Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 20, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
MALAYSIA/INDONESIA/THAILAND
DEPARTMENT
BURMA/REGION
SOUTH KOREA
NORTH KOREA
TUNISIA
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
CUBA
VENEZUELA
JAPAN
JAPAN/RUSSIA
RUSSIA
DEPARTMENT
IRAN
TRANSCRIPT:
1:30 p.m. EDT
MS HARF: Hello. Welcome to the daily press briefing. We have an energetic crowd in here today, I like it.
I have a couple items at the top, and then Brad, I will turn it over to you. First, as you all saw, Secretary Kerry met this morning in Washington with the Tunisian President Essebsi – excuse me. He reaffirmed our strong commitment to expanding our strategic partnership and to supporting Tunisia's democratic success. He and the Tunisian minister advisor of political affairs also signed a memorandum of understanding outlining how our countries plan to work together to enhance both our security and our economic cooperation. Later today, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker will host a business roundtable with prominent U.S. business leaders, and tomorrow President Obama and Vice President Biden and some others – I think the Defense Secretary and the Treasury Secretary – will all also meet with the president.
A couple more items at the top. The U.S. welcomes the decision by Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand that they will work together to uphold their responsibilities under international law and provide humanitarian assistance and shelter to 7,000 vulnerable migrants stranded at sea in Southeast Asia. The United States urges other countries of the region and the international communities to support them in those efforts. This will be an important subject at the May 29th conference hosted by Thailand in Bangkok. We believe all governments in the region with a stake in this issue should attend this conference, where a high-level U.S. delegation will be present.
The U.S. continues to urge countries in the region to take proactive steps quickly to save the lives of migrants and asylum seekers now at sea and refrain from turning away any new boat arrivals. Deputy Secretary Blinken is in the region; he said in Jakarta earlier today that the U.S. stands ready to help the countries of the region bear the burden and save lives today. We have a common obligation to answer the call of these migrants, who have risked their lives at sea. And I note tomorrow he will be going to Burma.
And then finally, I'd like to welcome the group in the back visiting today from the Foreign Service Institute. These folks will serve at posts around the world as information officers, so some of you may be dealing with them. So we're happy to have you all here. I think they're heading across the world to a bunch of different places, so thanks for coming and I hope it's enjoyable.
Brad.
QUESTION: Great. Can we stay on the Rohingya --
MS HARF: We can.
QUESTION: -- and the others who have been at sea?
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Has there been any progress with Burma – Myanmar – about, one, improving conditions for these people; and two, taking them back should they return home?
MS HARF: Well, as I said, the deputy secretary will be there tomorrow, and this will be a key topic of conversation then. He will urge the Burmese Government to cooperate with Bangladesh particularly to rescue and provide immediate relief to migrants adrift. And as we've said before, when it comes to some of these conditions, we remain concerned about the factors that drive people to risk their lives at sea, including the Government of Burma's policy towards its Rohingya minority and racially and religiously-motivated discrimination. So I think the Deputy Secretary will emphasize – as we have a number of times – the need for the Burmese Government to assume responsibility for these longstanding issues in Rakhine state, including addressing the conditions facing the Rohingya population. And I think we'll urge also some full and unhindered access to humanitarian assistance there as well.
QUESTION: You said the U.S. was ready to help. That was the message of the deputy secretary in Indonesia.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: How would the U.S. help? If there are more migrants, would the U.S. be willing to resettle some or provide military assets to help with moving people around?
MS HARF: A couple points – yeah. So we're actively considering our options right now on two pieces of that, though I'll start with financial assistance. If the UNHCR and IOM indicate the need for additional funds to assist governments to establish things like reception centers and ensure protection screening procedures, we'll consider those requests. We will encourage other governments to respond swiftly and generously, and we'll be ready to respond to an appeal if and when they make one.
In terms of resettling, I think the Malaysians and the Indonesians have requested some help resettling people. We're taking a careful look at the proposal. We're prepared to take a leading role in any UNHCR-organized multi-country effort to resettle the most vulnerable refugees. I'd note that more than a thousand Rohingya have already been resettled to the U.S. so far this fiscal year, and we're also providing assistance this year. We've provided nearly 109 million in humanitarian assistance for vulnerable Burmese since the beginning, again, of this fiscal year.
QUESTION: When was this decision made? It --
MS HARF: What --
QUESTION: Just about the potential for the willingness to take in some of these additional Rohingya.
MS HARF: It's not – I mean, as I said, just this fiscal year we've taken in a thousand, so I'm not sure there's been some new decision. This has been an ongoing process. But I'm happy to see if there's more backstory there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: A follow-up on this.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: All these stuck there – are you – is the U.S. willing to take some of them or a group of them to the U.S. --
MS HARF: I think that's the question I just answered.
QUESTION: But it's – this is addition to thousands you already have.
MS HARF: We've already resettled I think more than a thousand Rohingya, and we said we're prepared to take a leading role in any UNHCR-organized effort. It has to be a multi-country effort. We obviously can't take this all on ourselves, but we are prepared to play a leading role in this effort.
Anything else on this issue?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: On South Korea: Secretary Kerry, while he visiting Seoul, Korea earlier this week --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- and he mentioned about the THAAD missile deployment on South Korea. Does the U.S. have any consultation with the THAAD missile defense?
MS HARF: You're talking about the THAAD system?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS HARF: He did mention that briefly. He was referring to internal – and I was there with him on that trip. He was referring to internal U.S. discussions. Our position on this hasn't changed. It wasn't a topic of conversation with the South Korean authorities.
QUESTION: It's not an official mention in this --
MS HARF: No, our position on this hasn't changed.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: He was just sort of casually referring to internal conversations in our government.
QUESTION: And another one. North Korea refused the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's visit to North Korea. Can you comment on that? Why --
MS HARF: Well, I would note what the Secretary said about a similar issue in his press conference that he gave in Seoul, where he said they've refused to meet with a Russian delegation; they've refused to meet with a Chinese delegation; they've refused to meet with a South Korean delegation; that Kim Jong-un has a pattern of refusing these high-level diplomatic meetings of people who are trying to reach out to see if there's some way to get North Korea back to a diplomatic process. I think this is just the latest in a line of what we've seen coming out of North Korea.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Tunisia?
MS HARF: Anything else on North Korea? North Korea? And then we'll go to Tunisia.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just quickly to get your reaction. North Korea said today they developed nuclear warheads small enough to fit on the head of a missile.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you concerned about how that might raise tensions in East Asia?
MS HARF: Well, regarding that specific claim of miniaturization, we do not think they have that capacity, and our assessment on that hasn't changed. I know we've talked about this before. But we do know they're working on developing a number of long-range missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles – it's been a few days since I've been up here – and that could eventually threaten our allies, our partners. So that's obviously something we're very concerned about, but in terms of that capability, we just don't think they have it.
Yes.
QUESTION: So I just wanted to go back to – you were talking about at the top.
MS HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: Is there anything more you can tell us about what's in the memorandum? Did the Tunisians ask for any specific type of additional financial assistance, and what is the U.S. providing that's new?
MS HARF: Well, we've provided about 570 million to Tunisia since the revolution, including about 300 million in economic growth-related support, 175 million in security assistance, and 80 million in democracy, governance, and related issues. We plan to allocate additional resources this year. I don't have those specifics in front of me, and I don't have much more to share beyond what we said earlier today.
QUESTION: So the memorandum is more of a general pledge of support as opposed to specifics?
MS HARF: It really outlines the path forward here for our cooperation on security and economic issues, and I know he'll have – the president will have conversations with our President, with the Vice President, others, and we may have more to say after those meetings tomorrow.
Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: Question about Palmyra in Syria, an ancient city of massive cultural value recognized the world over. And the Islamic State today has moved into large parts of the city, it seems. Is there really nothing that America can do to prevent its destruction?
MS HARF: Well, we are deeply concerned by reports of ISIL's attacks on the Syrian city which holds the ruins of Palmyra. We can't – there are different reports about exactly what's happening there, so it's hard for us to nail down with any sort of granularity exactly what's happening on the ground. But we know that this is a city that has been caught in the crossfire for some time, certainly. It's sustained damage from both the regime and opposition groups. And the destruction and looting of these sites has been sort of something we've seen in other places in Syria as well that is incredibly harmful. We've spoken up about it a number of times.
So we'll keep watching here and we'll keep seeing what's happening on the ground, but this is the reason we're trying to push back ISIL out of Iraq and to try and help the Syrian opposition push back ISIL in Syria.
QUESTION: But there are no particular diplomatic efforts to ring-fence Palmyra?
MS HARF: I'm not – what diplomatic – I mean, what diplomatic efforts would we undertake with ISIL? I'm not sure that --
QUESTION: But would this – but it says within – with the Syrian Government or with other parts of --
MS HARF: Well, as – this is ISIL attacks on the city, so that's obviously what at the moment is posing the biggest threat to the city. So this is something we're following, we're concerned about this. Obviously, it has been caught in the crossfire for some time and we'll speak up about it, but beyond that I'm not sure what more can be done.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I think the fighting is exclusively in this area ISIL against the Syrian Government's forces.
MS HARF: At the moment.
QUESTION: Right, at the moment.
MS HARF: The current fighting.
QUESTION: Right. Given that – given what ISIL has done in some Iraqi archeological treasures, is this one of those weird situations where you hope the Syrian Government prevails in this fight?
MS HARF: I think what I would say is we hope that these sites are not further damaged by the fighting.
QUESTION: But you would be very concerned – I think you – I'm assuming you would be even more concerned if ISIL were to take the city entirely. Is that not right?
MS HARF: Well, concern from a strategic perspective or from a cultural --
QUESTION: No, from a cultural preservation – given what it has done in other places.
MS HARF: Certainly, certainly. Yes. But it's also – look, the Syrian regime, the opposition, these – a number of these sites have been caught in the crossfire between all parties here, and so obviously ISIL is the one who's doing a vast, vast majority of this. But these places are caught in the middle of these conflicts and unfortunately we're seeing that playing out here.
Yes, Carol.
QUESTION: Ukraine?
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: Today, Ukrainian officials said that they would welcome anybody who would be interested in establishing an anti-ballistic missile system on their territory to ward off Russian attacks.
MS HARF: I saw that.
QUESTION: Is that anything that the United States would support?
MS HARF: Well, there's no offer or plan to place U.S. or NATO ballistic missile defenses systems in Ukraine, and I don't think we're exactly sure what they're referring to. NATO ballistic missile defense plans are well known. All existing and planned elements are on NATO territory, for example. And certainly, NATO missile defense is not directed against Russia but against threats from the Middle East, as we've talked about quite a bit. So beyond that, I'm not exactly sure what they were referring to.
Yes, Jo.
QUESTION: Israel I'd like to go to, if that's okay.
MS HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: I don't know if you'd seen the reports today that the defense minister had proposed a scheme whereby Palestinians could not run on the same bus – ride on the same buses --
MS HARF: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: -- as Jewish settlers. I wondered – that's now been suspended by the prime minister --
MS HARF: Correct. Yes.
QUESTION: -- but I wondered if I could have your comment on this.
MS HARF: Well, we understand, as you said, that they have suspended those plans. We believe that was a positive decision to suspend them. We also know that this proposal raised considerable controversy and I think with good reason.
QUESTION: You would not have been supportive of such an idea?
MS HARF: That is safe to say we would not.
Yes, Justin.
QUESTION: Just a schedule item, what do we expect tomorrow with the Cuba talks? Is there --
MS HARF: Yes, I think we're going to be putting out a little --
QUESTION: -- any announcement --
MS HARF: -- more logistical information tomorrow – about tomorrow after the briefing, but Assistant Secretary Jacobson will host a delegation from the Cuban Government on Thursday, May 21st. That's tomorrow. We have several issues to discuss. Look forward to a productive discussion. This is obviously on the issue of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and reopening of embassies.
QUESTION: Could you announce tomorrow that you're going to reopen embassies, or is that --
MS HARF: I have nothing to preview for you.
QUESTION: -- going to --
MS HARF: I have nothing to preview for you.
QUESTION: You think they'll do a press conference?
MS HARF: We'll get you all the logistical information afterwards. I'm not sure what the full schedule is.
QUESTION: On Venezuela?
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There was a report a couple of days ago that the U.S. is investigating some top Venezuelan officials over drug trafficking-related allegations. Recognizing that it's a Department of Justice investigation, has – have the Venezuelans expressed any concerns about this to this building, and is there any fear that this could kind of increase the tensions that already exist?
MS HARF: Well, we don't comment from here on ongoing law enforcement matters, so I'd refer you to DOJ.
QUESTION: But could reports of the --
MS HARF: We don't comment on them and --
QUESTION: -- existence of this harm the relationship?
MS HARF: We don't comment on these issues. I'd refer you to DOJ.
Yes.
QUESTION: What was – just – sorry. I know you --
MS HARF: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: When Tom Shannon went there recently --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- what was the result of those discussions and what did they actually – I know it's a few days now, so --
MS HARF: It's a few – let me check. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Okay. All right.
MS HARF: I haven't talked to him since we've been back.
QUESTION: I was wondering if you had any reaction to – the Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums announced that they will no longer purchase dolphins acquired by drive hunting. Excuse me. And I know that U.S. officials, including Ambassador Kennedy, has expressed opposition to whaling in the past. I was just wondering if you had any reaction to --
MS HARF: I hadn't seen that, but let me check with our team. You are correctly identifying what we've said in the past, but let me just check on this.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a question about Japan and Russia.
MS HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Recently, the head of the Russian Duma visited Tokyo and met with former Foreign Minister Komura, and Mr. Komura obviously told Mr. Naryshkin that Prime Minister Abe wants President Putin to come to Japan. The Russian foreign ministry said that if they received any official invitation they would consider it. But anyway, my question is: What is the United States Government's position on potential visit by President Putin to Tokyo?
MS HARF: I'm not sure we have one.
QUESTION: You're not?
MS HARF: I haven't seen the reports.
QUESTION: No position on this one? I mean --
MS HARF: I'm not sure we have one.
QUESTION: -- you have tension with Russia over Ukraine, and the situation --
MS HARF: And Secretary Kerry just met with President Putin in Sochi, himself.
QUESTION: So the situation is changing in this sense? I mean --
MS HARF: No, that's not it. We've always said we have lines of communication to speak to the Russians about the issues where we work together, whether it's the Iran nuclear negotiations or other issues. But in those meetings – and I was there in Sochi as well – a lot of conversation about Ukraine, where we clearly have big differences, talking about how to fully implement Minsk, talking about how to get back on a diplomatic path here. So we meet with the Russians, we talk to them, we talk about areas where we can work together, areas where we have disagreements, and that's certainly our position and that hasn't changed.
QUESTION: So if Japan, which is one of the closest allies for the United States in Asia, took a similar position of trying to cooperate with Russia where they can, then you have no reason to oppose?
MS HARF: I certainly can't think of one.
QUESTION: Marie, do you have any --
MS HARF: But we also want countries that we are allies with, and others, to speak up on the places we disagree, whether it's Ukraine or elsewhere. So I think you can do both at the same time.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have any information about who was behind the bombing of the Russian embassy in Damascus?
MS HARF: I don't think we do yet. Let me check. I don't think we have any information on that, Samir.
What else? Yes.
QUESTION: I have – there was a report last night in The Wall Street Journal that former Secretary Clinton's chief of staff had – that her staff had negotiated with records specialists here in the Department about what would and wouldn't be released in FOIA requests. Is there any truth to that report?
MS HARF: Well, I saw the story. I'm certainly not in a position to respond to, I think, all unnamed sources in the story or – and look, I have no knowledge or information to confirm the claims made in this report. I wasn't here. I have nothing to confirm them. It's entirely appropriate for various Department personnel to be made aware of documents that could potentially respond to FOIA requests received by the Department. And no matter who provides guidance, though, and who's in that process, the Department only withholds materials that are exempt or excluded from public release under terms spelled out in the Freedom of Information Act, which I know you all – we are all becoming increasingly familiar with. And that's how we – that's what governs what is ultimately released.
QUESTION: So would it --
MS HARF: Those standards in FOIA.
QUESTION: Would it ever be appropriate for a State Department – any State Department personnel to advocate for a document not to be released under other conditions?
MS HARF: I'm just not going to address that kind of hypothetical.
QUESTION: What – I'm sorry. I thought you just sort of said – are you saying that it wouldn't be inappropriate for people in those positions as was described --
MS HARF: To be made aware of documents that could --
QUESTION: Or to negotiate in any way with the FOIA office?
MS HARF: I said to be made aware of documents --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: -- that could potentially respond to FOIA. I also said I have no information to confirm the claims made by unnamed sources in a report.
QUESTION: Would it be appropriate for a member of the secretary's staff or inappropriate for a member of the secretary's staff to negotiate with the FOIA office?
MS HARF: I'm just not going to address that kind of hypothetical.
QUESTION: Oh, but that's not a hypothetical.
MS HARF: It is.
QUESTION: That --
MS HARF: It depends on who the --
QUESTION: That's just a question.
MS HARF: I mean, there's – it's a question that is a hypothetical one, Justin, that addresses an unnamed secretary's staff member and an unnamed FOIA – I mean, right?
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: That's not a specific question.
QUESTION: Then would it be inappropriate for you or someone in your office --
MS HARF: I'm not on the secretary's staff.
QUESTION: -- to negotiate with the FOIA office? Is that inappropriate?
MS HARF: I'm just not going to address a broad question like that. As I said, what gets released under FOIA – you can be frustrated, Justin, but as I just said --
QUESTION: I don't think it's, like, an unfair question.
MS HARF: As I just said, what is released under the Freedom of Information Act is guided by what guidelines are in the Freedom of Information Act, and what is releasable and not releasable under those guidelines. That is what determines what's released publicly --
QUESTION: Can I --
MS HARF: -- no matter who is aware of what's going on in this process.
QUESTION: But I think the issue wasn't that people were made aware, it's that they held up processes or that they slowed down --
QUESTION: Or aware and got (inaudible) about it.
MS HARF: As I said, I read the story. I'm not in a position to confirm those claims.
QUESTION: Do any members of the Secretary's --
MS HARF: These are made by unnamed sources.
QUESTION: Do any members --
MS HARF: I wasn't here at the time.
QUESTION: -- of the Secretary's current staff take part in the FOIA process – I'm not talking about people in the FOIA office; I'm talking about in his seventh floor staff – take part in the FOIA process, discuss ongoing FOIA-related responses?
MS HARF: As I said, it's entirely appropriate. There are a number of people here who are part of the FOIA process, not just the FOIA office. It's subject matter experts who are from the different bureaus who weigh in on FOIA requests because FOIA officers don't always have the substantive knowledge to know what can be released and what can't be under various exemptions, as you know. So in theory, there's a lot of people who can be involved quite appropriately in this process, as we do it here.
All I know is how we do the process. It's not unthinkable that someone could be made aware of a discussion about an ongoing FOIA request. There are a lot of pieces to this, and pieces from different offices, whether it's the Office of the Legal Adviser, who's not part of FOIA, who also plays a key role. It's other agencies. When we have to do the interagency process, they have equities. So there's a number of different people that are aware of ongoing FOIA requests and part of a discussion.
QUESTION: Speaking of things not hypothetically, what guidance is currently given to those senior staff about what is and isn't appropriate for them?
MS HARF: I'm happy to check and see that, but again, there's a – it's not inappropriate for senior staff members to be made aware of FOIA requests and participate in discussions about them. Again, that doesn't govern what eventually gets released. There's a lot of people that are a part of this process.
QUESTION: Do FOIA officials on their own know every instance which information is classified versus unclassified, or --
MS HARF: No. That's why there are subject matter experts who, on each document that gets released under FOIA – let's say it's a hypothetical topic A, you have a subject matter expert A from a bureau who will look at that and make a recommendation, for example. Because FOIA officers aren't subject matter experts on every issue we deal with and every issue that gets FOIAed.
QUESTION: And this --
MS HARF: And the Office of the Legal Adviser plays a role. They are not part of FOIA. They obviously play a role. Many times, other agencies – we have to coordinate with them on our releases because they have their equities or people CCed on emails from their organization.
QUESTION: So the point is that the Office of the Legal Adviser's involvement to you doesn't raise any flags? It would be normal procedures and --
MS HARF: Correct. Having an attorney who's an expert in FOIA look at what we release under FOIA seems to be pretty prudent practice to me.
What else? Yes.
QUESTION: Iran?
MS HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: Just quickly, the ayatollah said today that Tehran is not going to give foreign --
MS HARF: One of the ayatollahs, the supreme leader.
QUESTION: One of the ayatollahs.
MS HARF: There are many in Iran.
QUESTION: Excuse me. He said that Tehran is not going to give foreign inspectors access to Iran's nuclear scientists. Do you have a response to that? And how will that affect the final negotiations?
MS HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, we've said we're not going to negotiate in public before. We certainly aren't going to start now and we certainly aren't going to start responding to every comment by the supreme leader. We just don't tend to do that. But as I've said repeatedly, as the Secretary has said, we and Iran have agreed that we will undertake a process to address possible military dimensions, and part of that includes access. And under the Additional Protocol, for example, which Iran will implement and has said they will implement as part of this deal, the IAEA does get access.
And so obviously, that's an ongoing topic of negotiation; but if we don't get the assurances we need on the access to possible military dimension-related sites or activities, that's going to be a problem for us, and we've said that. And we'll see if we can get this done in the next, what, five weeks. I lose track of time.
QUESTION: Yeah. Can I ask when did the last talks wrap up in Vienna, because I don't think that you got a – that final day.
MS HARF: I'm trying to think when under secretary --
QUESTION: Was it Saturday or was it Friday?
MS HARF: I'm sorry, I can check. The days are all --
QUESTION: And do we have any indication --
MS HARF: But as – the EU did announce that the EU deputy and their negotiator Helga Schmid and her Iranian counterparts are expected to go through this Friday. So they are continuing to meet in Vienna, as are our experts. So they're still there.
QUESTION: Okay. Oh, they're still there.
MS HARF: The experts are still there and Helga Schmid is still there. I can find out when Under Secretary Sherman --
QUESTION: -- is likely to go back?
MS HARF: -- returned or when they --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: -- and when we're likely to --
QUESTION: So she's there right now?
MS HARF: No, she's --
QUESTION: She's
MS HARF: She's back. She's back. She's here in the building, yes. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay, gotcha.
QUESTION: Right. Okay.
QUESTION: Marie, I think the supreme leader also said that inspectors would not have access to Iranian scientists. Is that a sticking point?
MS HARF: Well, again, in general, the issue of access – we're agreed on a path forward here to address possible military dimensions. And I'm not going to go into more of what that means specifically, but obviously, facilities is one, information, people. Those all under – fall under that rubric. And that's an ongoing topic of negotiation. And we've agreed on a process to get to a list here, but if we cannot agree in the final instance to something that meets our bottom line for what we need in terms of access, we're not going to sign a final deal. And that's just something we've been very, very clear about.
QUESTION: Can you explain – so you've agreed on a path forward, but it's all still subject to negotiation. So what exactly has been agreed, then?
MS HARF: We've agreed to undertake a process to develop a list for access that addresses the PMD issue. What is actually on that, we are – here I'm going back to my old language here from right after --
QUESTION: I know this is not --
MS HARF: We are still negotiating over all of the people and places where the IAEA will have access required.
QUESTION: So --
MS HARF: But we have a path forward and an agreement they will undertake a PMD access list process.
QUESTION: So until that list is filled out, you actually haven't agreed on any --
MS HARF: Well, no --
QUESTION: -- of the nuts and bolts of the PMD access?
MS HARF: Correct. But it is significant, I think, that we agreed to undertake this process to develop a list. That is a step forward. But --
QUESTION: They had the IAEA list, the 20 sectors as well.
MS HARF: But this is separate. This is part of the JCPOA. So this – obviously, we want them to keep working with the IAEA as well, as we've talked about. But this is a separate process that we're going to be negotiating, and that's something we've agreed to. But you're right; what matters is the details here, as on so many issues.
QUESTION: When was it agreed to have a list?
MS HARF: That was one of the things agreed in Lausanne.
QUESTION: Oh, April 2nd?
MS HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
QUESTION: When will it – the next meetings? How this continue?
MS HARF: We're not sure when the next meeting will be, but we expect a robust negotiating schedule between now and June 30th, which I know we are all very excited about.
Anything else? Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:55 p.m.)
DPB # 88
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
