• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 15, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

GEORGIA
SOUTH AFRICA/SUDAN
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
LIBYA
YEMEN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
HAITI/VENEZUELA
UKRAINE
DEPARTMENT
IRAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

12:20 p.m. EDT

MR RATHKE: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR RATHKE: Hello. Sorry for the early briefing and for my delayed start of the early briefing, if I can put it that way. I have a hard stop, so I will need to keep this one brisk, if possible.

One thing at the top. We are saddened by the disastrous flooding that occurred in Tbilisi, Georgia over the weekend. We express our deep condolences to the families and friends of those who lost lives, and as the Georgian people begin to rebuild, the United States, as a friend and partner, will be by their side. Members of the U.S. embassy community are already assisting in clearing debris, and the United States stands ready to assist the Georgian Government in the recovery effort.

And with that, over to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Last night you guys put out a statement that called on the Government of South Africa to respect the international community's efforts to provide justice for the victims of – the Darfur victims. This is in relation clearly to the – I mean, what I'm talking about – the International Criminal Court. Now that President Bashir has arrived home, and the South Africans clearly did not hold him there, I'm wondering if you have any opinion about that. And I'm also wondering exactly what it was you were calling for the Government of South Africa to do yesterday.

MR RATHKE: Well, the first – in response to the first part of your question, we expressed concern yesterday about President Bashir's travel to South Africa for the African Union summit. President Bashir, as people know, has been indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges of crimes against humanity and genocide. And so warrants for his arrest remain outstanding.

And so I can repeat again what we said yesterday. We are concerned by his travel to South Africa for the African Union summit. The Security Council has refer – has urged all states and the concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully with the court and the prosecutor.

So – now with respect to the question of South African actions, again, there were some court actions ongoing yesterday and I won't speak to the particulars of those – of where those stood, not being an expert on South Africa's internal processes, but again we – given the international arrest warrant and Security Council action and so forth, we certainly regretted his travel to South Africa and that's how we see it.

QUESTION: Well, that's fine but that's not what I'm asking. He's now left. So the South African Government let him go despite the court order to have him stay, and I'm wondering what your reaction to that is, and I'm --

MR RATHKE: Well, we're disappointed that no action was taken and that he was able to attend the African Union summit.

QUESTION: No, but that's – are you disappointed that they allowed him to leave?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, so – two things. As I said, we're disappointed that he was able to attend because there is an international --

QUESTION: I got that.

MR RATHKE: -- arrest warrant, and then we're also disappointed that no action was taken --

QUESTION: To prevent him from leaving.

MR RATHKE: Yeah. Now, what specific action would have been necessary --

QUESTION: So --

MR RATHKE: -- I'm not going to proscribe, but certainly, yes, we're concerned on both accounts.

QUESTION: Well, can you explain then what you mean when you – what you meant when you called on the Government of South Africa to respect the international community's efforts to provide justice for the victims of the – for Darfur victims? Did you specifically want the South African Government not to allow him to leave – to arrest him and to transport him to The Hague?

MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to specify what exactly the South African Government had to do to meet that, but I think the call – our call was clear, that there is an international arrest warrant, and South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute.

QUESTION: So they should have --

MR RATHKE: Precisely how they meet that obligation is for South African authorities to determine. But we think that, clearly, some action should have been taken.

QUESTION: Did they meet that obligation? And I don't think it's a matter for the South African authorities to determine. To meet the obligation, they would have had to --

MR RATHKE: Well, no, you laid out a very specific set of --

QUESTION: So it's possible to meet their – so it is possible – it would have been possible for South Africa to meet its obligation without detaining Bashir and sending him to The Hague?

MR RATHKE: Again, Matt, we – our position is that we're disappointed that he was able to travel. I have not seen confirmation that he, indeed, has departed. I know there have been a lot of reports about that. As of the time I came out here, I hadn't seen confirmation of those reports. But certainly, if he was able to depart with no action having been taken, then we're also disappointed by that as well.

QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield was attending the AU summit. Do you know whether she or the U.S. ambassador to South Africa have expressed this government's concerns and disappointment about Bashir's travels both to and from South Africa?

MR RATHKE: Right. Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield and our special envoy, Don Booth, are both in Johannesburg for the African Union summit, and our senior officials have conveyed U.S. views to the Government of South Africa about this situation.

QUESTION: And are the officials satisfied with the response that they got from the South African Government?

MR RATHKE: I'm not going to go into further detail about our diplomatic exchanges on this issue, but we've raised our concerns, most certainly.

QUESTION: Why not?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think I'll leave it what I said.

Yes.

QUESTION: Did the Administration have a position on the South African foreign ministry granting all the attendants of the summit diplomatic immunity?

MR RATHKE: I am not – I'm not – is there --

QUESTION: Well, that's one of the reasons that he went or felt comfortable going, was that they had promised him in advance that he would have immunity.

MR RATHKE: I'm not aware of that, so I simply don't have a specific response to that.

QUESTION: What makes South Africa different from other countries where Bashir has traveled to before?

MR RATHKE: Do you have some specific --

QUESTION: You want me to speculate or what?

QUESTION: He was also in Egypt.

MR RATHKE: No, the specifics. I said you --

QUESTION: He – for example, the Secretary was recently in Nigeria for an inauguration. He was on the same VIP tribune as Bashir. There was no call to take action then. Is South Africa special, or you expect more of them than other African countries?

MR RATHKE: Well, I'll let the South Africans speak to their own --

QUESTION: No, I'm asking about you.

MR RATHKE: -- to their standards.

QUESTION: I'm not asking about South Africa.

MR RATHKE: Right, but --

QUESTION: I'm asking why you ask – demand this from South Africa in this instance, but you don't demand it in other instances.

MR RATHKE: Well, again, we set --

QUESTION: That has nothing to do about South Africa.

MR RATHKE: We strongly support the ICC's efforts to hold those accountable who are responsible for genocide, for crimes against humanity, and for war crimes.

QUESTION: Except when they go to Nigeria?

MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have the detail of every place where President Bashir may have traveled, so I'm not --

QUESTION: He was there. You're – I mean, the Secretary of State was there probably within 10 meters of him.

MR RATHKE: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: I was there.

MR RATHKE: Well, I have no doubt you were there, Brad, but I don't have a specific response on that.

QUESTION: Jeff?

MR RATHKE: Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: I was going to follow up on that. So ahead of time – did the U.S. know ahead of time that Bashir was going to the AU summit?

MR RATHKE: I don't have that level of detail. I don't have a catalog of those discussions.

QUESTION: And if it was, I mean, did they ask for this arrest to happen before it happened? Or is this just since the AU summit began and everybody had gathered?

MR RATHKE: I don't have detail about any information that may have been discussed beforehand. I --

QUESTION: And then just to follow up to what Matt was saying, do you believe he should have been arrested?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, the – we strongly support the ICC's efforts to hold those accountable who are accused of crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. So we certainly are disappointed that no action was taken.

QUESTION: So why is it that you haven't joined up?

MR RATHKE: Pardon?

QUESTION: Why isn't the U.S. a member of the – U.S. a member of the court if you strongly support the court's --

MR RATHKE: Well, we are not a party to the Rome Statute. That's --

QUESTION: Is that simply because you don't believe you can get the approval of it in the Senate?

MR RATHKE: Look, our policy on U.S. – on the U.S. joining the Rome Statute hasn't changed.

QUESTION: Okay. Well --

MR RATHKE: New topic?

QUESTION: No, same topic.

MR RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Jeff, can you – you said a little bit earlier that officials had conveyed U.S. views to South Africa.

MR RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate on that in terms of timing? Was that concerning the statement that went out over the weekend, or is that something that happened today as a result of Bashir being able to travel back home?

MR RATHKE: Well, the situation has unfolded over the weekend. I'm not going to get into the timing of every exchange, but as this issue came to light we have raised our concerns with the Government of South Africa.

QUESTION: Do you know if there have been any concerns expressed to South Africa within the past couple of hours, or will there be now that there's word that he has returned to Sudan?

MR RATHKE: I don't have further detail to offer of our discussions with South Africa in this regard. We've – but we've certainly made our views clear.

QUESTION: I'd like to change the subject if you'd like.

MR RATHKE: Please.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) I'm sure you will have seen this story that appeared in the Sunday Times of London yesterday that's generated a substantial bit of controversy involving Edward Snowden – the story involved Edward Snowden – saying that British and U.S. intelligence agencies have had to pull people out of countries like – or saying that Russia and China had decrypted all the information that he had, and as a result, U.S. and Britain have had to pull people out of sensitive spots. I know you're not going to talk about intelligence, but the story – the article contained quotes from British officials, or at least one British official, who said that Snowden had blood on his hands, and I'm wondering if the Administration – this Administration – agrees with that opinion expressed in this story.

MR RATHKE: Look, as you said, I'm not going to comment about intelligence matters, and I'm not going to comment on the – if I'm not mistaken, I think unnamed sources in an article about intelligence matters. So --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, quite apart from the article, then, does the United States believe that Mr. Snowden's revelations or the documents that he took resulted in the compromising of any agent or --

MR RATHKE: Look, the Administration's point of view on Edward Snowden hasn't changed. If you want to ask about the implication or damage of his revelations, I think other agencies in Washington are better positioned to speak to that.

QUESTION: Okay. But speaking for the Administration – you're the first one to be doing it today, I think, unless the White House has already begun – you don't share the sentiment expressed that he has blood on his --

MR RATHKE: I'm simply not going to comment on that specific assertion.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Does the --

MR RATHKE: Yes, go ahead, Ros.

QUESTION: Does the United States still believe that what Edward Snowden did and brags about hurt U.S.'s national security interests?

MR RATHKE: As I said in response to Matt's question, our position on that hasn't changed. We believe he should return to the United States to face justice. I don't have further comment to offer.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR RATHKE: Syria. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Kurdish forces claim that they have taken Tal Abyad, which is apparently a strategic town that links Raqqa, the capital for ISIS, and the Turkish border. That would potentially cut off the supply line for the foreign fighters and foreign people who want to join ISIS. Do you have a confirmation of that, or --

MR RATHKE: I certainly don't have a battlefield update or a confirmation of the outcomes of specific military actions. We're of course – we know there are reports about this, but I'd refer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department for anything that goes into more detail about the tactical arrangement of forces inside Syria.

QUESTION: Just one more question: There were reports that the Syrian prime minister visited some of the areas that are both under the control of the Kurdish forces and the regime forces. Are you concerned about that a Syrian government official can visit some of the Kurdish area – the areas under Kurdish rebel control in Syria?

MR RATHKE: Well, I mean, our concerns about the Syrian regime are much broader than that, because they are responsible for the violence and bloodshed that's happened in Syria over the course of these last years. So of course we're concerned about that, but I'm not going to comment on their travel – on their internal travel.

QUESTION: Same topic?

MR RATHKE: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have comment on reports by some of the Syrian rebel groups that the Kurds have pushed out Arab civilians as part --

MR RATHKE: I think I spoke to this on Friday, so – but is there – is this newer information? I mean, we're certainly aware that these reports have been made. We're not able to confirm those. We are concerned, though, about reports of civilians fleeing areas of fighting in northeastern Syria. We're seeking more information about that, but I'm not in a position to confirm it from here.

QUESTION: So you – at this point, you just – they're just civilians fleeing; you have no indication that the Kurds are actually pushing people from their land or scaring people into leaving?

MR RATHKE: Yeah, I don't have further confirmation of the circumstances.

Elise, go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to change the subject, so --

QUESTION: Can we stay on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah, just one more on Syria.

MR RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: There are some reports coming out of the region that Western countries might be considering some sort of reconciliation – that might be too strong a word – with Jabhat al-Nusrah or al-Nusrah Front. Given that al-Nusrah Front is on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations, is that being considered at all by this Administration?

MR RATHKE: Well, I most recently talked about this in here on Friday. We strongly condemn the Nusrah Front's attacks, including on Druze villages in Idlib. Our position overall on Nusrah has not changed. It is al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria. It's a designated foreign terrorist organization. We are not and we will not coordinate with Nusrah, and that's quite clear in our --

QUESTION: Would you --

MR RATHKE: -- in our perspective.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. Would the U.S. caution other countries against any efforts to build a relationship with Jabhat al-Nusrah?

MR RATHKE: Well, our position on this is – on Nusrah is clear. I'm not sure specifically which reports you're referring to, but I think we've also made our view of Nusrah clear to all of our partners.

QUESTION: On this --

MR RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Jeff, too. Al-Nusrah Front is receiving aids from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, and these are U.S. allies. Do you accept that?

MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to.

QUESTION: They are receiving aids --

MR RATHKE: Again, our view on Nusrah --

QUESTION: -- ammunitions and arms --

MR RATHKE: Our Nusrah is – our view on Nusrah is clear and it's also clear to our partners.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Qataris are clearly trying to rehabilitate these guys – I mean, trying to bring them into the political process, hoping that not only could that improve the situation on the ground, but moderate al-Nusrah, too.

MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not going to speculate behind other government – about other governments' views on this. But our view on Nusrah is clear.

QUESTION: Well, I mean --

MR RATHKE: They're al-Qaida's affiliate and we're not going to work with them.

QUESTION: I understand that you have differing views. But I mean, if they're trying to bring these guys into the political process, and the U.S. is one of the kind of patrons of this political process.

MR RATHKE: Well, and our view on Nusrah is clear. I'm not sure what --

QUESTION: So you're saying that al-Nusrah would not be welcomed into any type of political reconciliation?

MR RATHKE: So look, they're a foreign terrorist organization. We are not cooperating with them. We're not coordinating with them. And we've --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR RATHKE: We haven't changed our view on that.

QUESTION: Jeff, a foreign terrorist organization is more than just "we don't cooperate with them." It actually puts – it is used to pressure anyone who cooperates with them, including foreign governments, foreign financial institutions. Are you actively seeking to enforce that rule on anyone that either aids them or maintains contacts with them?

MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have specific steps underway to read out, and especially on the financial actions and so forth. That would be the Department of Treasury. But again, our view on Nusrah remains the same, and we certainly continue to carry out our obligations under U.S. law.

We've only got a little bit more time --

QUESTION: Can I move to Libya?

MR RATHKE: Yeah. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR RATHKE: No, no, we're not going to have time.

QUESTION: Nicolas, did you have something?

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was wondering – there are some reports that the target of the strike yesterday was not just Mokhtar Belmokhtar, the head of AQIM, but also a meeting of ISIS and AQIM officials. Could you speak to any type of info that you have on a potential alliance or kind of a more of a coming together of these groups?

MR RATHKE: Well, what I'm able to confirm is that the target of the Saturday night strike in Libya was Mokhtar Belmokhtar. He has a long history of leading terrorist activities as a member of AQIM and as the operational leader of the Al Murabitun organization, and he maintains a personal allegiance to al-Qaida. So that was the target. I don't have additional details about any of the operational circumstances surrounding the strike.

QUESTION: I mean, how concerning is it that you have ISIS growing in the country; obviously, you still have larger concerns about AQIM; and Libya basically has no functioning government, there's a total vacuum; and some people would argue that that's in some part due to a lack of U.S. political engagement and abandonment over the last several years.

MR RATHKE: Well, we are deeply concerned about the situation in Libya, including reports of ISIL-affiliated groups there. That's why we have been supporting strongly the UN-led process which was taking place in Morocco and then in Berlin to try to move forward. And we strongly support the special representative, Bernardino Leon, and we think that has – that there has – there was progress made over the last week to 10 days.

And where things stand now is the Libyan leadership that met in Berlin, they've gone back to Libya to meet with their organizations, their delegations, their constituents, and to try to discuss this political agreement and find a way to move forward in Libya. So we expect these negotiations to reconvene soon in this UN framework, and we are supporting it strongly because we think there needs to be a political solution to the divisions --

QUESTION: But specifically, I mean, it might have been about eight months or a year ago, President Obama himself said that he wished that he had, back in the day, kind of put more skin in the game in Libya. And I'm wondering to how much of what we're seeing right now is a result of lack of U.S. engagement on the ground.

MR RATHKE: Well, we have --

QUESTION: Your embassy is closed. You don't have an ambassador on the ground. There's --

MR RATHKE: Which were steps that were taken in response to the deteriorating security situation. So we've remained engaged with the parties and with the UN process. We continue to support it, and that will remain as we move forward.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you get the target? Can you confirm that you're (inaudible)?

MR RATHKE: I'm not in a position to – I would refer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department for the assessment of the outcome of the operation. I don't have anything to offer from here.

QUESTION: And you don't know if this was about – what – Elise is saying this is about a meeting between locals – al-Qaida and Islamic State, members that they were trying to break up they learned about?

MR RATHKE: I understand Elise's question, but I don't have additional details surrounding the operation or the strike.

QUESTION: On Yemen?

MR RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: Houthi representatives weren't able to arrive to Geneva today to attend the conference and the meeting. Do you have anything on this?

MR RATHKE: Well, we understand that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed some of the delegates this morning and other delegates are en route to Geneva, so I'd refer back to the UN for the particular details about attendance and so forth. But we understand that other delegates are on their way there.

QUESTION: News reports said that they are still in Djibouti and weren't able to travel to Geneva.

MR RATHKE: I'm not in a position to confirm those reports from here.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Geneva for a second?

MR RATHKE: Sure.

QUESTION: This week at some point, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Gaza – the Gaza conflict is supposed to release its report. Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday or over the weekend at some point that reading this report would be a waste of time. I'm wondering if you agree with his sentiments about this.

MR RATHKE: Well, we haven't seen the report, but as I'm sure you remember, the United States strongly opposed the creation of the Gaza commission of inquiry. There is unfortunately a long history of anti-Israeli bias in UN resolutions and mechanisms, including at the Human Rights Council, which persists in an unbalanced focus on Israel by singling it out with a permanent agenda item, for example. So we've opposed the commission of inquiry reports – the creation of the commission of the inquiry, excuse me.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, do you believe that there should be an inquiry if it's not unfair or biased?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, the – I know, of course, the Israeli authorities have conducted an investigation and --

QUESTION: They have, which was – my next question was about that.

MR RATHKE: Yeah, which we talked about last Friday.

QUESTION: Well, that was an investigation that I would – my question last Friday was about the Gaza beach. It was specifically about that. I'm wondering – so you're correct, the Israelis produced their own report, they put it out last night, and it basically says that everything was – that they acted in accordance with international law and didn't do anything wrong. So do you accept the findings of that report?

MR RATHKE: I'm not sure if we've reviewed those findings in detail, so I don't have a reaction to the report to offer.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR RATHKE: But I think what I said Friday about our view at the time still stands.

QUESTION: So you have not seen either report, and yet the one from the UN Commission of Inquiry is biased and unbalanced?

MR RATHKE: Well, again, we opposed the --

QUESTION: And you can't – I understand that.

MR RATHKE: I'm not judging the report, Matt.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. So the --

MR RATHKE: I'm judging the creation of the commission of inquiry, which is what we opposed.

QUESTION: Okay. So the report, actually, that it produces is not necessarily a bad one, or unfair and biased?

MR RATHKE: Well, we have not seen the report.

QUESTION: I know, but you haven't seen --

MR RATHKE: I'm not going to characterize a report I haven't seen, but we --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR RATHKE: -- oppose the creation of the commission of inquiry --

QUESTION: All right.

MR RATHKE: -- because of a long history of anti-Israel bias at the UN. So I'm not going to --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR RATHKE: -- hold out particular hope.

QUESTION: I understand. So once the report is out --

MR RATHKE: The results of that process.

QUESTION: -- though and once you – and once people in this building or around the Administration have read the Israelis' own report, can we expect that you'll have some kind of comment on what these two reports say?

MR RATHKE: Well, we'll certain – I'm sure we'll look at the Israeli report.

QUESTION: All right.

MR RATHKE: I don't know exactly what kind of comment we're going to offer.

QUESTION: Oh, one more. One more.

MR RATHKE: We just have time for just a couple more. Go ahead.

QUESTION: This is very brief, on the – UNRWA, which is the UN --

MR RATHKE: Yes.

QUESTION: -- Relief and Works Agency, the head of UNRWA has said today that basically, they're in the worst financial straits that they've been in since they – it was created 60-odd years ago. I'm just wondering if – the United States has been a leading donor to UNRWA. I'm wondering if you're aware of these financial difficulties that they're in and if there is any – if there are any plans to do – for the U.S. to do anything about it.

MR RATHKE: I was not aware of that comment. You are right that we are a major donor to UNRWA, but I'm happy to --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR RATHKE: -- look into that and see if we have anything more specific to say in response to those comments.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR RATHKE: Yes, Pam.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, Thomas Shannon met with Venezuelan officials in Haiti. Can you talk about specifically what was discussed, and also if they were able to make progress in resolving longstanding tensions between the two countries?

MR RATHKE: Well – so, yes, Tom Shannon, the counselor of the department, was in Port-au-Prince in the last few days. He was there with Special Coordinator for Haiti Tom Adams and the – our U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Pam White. They all participated in discussions about support for Haiti's elections and for reconstruction and development in Haiti.

Now they also had the opportunity while they were there – that is, Ambassador Shannon had the opportunity to talk to the Venezuelan foreign minister. As you know, Ambassador Shannon has traveled in the last couple of months on two occasions to Caracas and has had discussions with President Maduro. And so as in these previous meetings, Ambassador Shannon talked with Venezuelan counterparts. They touched on all elements of our bilateral relationship. They were positive meetings. They were productive meetings. But I don't have further characterization of them to offer.

Yes.

QUESTION: He also met with the Parliament Speaker Cabello, who's under investigation for U.S. drug trafficking. Do you know what they spoke about?

MR RATHKE: Are you saying it was a separate meeting or was he part of the – was he part of the delegation?

QUESTION: I don't – well, I don't have all the rosters of your various meetings with folks.

MR RATHKE: Yeah. Yeah, no I – that's – I also don't have that. I was not aware of a meeting with him.

QUESTION: It's even gotten some criticism here at home. For example, Senator Rubio called this a "bizarre and confusing" meeting. So I was wondering if you had a response to that.

MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. Again, I don't have a lineup of who was on the Venezuelan side. I'm happy to look into that and --

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

MR RATHKE: -- see if we can say more about that.

QUESTION: Can you take --

MR RATHKE: Yeah, we can look into that.

QUESTION: All right.

MR RATHKE: Okay?

QUESTION: I have a brief one --

MR RATHKE: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- that's probably going to be a (inaudible) question. There is legislation in the House right now that would ban any U.S. assistance training to the Azov Battalion in Ukraine. And I'm just wondering if – it's my understanding that this battalion does not – which has been accused of being a neo-Nazi, right-wing – hard, extreme right-wing part of militia – it's my understanding that they do not currently get any U.S. assistance or training, and that's the plan to continue. But I'm wondering if the Administration has an opinion on whether or not Congress should put that – should make that a law.

MR RATHKE: Mm-hmm. I don't have a position on the legislation to offer, but with respect to that, those particular concerns, on the one hand we commend Ukraine for its efforts to incorporate volunteer battalions into the ministries of defense and interior. And with respect to the Azov Battalion, they are not involved in training. We haven't had plans to train them. So we look forward to working with Ukraine to identify the best candidates for U.S.-provided training. And of course, for any training we do, all the appropriate vetting, including human rights vetting, is part of that process.

QUESTION: Right. I understand that. I just want to know if the Administration has a position on putting this into law.

MR RATHKE: Yeah. If we have more on that, I'll come back to you with it, and I'm not sure we will.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Oh, wait. One more.

MR RATHKE: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Secretary, do you have an update on when he'll be returning to work?

MR RATHKE: I don't have an update. You may have seen he did an interview over the weekend with The Boston Globe, and that adds a bit to his comments that he made last Friday as he left the hospital. But I don't have any further details on --

QUESTION: Is there any update on the Iran talks situation?

MR RATHKE: The experts remain in discussions. Under Secretary Sherman was there at the end of last week. She came back over the weekend. Anticipate she'll go out soon, but we'll announce more details about that.

QUESTION: Soon as in this week?

MR RATHKE: Probably, yeah. But I – we'll put out more detail on that as we're closer to it.

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:50 p.m.)