually in Moscow dates back to late 2013, before Crimea and before the eastern Ukrainian crisis. So should we – do you as an Administration or does this building believe that Kerry's – that Secretary Kerry's visit actually achieved some kind of slight detente in the tensions that you have seen up until this point?
MR RATHKE: Well, the purpose is – was to focus on specific areas where we believe we can work together. We're not describing it in that kind of general term that you used. So that's why there was a discussion of Ukraine, as we talked about – also Syria; also Iran; important areas where we need to work together. We're not giving it a label broader than that.
Same topic?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: The goal wasn't to ease tensions, then?
MR RATHKE: I think the goal was to focus on specific topics where we need to work together or where we need to see greater action.
QUESTION: But do you see that now happening? The fact that Assistant Secretary Nuland 18 months on has now gone back to Moscow – does that signal some kind of easing in these tensions?
MR RATHKE: Well – and she was in Kyiv right before she went to Moscow. So I think our focus on Ukraine's sovereignty and its territorial integrity remains as it has ever been. I – so if you mean to suggest by "easing" some sort of retreat from our policy and our view about Ukraine, then no.
QUESTION: No, I didn't, actually. I meant to suggest that the United States and Russia now find themselves in a position where they are at least able to talk about this in a – in some kind of fashion, rather than having to meet in European --
MR RATHKE: Well, this is not the first time we've talked about it. I mean, we've --
QUESTION: No, but it is the first time that she's been back to Moscow.
MR RATHKE: That's --
QUESTION: And it's probably only the first time that you've actually talked to Moscow about this issue for some – at that level for some time.
MR RATHKE: Possibly, although the Secretary has talked with Foreign Minister Lavrov numerous times over the last months, including about Ukraine. So I don't think I agree with the premise that there has been an absence of communication on Ukraine. It's important that Assistant Secretary Nuland is in Moscow to continue this discussion, especially following right on Sochi, but I think that's --
QUESTION: But clearly there's been an attempt to change the tone of the conversation. I mean, the Secretary was almost effusive in his thanks to President Putin for hosting him and for having these serious conversations. So I mean, is it not a – it's not clearly an attempt to change the tone and to ease tensions and to find progress, even if you don't retreat on Ukraine?
MR RATHKE: Well, we think it's important to keep up dialogue. We have some shared interests with Russia when we talk about the Iran nuclear negotiations; we have some areas where we disagree, as with Ukraine; and then there are other areas where we want to see if there's the opportunity to work more effectively together, such as Syria. But – no, again, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: So why did the Secretary thank President Putin so much in the press conference in Moscow? What was the goal of that? Was he just really thankful?
MR RATHKE: I don't have further analysis to do about his word choice in the press avail.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR RATHKE: I think we need to keep moving because we're going to run out of time.
QUESTION: I've got a quick one on North Korea.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: No --
QUESTION: Oh, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) stay on Russia, please.
QUESTION: Please do.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Russia. Do you have any readout on Special Envoy Rubinstein's meetings in Moscow today?
MR RATHKE: I'm not sure if they've concluded, so I don't have one right now, but we will share one once those are over.
QUESTION: Do you know what – who he's met today or with?
MR RATHKE: I don't, but as soon as his meetings for the day are over, we will – we'll share a readout.
Go ahead, Arshad.
QUESTION: Yeah. Just – as you will have seen, the Secretary in Beijing earlier today talked about the United States and China discussing additional sanctions on North Korea. And he said, "With respect to the methodology for boosting sanctions and other things, we are discussing all of that now. China obviously has an extraordinary leverage." We'll have – "We will have security and economic dialogue with the Chinese in Washington in June, and that will be the moment where we will table some of these specific steps." Is he talking about U.S. and Chinese sanctions on North Korea, or are the two countries discussing the possibility of additional UN sanctions on North Korea?
MR RATHKE: Well, we continue to work with our – with the Five Parties, including China, and the international community to implement the UN Security Council resolutions, to pressure North Korea to return to credible denuclearization talks, and to take concrete steps. As the Secretary pointed out, we have the Strategic and Economic Dialogue happening here next month. I don't have more detail to preview on specific steps they'll discuss at that time, though.
QUESTION: Is there any reason to expect a near-term – meaning in the next few months – intense – a significant effort to intensify sanctions on North Korea?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I don't have an announcement to make on that. Our focus on putting in place the right measures and keeping the pressure on North Korea – both with those countries that have influence over North Korea, such as China, as well as internationally. That remains our approach, but I don't have additional detail.
QUESTION: Just last one from me on this. China historically has been reluctant to impose sanctions on North Korea. I'm not saying the two countries are still as close as lips and teeth, but historically, China has not been the enthusiast for sanctions against North Korea. Has something changed, or is this really just at the level of talking but not necessarily anywhere near action?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think you can also observe that China has exactly the same interest in denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula that the United States does. So their focus on that issue has been increasing over time. It's an issue on which we work together with China and we want to intensify that, but I don't have an additional rollout to suggest or details.
QUESTION: Jeff.
MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead. Pam.
QUESTION: A question about the massive protests over the weekend in Macedonia calling for the resignation of the prime minister. Senator Chris Murphy issued a statement and he said the unfolding political crisis in the country is a reminder that the "United States cannot take peace and stability in the Balkans for granted." What can the U.S. do to bring Macedonia back on its path of Euro-Atlantic integration?
MR RATHKE: Well, we've been following events in Macedonia closely, and along with our European partners, we remain in close consultation with the Macedonian Government and with political leaders to convey our concerns about the current political crisis. We call on all sides to respect the rights of freedom of assembly and peaceful protest, and while refraining from violence. We've urged the authorities to make progress toward accounting for allegations of government wrongdoing that arise from the recent disclosures. And we also have urged the opposition party to return to parliament so that it can take part in strengthened parliamentary oversight of Macedonian Government institutions, including an inquiry committee into these disclosures.
We're encouraged by the steps taken last week by the government to replace key ministers and government officials who were implicated. So we take that as a positive step, but we believe that Macedonia's leaders all have to work together and engage in dialogue on the issues that confront the country, which includes the necessary reforms and the current political crisis.
I think we have time for just one more. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, just a quick return to Israel-Palestine. The Canadian Government has said it's going to take a zero-tolerance approach to groups that advocate the BDS movement, and they've recently suggested that might include applying hate crimes legislation against such groups. Is that something you think would be an appropriate response? And is the BDS movement something that the U.S. Government feels it needs to actively counter?
MR RATHKE: I'm not familiar with that specific report. I think I spoke to that issue more generally at the end of last week in the briefing, so I'd refer back to that transcript.
Really, last one here. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just one more on Qatar please.
MR RATHKE: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. On different topics, a question about Futenma on location issues. I told you last week and already a major rally against the base construction hold in Okinawa last Sunday. 35,000 people participated at the event. Where is Okinawa people's (inaudible)? How do you think that so many Okinawan people participated that event?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have an analysis to do of that event, but as we discussed last week when you asked about Okinawa, certainly the United States remains committed to our security partnership with Japan. We are working with the Japanese Government on all aspects of our defense relationship. That includes the replacement facility for Futenma on Okinawa. And that is moving ahead. So that is a part of our security relationship with Japan and our alliance, and that is where we continue to go.
Last question, Michel. Qatar.
QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have any reaction to the arrest of a BBC crew in Qatar today or yesterday? They were reporting on the situation of foreign workers there.
MR RATHKE: I hadn't heard about that. I'll take a look and see if we have anything to say. Wasn't familiar.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)
DPB # 86
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
