Daily Press Briefing
Marie Harf
Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 3, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY
PAKISTAN
RUSSIA
UKRAINE
SECRETARY
IRAN
PAKISTAN
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
ISIL
SYRIA
TAIWAN
CHINA
SECRETARY
FIFA
UKRAINE / RUSSIA
SYRIA
SUDAN
JAPAN
IRAQ
QATAR
JAPAN
JAMAICA
SWEDEN
EMAIL
TRANSCRIPT:
12:47 p.m. EDT
MS HARF: Good afternoon. Welcome to the briefing. I know, I'll echo Matt. Welcome, Lou, to the briefing in Washington. Almost a full front row.
QUESTION: We do have a bit of an echo here.
MS HARF: Hello? It's better than the rushing water sound above yesterday, which I was worried was going to result in some sort of downpour. I have a couple updates at the top and then, Matt, I'm kicking it over to you.
Just a quick update on Secretary Kerry. You saw the statement from his doctor last night, hopefully. As his doctor said he would be in that statement, today the Secretary Kerry was up and out of bed. He had a good night, was up early today and started physical therapy. So he – we may have more to say later. That is the latest on his condition.
Moving on to Pakistan. Earlier today, Under Secretary for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Richard Stengel and Ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olson launched the U.S.-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies. Arizona State University, the University of Utah, and the University of California at Davis will partner with three world class Pakistani universities to research innovative energy, water, and food security solutions.
Two more items, and then over to you. For – in terms of something happening in Russia, we are troubled by the violent ransacking and attacks today at the offices of the NGO Committee Against Torture in Grozny, Chechnya. It is our understanding that a crowd of nearly 3,000 people protested outside the office, broke into the building, and destroyed property while police failed to respond. This follows the burning of the previous Committee Against Torture office space in Grozny last December. We call on Russian authorities to hold those involved in these attacks responsible for their actions and to protect the ability of civil society groups to perform their essential functions.
And lastly on Ukraine, we are disturbed by reports, including those from the OSCE that combined Russian-separatist forces launched coordinated attacks overnight against Ukrainian positions near Donetsk – near Donetsk city in Pisky, Luhansk, and Maryinca. We are now seeing unconfirmed reports that the town of Maryinca may have fallen. These attacks by combined Russian-separatist forces are on the Ukrainian side of the ceasefire line. They have reportedly utilized Grad rockets and other heavy weapons that should have been withdrawn under the February Minsk plan, and they've reportedly killed at least one and injured 20 Ukrainians. Any new attack or aggressive action by combined Russian-separatist forces is unacceptable and contravenes the Minsk agreements. Russia bears direct responsibility for preventing these attacks and implementing a ceasefire. Any attempts to seize additional Ukrainian territory will be met with increased costs.
Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. Before – I'm sure we'll get back to Ukraine. And just before getting into the meat of things --
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- on the Secretary, is there any more detail you can give us about what exactly the procedure was that – what was involved in this surgery? Is there a pin or something put in --
MS HARF: I don't have more details today to share about the surgery specifically or his medical condition. As we have more to share, we will do so.
QUESTION: And then it – he was scheduled to give a speech on Monday here. Is that up in the air? Is he still planning on doing it? What's the --
MS HARF: We haven't pulled anything down off of the schedule yet. Obviously, we're waiting to see how the surgery went. His doctors – he's talking to his doctors about the recovery, and we'll keep folks updated on the schedule.
QUESTION: Okay. But so everything is --
MS HARF: We just don't know yet.
QUESTION: And you would expect him to stay in Boston for how long? Maybe --
MS HARF: We're not sure yet.
QUESTION: All right.
MS HARF: As – again, we have more to share --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: -- on that, I'm happy to.
QUESTION: Can ask I – when you said that he was up and about, do you mean he's walking?
MS HARF: I don't have more specifics to share for you than that. Last night, his doctor said he would be up today, and I think this is a fairly standard thing after surgery to make sure they get up on their feet. But I don't have much more to share than that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: You talked with him?
MS HARF: I have not, no. Not yet. Not today.
QUESTION: Is he wearing a cast?
MS HARF: I don't have more to share on his condition.
QUESTION: All right. Let's go to Iran.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: I was not here yesterday, and I understand that you – this came up yesterday.
MS HARF: It did.
QUESTION: But in light of the fact that you – you --
MS HARF: I did.
QUESTION: -- felt the need to --
MS HARF: I did.
QUESTION: -- take to social media this morning to restate your objections to yesterday's New York Times story, I wanted to ask about it --
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- again.
MS HARF: What specifics?
QUESTION: What exactly is the problem that you see with the story? The facts of the story, what the IAEA reported, what people's – what experts think about that do not seem to be in question, correct? What is the issue?
MS HARF: Well, I think a couple points here. And a lot of nuclear experts now have started chiming in online as well. And I, to be clear, tweeted the exact same things I said in the briefing yesterday. So I'm happy to go back through those again and we can – I'm sure people will have follow-ups.
There's a couple, I think, notions in this story that we disagree with, one being – I think it was the second paragraph – that Western officials are unaware of why this is happening. That's just not the case. This type of stockpile, under the JPOA and the extensions, can go up and down – that is perfectly acceptable – as long as, at the end of the time period, which in this case is June 30th, it's back below 7,650 kilograms. In the past, the IAEA has reported they've gone up, and then they've gone down, and they've always met their requirements. And we fully expect they will do so in this case.
That second piece is just context that wasn't in the story. I think one of the biggest notions is it made – it insinuated strongly that they were doing something they shouldn't be doing by raising the stockpile. That's not accurate. Also the notion that this is a major obstacle – diplomatic obstacle inside the room. Talking to Under Secretary Sherman, other of our top negotiators, this isn't. This issue, again, is perfectly acceptable; it can go up and down. What matters is that in the JCPA, Iran has committed to getting down to 300 kilograms. They've already committed to doing that. How they will get there is an ongoing topic of negotiation. But as I said yesterday, quite frankly, it's not one of the big outstanding issues. It's an outstanding one, but it's not by any means one of the toughest, and it's by no means a major obstacle inside the room.
QUESTION: Okay, I don't think that it was called an obstacle.
MS HARF: It was called a major obstacle in the story.
QUESTION: Obstacle or challenge.
MS HARF: A major obstacle. It was called a major --
QUESTION: So --
MS HARF: Let's go through Matt's, and then --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: I mean, I was very precise in my wording. That's what it was called. The story also called into question whether Iran's nuclear program is frozen based on this one fact. And it indeed is, given that they have to get back to the number that they agreed to, which is 7,650. They can go up and down, but at the end of the day, they have to get back to that number – frozen in place at that number.
QUESTION: So your issue is whether it's an obstacle or a major obstacle?
MS HARF: That it's either.
QUESTION: It is not an --
MS HARF: It's not. This issue is not.
QUESTION: Well, but it is an issue that has to be addressed.
MS HARF: No. The fact that this stockpile has gone above 7,650 is not an obstacle in the negotiations. It is allowable under the JPOA as long as they get back where they need to be. They've always gotten back where they need to be, and we expect they will here.
QUESTION: Right, but --
MS HARF: There's a separate question, which is how they will get down to 300 kilograms. There are a couple of different ways they can do that: one is shipping it out; one is diluting it; one is selling it on the open market. We're working with them for what that will look like, but that's also really not – to be honest, Matt, that's not really an obstacle in the room. It's an outstanding issue, but it's not an obstacle to getting to a deal here.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Well, isn't selling it on the open market --
MS HARF: Let's – let me finish with Matt, Elise.
QUESTION: Well, I mean – no, we don't – we don't have to do like 10 minutes with one person. Can't we kind of mix it up? We all have questions on --
MS HARF: Well, let's just not interrupt people. I'll do one more with Matt, and then I'll go to you. Okay? So pick your next --
QUESTION: I'll defer to Elise.
MS HARF: He's ceding the floor to his colleague from CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you. Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter what the stock size of the stockpile is at all currently, and it just matters what it is on June 30th?
MS HARF: Under the terms of the JPOA, that stockpile, correct, can go up and can go down, as long as at June 30th, they can get it down to 7,650. In the two previous instances, they've gone up and down – these are normal fluctuations – and they've always gotten back where they needed to be.
QUESTION: But if they keep increasing it – and I'm taking you at your word that it doesn't matter right now, but if on – if it keeps going up, isn't it going to make it that much more difficult for them to reduce it by June 30th? I mean --
MS HARF: Well, that's something they have to do.
QUESTION: -- even if right now technically they're not in violation, isn't there a concern that they won't get there by June 30th?
MS HARF: Honestly, I have talked to all of the nuclear experts on this. There is not a concern that they will get down to the right amount by June 30th. In the two previous times, the initial JPOA and then the extension, they've done the same thing, and they've always gotten back where they needed to be. If they don't, that'll be a problem; you're right. We expect that they will, and we don't – we just don't have concerns about them being able to do that.
QUESTION: Wouldn't --
MS HARF: I've talked to all the --
QUESTION: Well, wouldn't it make more sense to be skeptical upfront about it instead of just assuming that they're going to do it? I mean, you --
MS HARF: No one's assuming anything. They have an obligation to do so, they've said they will, in the previous two instances they've done, and we believe they will do so. And if they don't, that'll be a problem.
QUESTION: And also, you --
MS HARF: Again. But let's not get – let's not got ahead of where we are today. The fact that today they are where they are is not a violation of the JPOA. The IAEA has previously reported that the stockpile's gone up, and then gone back down. And they've continued to report that they're in compliance. So I'm not trying to downplay this by any means, but the facts are what they are about what Iran has to do or not do.
QUESTION: There were also some – in your – on your online tweets --
MS HARF: I said – everything I tweeted I said in the briefing yesterday --
QUESTION: -- no, I understand, but --
MS HARF: -- for all of my Twitter followers who watch the briefings online.
QUESTION: So you're – I'm an avid follower, but not, maybe, as diligent as others. (Laughter.) You're – you were questioning that – you do know why it is happening. You said it – you took --
MS HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- umbrage with the part in the story that you don't understand why this is happening. Why is it happening?
MS HARF: Right. Well, our technical experts, as I said, are aware of what – of how Iran is doing things in terms of their nuclear program. Under the JPOA, the IAEA has gotten access that they never had before to see what's going on. And I'm happy to see if our technical team can provide more details about technically why this is happening, but they are, again, allowed – permitted under the JPOA for this number to fluctuate. So technically this no mystery to us that it would; it has, certainly, during the talks. And our top experts, including some former negotiators, have said publicly they just don't see this as a problem. There are big problems that we have to contend with, and issues we have to address, to get to a comprehensive deal. And this just is important, certainly, but it's not the kind of major obstacle, I think, that it was portrayed as. And I think that's what our negotiating team was expressing concern about.
QUESTION: If it's not a mystery, can you explain to us: Why is it going up?
MS HARF: I just said I'm happy to see if our experts can provide some more language on that.
QUESTION: But – so you say that it's not --
MS HARF: This stockpile – they are permitted for the stockpile to go up.
QUESTION: I know they are. Okay, fine. They --
MS HARF: And the IAEA has access to see it.
QUESTION: They might be allowed to, but do you know why --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- it is going up?
MS HARF: And the IAEA has reported on it multiple times. I'm – and I said I'm happy to check with our experts if we can get a more technical explanation. But they are allowed to continue this kind of enrichment as long as they stay at a constant level at the end of the period of time.
QUESTION: Right. But this is an issue, though, that exists and has to be resolved.
MS HARF: The issue – no. The issue that has to be resolved is how they will ultimately take that stockpile at the end – which is their entire stockpile – and get it down to 300 kilograms.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: That's the outstanding issue in the talks.
QUESTION: Yeah. But right now --
MS HARF: Right. But that's separate from --
QUESTION: Right now they wouldn't be in compliance if this was the end of the – correct?
MS HARF: No, they are – no. Well --
QUESTION: Exactly. So --
MS HARF: -- this isn't June 30th, though. They are in compliance today.
QUESTION: I understand. So they have 28 days --
MS HARF: Correct. And in the JPOA and in the other extension, their stock fluctuated and went up, and they got it back down where they needed to get it back down to. So again, if they don't on June 30th, Matt, we can have a different conversation. But – so that's issue A, right, the 7,650 and getting the stock back down before June 30th. Issue B – so that's not a topic of conversation for the joint comprehensive plan of action. That's – so I think there was some conflating of two issues in the story, too. That's just an issue they need to continue complying with the JPOA on. The issue for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which got a little muddled in the story, I think, is how to get to 300 kilograms. That is an ongoing topic of discussion and there's a couple of different technical ways they can do it. We are confident we're going to get to agreement on how they do it, and this is not one of – anywhere close to one of the stickiest issues inside the room.
QUESTION: You said one of the ways they could do it is by selling it on the open market. Isn't that the same as shipping it out of the country --
MS HARF: It's not. Not exactly, no. You could ship it out to another country. You could sell it on the – there's just different mechanisms for doing this.
QUESTION: Who would – well, if it stays in the country, isn't that a problem?
MS HARF: There are ways it could stay in the country that they could take steps and do things to it that would make it not a proliferation concern for us. And we're just talking with them about the final disposition. Again, there's a couple, as we've talked about, really thorny issues inside the room, and this is nowhere near the top of that list.
QUESTION: So what would you say are those real thorny – really thorny issues that are --
MS HARF: Well, we've talked about --
QUESTION: Are they still the same ones?
MS HARF: We've talked about some of them.
QUESTION: Sanctions relief?
MS HARF: Yes, sanctions relief, the timing and scope of – and pace of that. I think certainly we've talked about publicly how important access and transparency is for us, certainly. So those are much more complicated issues. I mean, getting down to 300 kilograms, there's a couple ways we can do it. They're going to agree to one, and we are confident we'll get there.
QUESTION: But isn't getting down to 300 kilograms part of access and transparency, or not?
MS HARF: No, access and – I mean, we consider that – I mean, not really – obviously, we'll have access and transparency into how they do that. Access and transparency, when we use it colloquially, tends to refer to inspections, how often, where, the issues of PMD, military sites, all of that.
Elise, did you have something else on this? Sorry.
QUESTION: No.
QUESTION: I just want to make sure that we're clear. So your dispute – you have problems with Mr. Sanger's analysis, but you're not disputing David Albright's assessment that Iran has fallen behind its pledge under the JPA, correct?
MS HARF: I would dispute that. Iran's pledge under the JPOA is on June 30th to be at 7,650 kilograms of this particular, as we've said, kind of lower enriched uranium. It's – it can't be above 6,750[1] kilograms of up to 5 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride. In the – this is something they, throughout the first JPOA, certainly the initial JPOA implementation, then through the first extension, they've gone up and by the date they – their requirement is by that date to be back down, and they've done that. So again, if on June 30th they haven't done that, then that's a problem. But as of today, they are in compliance with the JPOA, as the IAEA – don't take it from us, take it from the IAEA – has repeatedly reaffirmed.
Yes.
QUESTION: And also, so you're saying that the increase in the stockpile doesn't necessarily have to do with them actually enriching more uranium?
MS HARF: Well, they – well, no. It's the stockpile of lower enriched uranium, so that it's this 5 – up to 5 percent, it's this lower type of enranium – uranium – excuse me. As we've always said, they can't enrich above 5 percent under the JPOA, and they haven't. They can't install new centrifuges under the JPOA, and they haven't. They can't make progress at Arak, and they haven't. And the reason the IAEA can report on all of this is because under the JPOA they have gotten access we didn't have before into the program. So this has really been enhanced monitoring that has allowed the IAEA to make these kinds of judgments.
QUESTION: Marie, I'm sorry, I just can't – I don't understand why this isn't more of a concern. If we're only 28 days or so away from a deal, wouldn't you be expecting the Iranians to be reducing their stockpiles to get in line with what they might eventually – what eventually is the deal?
MS HARF: I mean, Matt, our nuclear experts tell me – and again, don't take it from me, you can take it from them – that this has just been the normal course during the JPOA, that what we have built into these negotiations, the fact that on June 30th they have to be back to 7,650, and what really matters is how to get that down to 300. I mean, what people are losing sight of here – and I think this is actually an important point – is that Iran has already agreed to go from that huge number, to reduce that, what, 96 percent to 300 kilograms. So we can talk about what they're going to do for the next 28 days or what their stockpile looks like now versus two weeks ago; but if we can get a comprehensive joint plan of action, they're going to take that stockpile and reduce it --
QUESTION: Right. But --
MS HARF: -- hugely down to 300 kilograms.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: So in terms of the overall stockpile, I just think that's an overall sort of meta point that people aren't – aren't paying maybe enough attention to.
QUESTION: Yeah. But we would – I mean, if I was engaged in a negotiation with someone and they were supposed to reduce their amount within 28 days, and instead in the previous month or so they were increasing it --
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: -- I think that would be a cause for concern.
MS HARF: That IAEA number, though, is a snapshot of one day in time. It fluctuates before, after. So that's – I would say --
QUESTION: So it might not be the same number?
MS HARF: It might not be the same today. It probably isn't. And the point is on June 30th they have said they are going to be where they need to be. They always have been in the past. Again, I'm not – if they're not on June 30th, I'm happy to have that conversation.
QUESTION: Right, but just because they always have been in the past doesn't necessarily mean they're always going to in the future, right?
MS HARF: Fair. And again --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: -- fair. That's a fair point.
QUESTION: So it could be an issue? And it is an issue that does need to be resolved?
MS HARF: Well, it won't be – no.
QUESTION: Right?
MS HARF: The 7650 is not an issue that needs to be resolved in the joint --
QUESTION: No, the reduction is --
MS HARF: Correct, to 300. That's separate, though.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: And --
QUESTION: So has this issue come up at all in the talks recently?
MS HARF: Which issue?
QUESTION: The issue of reducing it and what they're going to do.
MS HARF: To 300?
QUESTION: To 300, and what they're going to do and how they're going to --
MS HARF: Yes. So that is one of the – at the expert level, particularly, one of the outstanding issues – how they're going to get down to 300 kilograms. We obviously have said that needs to happen early in implementation. That's a key part of cutting off the four pathways, and it's a big commitment that Iran has made and an important one. So how they're going to do that is absolutely still a topic. There are many topics still on the table.
QUESTION: And it's discussed each time they meet?
MS HARF: I mean --
QUESTION: Or can you give us some sense of how much this is being discussed?
MS HARF: I mean, they're meeting sort of continuously now.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: So there's meetings on a whole host of subjects. I don't think I would say this is discussed every time they meet. There are big nuclear issues that need to be finalized to get to an agreement here. This is one of them, but it's by no means the most challenging.
Lou, yes.
QUESTION: The Iranians have in the past insisted that they would not ship their stockpile out of the country, or any large portion of it. And David Albright seems to suggest that he doesn't think that the Iranians will necessarily be technically capable of doing it in-country. Do U.S. experts believe that Iran would be technically capable of doing that without selling it on the open market or shipping it out of the country?
MS HARF: That's a good question, and I would say those three things I mentioned were hypotheticals. Those are just a couple ways you can do it. Whatever we end up agreeing to, whether it's out of the country or in the country, it will have to be something that we are confident gets down to that 96 percent from a – or, excuse me, to the 300 kilograms down that – I think it's 96 percent if my calculations are close – in a way that we are confident in technically. So there's a variety of technical ways to do that. I know that's an open question, but we are – we will not accept something that we are not confident in.
QUESTION: So can I just ask: I think the EU announced earlier today --
MS HARF: They did, yes.
QUESTION: -- the next round of talks is tomorrow.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Who will be going from this building, and what to anticipate?
MS HARF: So Under Secretary Sherman actually arrived in Vienna this morning. Today there are – the EU and the P5+1 political directors are meeting today internally in coordination. Tomorrow they will begin meeting with the Iranian delegation, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi, and their team of experts. So experts have started heading back out to Vienna. Some went with her, some are still here and will be going shortly on a sort of rolling basis. So we will be sending people out to Vienna as needed, but I expect this will be where the action is on these talks for between now and June 30th.
QUESTION: So is the idea that Deputy Secretary Sherman could stay out there? Or --
MS HARF: That's a possibility. She --
QUESTION: You don't have a timeline for when this round might end?
MS HARF: We don't. We don't. I think this is pretty open-ended, given we're getting pretty close to June 30th.
QUESTION: Is there --
QUESTION: Would you say this is like the final push now, then?
MS HARF: I don't think we're at the final push, but I think this is really starting – starting the final push maybe, I would say.
QUESTION: And have you any idea – I know it's obviously early days yet, but have you any idea when and how and if Secretary Kerry might be able to join those?
MS HARF: We don't have details on that. As I said, I think two days ago, he will be part of these talks at the end. We just don't have more details yet.
QUESTION: And still no idea if they're going to move to the States? (Inaudible.)
MS HARF: Don't know anything more. Don't know anything more.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is there any discussion about possibly moving these talks to New York because it's a UN – it's a UN kind of – it would give it a – I know that it's important to the Iranians that it's in a --
MS HARF: It is.
QUESTION: -- it's in a UN city. So, I mean, I know that technically New York is also a city of one of the parties to the agreement, but it's also a UN city. So --
MS HARF: We really are just still working through those details.
QUESTION: Is that an option?
MS HARF: I just don't want to get into what the options are or aren't.
What else? Anything else on Iran?
QUESTION: I have a tangential to Iran.
MS HARF: Okay. Then I'll go in the back. Tangentially take us to something else.
QUESTION: Well, this has to do with this joint statement with the Pakistanis --
MS HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: -- that you guys put out this morning.
MS HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: Pakistan, as I recall, and I'm sure you do too, was the source of one of the biggest proliferation of nuclear --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- nuclear technologies, nuclear weapons technology. So I'm just wondering, when this statement says the delegations reaffirm the high importance that both countries attach to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, this is something that the Administration takes seriously, believes fully, 100 percent, given the AQ Khan network and all this kind of thing?
MS HARF: Well, this is something we take incredibly seriously. And it's a pretty long joint statement --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: -- as you've seen – and pretty detailed, actually – discussing the conversations that we had with the Pakistanis on this issue, and we do take what they say to us seriously in these kinds of forums – fora.
QUESTION: All right. The very next paragraph after that says the Pakistani delegation welcomed the understanding between – reached between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the P5+1 and --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: So you have the Pakistanis, who covertly developed a nuclear weapon, coming out and supporting this deal. Do you not see a potential problem here?
MS HARF: I don't.
QUESTION: No? So --
MS HARF: I don't.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on the Ukraine stuff?
MS HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: So Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said that the fresh fighting was – had stalled the peace plan – I'm sorry, stalled peace talks. Is this your understanding as well?
MS HARF: Well, I saw some of those reports, and as I said, Russia bears direct responsibility for what's happening here. These are combined Russian separatist forces that launched coordinated attacks overnight against Ukrainian positions on the Ukrainian Government's side of the ceasefire line.
QUESTION: Do you know if – this is all happening just before the EU discusses whether to keep sanctions against Russia. Has the U.S. been advising them in any direction?
MS HARF: Well, we've certainly been in close coordination with our European counterparts on this issue of sanctions particularly.
QUESTION: And is the U.S. considering anything new or continuous on the sanctions as well?
MS HARF: Well, we've said if Russia continues its aggressive actions and violations of international law, the contest – the costs, excuse me, will continue to rise. But we've also said if the Minsk agreements are fully implemented by Russia, we can roll back some significant sanctions. So the choice is really on Russia here on sanctions.
QUESTION: So is this your – is what's happening now, given that you're blaming Russia for this, that you believe that the sanctions should be increased, or --
MS HARF: We'll continue to impose additional costs, and we're having those conversations internally, certainly, and with our partners. And I don't have much more detail to share today.
Michael, yes.
QUESTION: Marie, on Ukraine.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: This terminology, "combined Russian-separatist forces," I think was introduced here a few weeks ago --
MS HARF: Mm-hmm, it was.
QUESTION: -- in a statement. Could you explain that a little more? It seems to me that what you're referring to are – they're Russian conventional military forces with separatist forces, but actual Russian troops? Or what do you mean by "combined Russian-separatist forces"? Are they under Russian command and control? Are they regular Russian army troops? Do you have any numbers as to --
MS HARF: As to how many?
QUESTION: -- how many personnel are involved in this --
MS HARF: Numbers are --
QUESTION: -- what sort of asset – weapons systems they have?
MS HARF: Yeah. Numbers are a little hard to come by on this given that Russia actively tries to camouflage its soldiers that are going in. They take off their insignias; they've covered up their insignias on tanks, for example, and trying to scrub them. But the Russian military has advanced air defense systems in eastern Ukraine. Russian and separatist forces have a large concentration of command and control equipment in eastern Ukraine together. Combined Russian-separatist forces have conducted complex training together in eastern Ukraine. And really, the complex nature of this training leaves no doubt that Russia was involved itself in this training. And this training has also incorporated Russian UAVs, an, I think, unmistakable sign of Russia's presence. Russia's shipped additional heavy weaponry into eastern Ukraine. Combined Russian-separatist forces maintain artillery pieces and multiple rocket launcher systems within areas that are prohibited. So they're really operating together here. Russia's taking steps to cover this up and to mask what they're doing, but again, given the kinds of weaponry, given the kinds of command and control, certainly these are combined forces operating in eastern Ukraine.
QUESTION: Just two quick clarifications.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Are they under Russian command and control? That seems to be what you're asserting.
MS HARF: Well, no, I said the Russian-separatist forces are jointly operating command and control equipment together in eastern Ukraine.
QUESTION: And these are Russian army troops?
MS HARF: I don't know if it's army. I'm happy to check on specifics. But we've said Russian troops, yes.
QUESTION: And the UAVs are being flown from within Ukrainian territory, or across the border from Russia, or both?
MS HARF: Well, they're Russian UAVS. Let me see if we have more details about where they're being flown from.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS HARF: You're welcome.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, thank you. Ukraine. Last week, your colleague here at the briefing said that Ukraine's rebel forces are responsible for, quote, "the overwhelming number of violations of the Minsk agreements." I'm looking at the OSCE daily reports for the last two months – daily reports of violations – and here's what they show: Ceasefire violations – in nine of their reports, it appears that Donetsk and Lugansk forces were – have violated the ceasefire. In eight of their reports, it appears that the Ukrainian Government has violated the ceasefire. In nine of the reports, it was not clear who violated that ceasefire. Now, withdrawal of heavy weapons: rebel forces, 33 reports of violations; government forces, 35 reports of violations. This is hardly a vast majority behind --
MS HARF: I haven't seen --
QUESTION: A question.
MS HARF: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Where do you – and I mean the State Department – get the information that the rebel forces are responsible for the vast majority of violations?
MS HARF: From a variety of sources, including the OSCE. So I'm happy to take a look at what you've quoted specifically and look at the numbers underlying that.
QUESTION: I'm looking at all their daily --
MS HARF: But there're a lot of numbers here, and a lot of people can use numbers in different ways, and I want to take a look at them myself. But what we know from the OSCE – again, I can take a look at what numbers you're quoting, and I'm happy to get into them specifically and see what more we can say.
QUESTION: The daily reports – their daily reports do not show an overwhelming majority.
MS HARF: I think our experts who look at them say something different, so let me go back to our team. But everything we're getting from the OSCE and other sources of information indicates that a vast majority, as my colleague said, are from the Russian separatist combined forces. So we can go through the numbers, and I'm happy to do that, but again – I would also mention that the Russian separatist forces are preventing OSCE access in many places and they're not letting them in to see what's actually going on.
QUESTION: A simple question: Do you acknowledge that the Ukrainian Government too is violating the Minsk agreements?
MS HARF: Well, I think by saying a vast majority are the Russian separatist forces, that would then indicate --
QUESTION: But --
MS HARF: -- that a small, a very small minority are on the other side. But let's also remember here --
QUESTION: That is not clear from the OSCE daily report.
MS HARF: I just told you I would look at them, and we can get into a numbers game here and see what numbers you're using and what other experts, including our team, says. Broadly speaking, though, this is Ukrainian territory. The Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves when Russia sends into their territory heavy weapons, tanks, fighters, across that – just today across the ceasefire line into Ukrainian territory.
QUESTION: But that was not my question. Can I – it's a simple yes or no question.
MS HARF: I think I just answered your question.
QUESTION: Do you acknowledge that the Ukrainian Government too is violating the Minsk agreements? Yes or no.
MS HARF: I think I just – I think I – we don't do yes or no's here. I think I just answered your question when I said if a large majority is the Russian separatist forces, then there's a very small minority that is on the other side. I think I answered your question.
QUESTION: Is that a yes?
MS HARF: I'm not going to play that game with you.
QUESTION: It is not a game.
MS HARF: Justin, let's move on.
QUESTION: OSCE reports --
MS HARF: I said I --
QUESTION: -- show violations on both sides.
MS HARF: I said I would look into these reports, and I don't have anything else for you until I've seen them myself.
QUESTION: Why do you feel so uncomfortable to acknowledge --
MS HARF: I don't.
QUESTION: -- that the Ukrainian Government too is violating the Minsk agreements?
MS HARF: I don't feel uncomfortable about – I just answered your question.
QUESTION: Then why – you did not answer it. Yes or no. Did you answer question --
MS HARF: I'm not going to say yes or no.
QUESTION: -- do you acknowledge that the Ukrainian Government --
MS HARF: I'm going to answer the question in the way I think is appropriate, and I just did. And I'm going to move on now.
QUESTION: Which is not answering.
MS HARF: Justin.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. Just on this, Marie.
MS HARF: Yeah. Or Matt, go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you – as far as I can tell, you are acknowledging that there are some violations. You say --
MS HARF: We've said that publicly.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: But why did it take so long to get to the point where you would acknowledge them? I mean, two weeks ago there was no answer to the question at all, not even what you said --
MS HARF: I think often information is just conflicting and we don't have all the information we need to answer that question.
QUESTION: And --
MS HARF: In part, again, because OSCE monitors can't get into a lot of these places.
QUESTION: Given – if we accept what you say is happening is happening, and there are certainly independent reports of --
MS HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- big fighting going on, isn't Minsk dead now?
MS HARF: Well, we firmly believe that Minsk is the path forward here. And the Russians signed it, the Ukrainians signed it. And the Russians, when we were there, said privately and publicly they would implement it, which they haven't done yet. And we believe it is the right framework moving forward to de-escalate here; that it has in it the ingredients we need. What needs to happen isn't some new framework; it's the Russians actually implementing it.
QUESTION: Well, given what you've said today, do you – are you saying then that we were – when we – that when we were in Sochi, that President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov lied to the Secretary?
MS HARF: Not at all. Not at all.
QUESTION: Oh. Well, what --
MS HARF: They said it – Foreign Minister Lavrov said it in his press availability.
QUESTION: Right. But you seem to be taken aback a little bit by the fact that there is fighting going on and saying that the Russians are violating it.
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: So I just want to know: Do you think the Russians are backing out --
MS HARF: I mean --
QUESTION: -- going back on their word that they gave the Secretary?
MS HARF: I'll let them speak – I'll let them speak to the reasons why they haven't fully implemented Minsk yet. That's what I would say.
QUESTION: And – and then this is going to get back to the Secretary, but do you know if he's made any calls about this, and – or on other subjects while you've been --
MS HARF: He has not today. He has not today.
Yes, Pam.
QUESTION: Changing topics.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: On Islamic State, Deputy Secretary Blinken said today that about 10,000 Islamic State fighters have been killed in U.S.-led airstrikes since the campaign began last year. First, can you explain how he arrived at that number?
MS HARF: Well, I would say what he said was a bit more specific, but not really anything particularly new as we've been saying for some time that our airstrikes have taken out thousands of ISIL fighters in Iraq and in Syria, along with numerous commanders, vehicles, tanks. I could go through the numbers. So we've been saying for quite some time that we've taken out thousands of ISIL fighters. I don't think I have much more specifics to add in terms of methodology. He was saying – certainly, this is a more specific estimate of what we've said in the past, and that's all he was trying to indicate today.
QUESTION: Where is that number coming from, and also can you explain – do you have a breakdown on about how many would be in Iraq and how many would be in Syria?
MS HARF: I don't have a breakdown by country. We have a variety of ways of doing these estimates. I don't have much more detail to share for that for you.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: At the beginning of the conflict back in March, May last year, initial figures said that there were about 20,000 members of ISIL, and then that went up to about 30,000 members.
QUESTION: It did.
QUESTION: If this figure is true – 10,000 – that's a third of the force.
MS HARF: Well, but they've – they have replaced – as fighters are taken off the battlefield, there is – they have attempted to and have been able to, in cases, replace fighters from – either internally or from other places. It's something we're concerned about. So it's not a – I wouldn't just subtract.
QUESTION: Okay. So what's your best estimate now for the total number of ISIL forces?
MS HARF: That's a very good question. Let me check with our team and see what it is today.
QUESTION: Because I think about 10 days ago, it was still at 30,000. We had a background briefing.
MS HARF: Let me check on that. Let me check on that.
QUESTION: The other question --
MS HARF: It's a good question.
QUESTION: The other question would be: At what rate are they recruiting since the start of Operation Inherent Resolve?
MS HARF: Right, and replenishing their forces.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS HARF: And they certainly understand, given the firepower that's coming towards them, that they need to actively take steps to try to replenish their ranks, which they are trying to do. So I can see if there's some updated numbers.
QUESTION: And if they've been at 20,000 throughout this time, it would suggest that they're replenishing at the same rate that you're killing them.
MS HARF: I understand the question. I'm happy to check. I would also say that this is just sort of one fact and figure, that this is certainly not the metric by how we judge the effectiveness of the military action. There are a variety of ways you can do that, and it was sort of – I think the second-to-last question he got asked. And I understand why people are focused on it, but it's certainly not the metric we use to judge success here.
QUESTION: But you're not disputing the 10,000 figure?
MS HARF: No, no. I'm just trying to put it into some context.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: There are – I've just seen since it's come out – in the brief period since it's come out, there are a lot of skeptics questioning that number and suggesting that it's far too high. Given the type of strikes that you're doing and the number of strikes that have been conducted, the Pentagon's own assessment is that it's some number over 6,000, and a lot of it is like hitting oil refineries and buildings, and there's nobody on the ground to check these numbers, do a body count --
MS HARF: Well, it's just an estimate, as he said and as I just said.
QUESTION: Yeah. Is it a good estimate, though, is the question.
MS HARF: Well, I am certainly not going to dispute the estimate. And you're right, these are hard estimates to make often, given the situation on the battlefield. We said for many months now that we've taken out thousands of fighters. So it's just sort of a more specific estimate than we've been saying for a while.
QUESTION: Marie --
QUESTION: Can I just go back to that?
MS HARF: Oh, yeah.
QUESTION: Excuse me. Also the question about recruitment is pertinent, I think, because since one of the pillars of the anti-ISIL coalition is to actually actively target recruitment, if recruitment is going on at the rate that – the same numbers are being recruited as being killed, that would suggest that that channel is actually not being terribly effective.
MS HARF: In – well, in which channel are you referring to? Sorry.
QUESTION: Well, your – one of the things that you wanted to target --
MS HARF: Right, one of the lines of effort.
QUESTION: -- one of the lines of effort, thank you --
MS HARF: Right, yes, yes.
QUESTION: -- is to actively target recruitment of --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- foreign – particularly foreign fighters. So if your number is still – that there are still around 30,000 fighters and yet you've killed 10,000, that would suggest that the channel – the effort to stop the recruitment is not being terribly successful.
MS HARF: Well, I think a few points. First, they're not all foreign fighters. A lot of them are, particularly with ISIL. So I don't have a breakdown for that. We can see if we can get one for you. But I would say a couple pieces on it, and I got some of this on the foreign fighter issue.
Since September, 34 countries have changed or updated laws to criminalize going to fight with a terrorist organization – foreign terrorist fighting. At least 26 countries have made arrests to break up ISIL cells. Over the last couple months, we've seen announcements, for example, from Australia that they've questioned over 85,000 air travelers since increasing their efforts in August. And Turkey, which we know is a key transit country for foreign fighters, has a banned-from-entry list of about 13,000 suspects. Interpol has started with 12 foreign fighter identities on its watch list last year; now that's grown to almost 2,000.
So this is a really tough challenge, and the U.S. – here, DOJ has filed criminal charges in more than, I think, 40 foreign terrorist fighter cases to date, if my numbers are accurate. So it's a tough challenge. These are, at many places, porous borders. But countries are trying, and they're making progress, and we're going to keep pushing people to do more.
QUESTION: On --
QUESTION: Can we stay on this? Oh, go ahead.
MS HARF: Go ahead, yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. News reports quoted a Syrian security official today saying that 7,000 Iranian and Iraqi fighters have arrived to Damascus to defend the capital. Can you confirm these reports?
MS HARF: I saw some of those reports. I cannot confirm the details. We know the Assad regime receives – excuse me – the Assad regime receives support from Iran. It's enabled it to continue doing what it's doing. We've repeatedly criticized that publicly. We've targeted sanctions on the IRGC and the MOIS for that behavior. But I can't confirm those particular reports.
QUESTION: And were you able to confirm the other reports that said that the Syrian regime is helping ISIL – in the advance of ISIL?
MS HARF: I don't have anything more to share. Yesterday, as we noted, this was in reference to reports we have heard from the opposition regarding what's happening on the ground. We're looking into them at the moment, so --
QUESTION: And the Turkish foreign minister has made the same claim today.
MS HARF: A number of us have heard the same reports. That's why we mentioned them. But again, we're still looking for more – a little more evidence here.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Regarding the question of whether the Syrian military is bombing the opposition and avoiding attacking ISIL fighters, have you been able to get any more information about whether that, in fact, is happening, or whether there is any collusion between the Syrian military and ISIL?
MS HARF: As I – I think that was Michele's question, if I'm not mistaken. We are still looking into the credibility of these claims. We and others have heard these reports from opposition regarding the military situation on the ground. We're still looking into them at the moment, though, for sort of more evidence to see exactly what's happening here.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. therefore reluctant to step up the coalition airstrikes inside Syria because there is this uncertainty about who is where and who might possibly be in the line of fire, to use a phrase?
MS HARF: I don't think that these latest reports impact how our military decides when to use air power inside Syria. I think that there's a variety of factors that go into their decision making, which I'm sure they can speak to, to make sure they're hitting who they want to be hitting.
QUESTION: Marie, can I go back to this question too? Will you talk to the Iraqi Government and the Iranians about this report?
MS HARF: Which report?
QUESTION: About sending fighters from Iran and Iraq to Syria to defend the regime?
MS HARF: Not that I have heard, certainly, when it comes to Iran; I am happy to check with our team on Iraq. But we can't confirm that report.
Yes. Go ahead, and then I'll go to Nicolas.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MS HARF: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Taiwan. As I asked the day before yesterday on the Taiwan – the chair of the --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party arrived here. And it's – you mentioned the day before yesterday, you welcome her visit – look forward to a productive exchange. First of all, did you have already a productive conversation today or yesterday?
MS HARF: Let me see if I can get details for you. I don't think we're going to probably get into a lot of details of her meetings.
QUESTION: Okay. And is that the private conversation or – what kind of conversation was this?
MS HARF: Well, to discuss a wide range of issues, certainly. We, obviously, as you know, have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. This is an issue we're very focused on, but certainly we meet with a wide variety of people on this.
QUESTION: At the time you said we believe – quote, "We believe you can support Taiwan's security and freedom from coercion," which means – unquote – which means U.S. support Taiwan security and freedom from coercion. Is that correct?
MS HARF: Our policy on this hasn't changed.
QUESTION: And there is a possibility, as you know, Tsai Ing-wen would be a president of Taiwan next year. And as you know, in Democratic Progressive Party's policy is different from current administration. So my question is: What would you expect new administration next year dealing with these kind of cross-strait relationship or U.S.-Taiwan relationship?
MS HARF: I don't think we're going to speculate. It's certainly not something I'm going to speculate on.
Did you have a --
QUESTION: Who is she actually meeting with in the building?
MS HARF: I don't think we're going to get into those details, but I can see if there's more to share?
QUESTION: That's odd. You usually tell us who people are meeting with.
MS HARF: Not always. Not always.
QUESTION: Why would you not want to in this case?
MS HARF: I'll see if there's more details to share.
Yes, in the back. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Another China related question.
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: One of the highlights in Secretary Kerry's schedule this month is he's going to be the host of S&ED --
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: -- and the people-to-people consultation with China.
MS HARF: Yes, here in Washington.
QUESTION: Will he still be able to personally attend --
MS HARF: As I said the other day, I think the expectation is that he will.
QUESTION: Do you mean personally?
MS HARF: Yes, I mean personally.
Yes, Nicolas.
QUESTION: Can I ask you something about the biking accident?
MS HARF: You can.
QUESTION: Very quick one.
MS HARF: You can.
QUESTION: Is the Boston --
MS HARF: Biking, biking.
QUESTION: Is The Boston Globe report accurate?
MS HARF: Which one?
QUESTION: The one yesterday saying that --
MS HARF: Or which part of it? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: That he fell on the parking lot without having started his ride.
MS HARF: As I said in the briefing, it was just at the start of his ride. It was a curb. I'm not going to get into more details than that.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I go just to the FIFA saga?
MS HARF: You can.
QUESTION: So you addressed it yesterday --
MS HARF: I did.
QUESTION: -- and the White House addressed it a few minutes ago. But just more broadly, now that Sepp Blatter is out, would the U.S. be in favor of reviewing the conditions of attribution of the World Cup to Russia for 2018?
MS HARF: I just don't think we have more to say on this topic. As I said yesterday, we don't – the U.S. Government doesn't have a position on who the president of FIFA is, and I just don't – I'm probably not going to get into much speculation on those issues.
Yes.
QUESTION: Just one question about Ukraine – short question. Are you aware of any shellings of Donetsk today or yesterday?
MS HARF: Well, I don't know if you were here right at the top when I said that the Russian separatist forces launched coordinated attacks overnight against Ukrainian positions near Donetsk city and a couple other cities very close by.
QUESTION: Yes, but I'm talking about shelling by Ukrainian forces.
MS HARF: I'm not aware. I'm happy to check with our team.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: I'm just not. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Okay, and next question about MH-17. Today, Russian foreign minister – ministry urged United States to unveil satellite images taken on the date the plane crashed. So are you going to do that, or maybe you are going to transfer to investigators?
MS HARF: Well, we've worked with – we've given information to the investigators if we thought it was relevant. At the time, I remember us actually putting out maps. And those maps included where we believed, where we had evidence, that this missile was fired from. So we put out, actually, quite a bit of information at the time.
QUESTION: So nothing new?
MS HARF: Nothing new and our assessment of what happened has not changed.
QUESTION: Now I'm talking about new images maybe.
MS HARF: Correct. No.
QUESTION: Okay. And last question --
MS HARF: Yes. Oh, sorry.
QUESTION: -- involved a blacklist – a Russian blacklist against American citizens.
MS HARF: Americans?
QUESTION: Yes. American.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: Are you aware about it? Not European, but also American (inaudible).
MS HARF: Okay. I am obviously aware of the European one. I am happy to check if there's more specifics on the American side.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Okay.
QUESTION: Can I just come back to Syria --
MS HARF: You can.
QUESTION: -- and this human rights report on new chemical attacks in Idlib?
MS HARF: We – as we said before – look into any attacks or any reports of attacks, excuse me, using weapons such as these. Any of them are concerning. We've seen some credibility to some of these in the past, so I know our team's looking at it.
QUESTION: Sorry, just back on MH-17 for one thing.
MS HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: Did – in your response to the question, does that mean that the U.S. – excuse me – that the U.S. Government has turned over everything that it's going to turn over to the Dutch investigators? Or --
MS HARF: The investigation's ongoing. I'm happy to check and see what the status is.
QUESTION: Right. I just wanted – wondering if there's any – if you anticipate there'll be any more to come or if it's already all there. That's --
MS HARF: My guess is we've sort of provided what we're going to provide.
QUESTION: Can we go to Sudan quickly?
MS HARF: Sure. And then I will go your row, I promise.
QUESTION: Any comment on President Bashir's speech yesterday in which he said that he wanted to make nice with the West, reach out and hope for better relations?
MS HARF: I actually hadn't seen that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: I'm happy to check with our folks and get you a response.
Now I'm going to you, I promise.
QUESTION: Just a quick clarification on the Media Note this morning on the --
MS HARF: Which one?
QUESTION: -- meeting with the Okinawa governor.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: In the note it says, "The United States and Japan share an unwavering commitment to the construction of the Futenma replacement facility, the airfield at Camp Schwab. They pointed out that the FRF is not a new base; rather, the United States and Japan are adding capabilities to the existing base." This is referring to the plan – the initial plan for reclamation and a fairly large-scale airfield and not – there was a Plan B mentioned at one point that would be a smaller helipad within Camp Schwab.
MS HARF: Okay. Let me – I'm happy to check with our team for more specifics on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: So can you – on Iraq, can you read out how much the State Department has given Iraq since 2011 in foreign military sales and what kind of military equipment is slated to be delivered in the future?
MS HARF: I'm happy to get you a full list after the briefing.
QUESTION: And given all the weaponry and equipment squandered by the Iraqi forces in the fight against ISIL, do you think giving more will help?
MS HARF: Well, I'd make a few points. First, I don't agree with your assertion that the Iraqi military is not using what we're giving them to push back on ISIL. In fact, they are. The Iraqi Armed Forces, including the Kurdish forces, are using the assistance we're giving them, and we're going to keep giving them more, because they need that assistance to take on ISIL. They need the kinds of weapons we can provide. They need the kinds of anti-tank weapon systems, as we talked about yesterday, that we can provide.
So one of the major parts of our strategy here is building up the Iraqi forces so they can increasingly take the fight to ISIL. So that's a key – really a key pillar of what we're doing.
QUESTION: And then one --
QUESTION: But isn't it also the case that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh is using the stuff that – the American stuff that they captured or took from --
MS HARF: In some cases, yes.
QUESTION: -- to really take it to the Iraqis and the Kurds, the forces that are fighting them?
MS HARF: Well, they're certainly using some things they have recovered during battle --
QUESTION: Some? I mean, are we talking about thousands of Humvees, right? Is that --
MS HARF: I don't have the exact numbers in front of me.
QUESTION: Right.
MS HARF: But in general --
QUESTION: But it's a lot.
MS HARF: It's – I can get the exact numbers for you or see if DOD has them. They're probably the better place to go. But in general, that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to help the Iraqis get better, to help their forces improve, and to give them the kinds of assistance they need.
QUESTION: You say that's not a dilemma at all for the U.S.? There's no --
MS HARF: We believe that it's important to continue assisting the Iraqis here.
Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Can I go to a separate topic, the Taliban 5? Now that they have 70 family members with them, is that a situation the U.S. supports?
MS HARF: What do you mean, "supports"?
QUESTION: Some would say that --
MS HARF: I mean, not – they've had family members with them the whole time, I think.
QUESTION: Yeah. So --
MS HARF: I don't think that's new.
QUESTION: Some would say that their presence might increase the men's ability to re-engage with terrorist networks.
MS HARF: I'm not sure why that would be the case. It seems like pure speculation to me. And what we're doing right now is working to see while they maintain their restrictive conditions on them to see if we can – we're in discussions for what will happen next to them.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: How long was that mini-extension?
MS HARF: No update.
QUESTION: Yeah. How long was that mini-extension?
MS HARF: In – as the discussions are ongoing. So it's open-ended until --
QUESTION: It's indefinite?
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: So if the discussions go on for another 10 years, it would be --
MS HARF: I don't anticipate them going on that long, Matt.
QUESTION: Just --
MS HARF: And we – we would like and I think everyone would like to get them finished, but there are some complicated issues and we need to have the assurances we need that they're not a security risk to the U.S.
Yes.
QUESTION: You can just keep saying, "I didn't get your last email," until indefinitely, right?
MS HARF: (Laughter.) I guess. I'm not sure I get the reference.
QUESTION: Okay. Let's go on, yeah.
MS HARF: Let's move on.
QUESTION: Sorry. Going back to Okinawa, I have a question. In the memo you mentioned the good relations between the Okinawan community. How do you reconcile that with the significant opposition to the Futenma relocation?
MS HARF: Well, I think we've seen, certainly, personal friendship extended by the people of Okinawa to the resident U.S. service men and women that have served there and are serving there. I think we've had conversations for a long time with the people of Okinawa about this issue, certainly. And this is something that I know here and at the Department of Defense is very important to both of us.
QUESTION: I've got two really brief ones.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: One I think you're going to have to take.
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: But the special envoy for LGBT affairs --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: -- was recently in Jamaica.
MS HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: And I'm just wondering if there is more that – more about the programs that he outlined while he was there in terms of civil society and protections for this community.
MS HARF: I will take that and check with him.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And then the last one. There was a report in The Washington Times about the Clinton Foundation in Sweden. Have you seen this?
MS HARF: In Sweden? I'm sorry, I haven't seen the one about Sweden. But give it a shot.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you're – you're not going to be able to answer it. So anyway --
MS HARF: Well --
QUESTION: But might I ask --
MS HARF: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- that someone in this building take a look at the story and --
MS HARF: I'm sure someone in this building has seen the story.
QUESTION: Well, okay, but prepare some kind of --
MS HARF: You can get a response.
QUESTION: -- a response to the questions that it raises, which – it raises some significant --
MS HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- questions. Again, it's another one of these stories that just raises questions --
MS HARF: Doesn't answer them.
QUESTION: -- but it doesn't necessarily answer them, so --
MS HARF: I will endeavor to answer them.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Actually, whilst Matt's just mentioned Clinton --
MS HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: -- back into last week, the judge came back in the case about the emails, and it was happening as your colleague was at the podium.
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: So are you going to comply with the order that it will be every --
MS HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: You are, okay.
MS HARF: We are. And the first, I think, will be June 30th.
QUESTION: June 30th.
MS HARF: Which is an important date for a number of reasons.
QUESTION: A big day.
MS HARF: Yes. I imagine I will be in Vienna or somewhere else.
Anything else? Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:38 p.m.)
[1] Briefer is referring to the 7,650 kg threshold.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
