Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 17, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
IRAN
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT
BURMA
SYRIA
CHINA
IRAQ
YEMEN
PAKISTAN/INDIA
BENGHAZI
IRAQ
BENGHAZI
PALESTINIANS
ISRAEL
DEPARTMENT
DPRK
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
LEBANON
CUBA
GREECE
TRANSCRIPT:
2:05 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. Yeah, I'm not exactly right on time, but I tried to get closer to it today.
A couple things at the top I want to just hit here if you'll allow me. I want to make a specific comment about some of the coverage of Secretary Kerry's press conference yesterday. By the way, thanks for attending that. But I think some of the coverage has sort of taken the tone that there's a change in our policy with respect to possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, or that it's a concession about to be offered or changed. And that is absolutely, completely false. The Secretary was very clear yesterday that, as before, we absolutely require Iran to give the IEA – IAEA the access that they need to resolve any possible military dimensions of their program. We've said we're not looking for a confession; we've already made judgments about the past. But the sanctions lifting will only occur as Iran takes the steps agreed, including addressing possible military dimensions. Now, the negotiations are ongoing and I'm not going to talk about the specifics of it. But I want to put a fork in it right now that there's any kind of concession or change in the policy. It's just not simply true.
I also want to make a short statement about the – some technical problems that our Bureau of Consular Affairs is experiencing. As you know, they continue to experience these technical problems with the visa systems. And this is a global issue, and we're working around the clock to fix it. In fact, more than 100 computer experts from both the private and public sectors across the United States are working on this as we speak. That said, for all the hard work, we don't expect that the system will be online before next week. I can't give you any more specific detail with respect to timing on that. And the problem, as I said at the outset, stems from a hardware failure. That failure right now is preventing the Department from processing and transmitting the mandatory security-related biometric data checks at our embassies and consulates. Certainly we regret this inconvenience to travelers, recognize that this is causing hardship for those that are waiting for visas, and in some cases their family members or employers in the United States. That said, this is a – very much a security issue, and that's why we're taking it so seriously. So we're going to get it done, we're going to get it done right, and we're not going to rush as well. We're working on this as fast as we can, but it's important to get it done right. And, of course, we're going to continue to post regular updates on our website, travel.state.gov.
And with that, we'll start.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Matt.
QUESTION: Well, first of all, welcome. This is your first real briefing, since yesterday you had help from the Secretary, or more than help.
MR KIRBY: I would --
QUESTION: He did the whole thing. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I was – yeah, I was telling somebody earlier, my dad was my little league baseball coach, and he used to make us take the first called strike to relax the batter, used to wait for the first called strike. Yesterday was my first called strike, so --
QUESTION: (Laughter.) All right, well, hopefully you won't strike out today or in the next few minutes. (Laughter.) I'm sure you won't.
MR KIRBY: I am hoping that that's the same, Matt.
QUESTION: I'm sure you won't. Just logistically, on the technical issue that you mentioned --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- you said that you're taking your time to get this done right. Well, this happened before, and it was supposedly fixed after several weeks of serious delays --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that inconvenienced millions of people. So why wasn't it done right the first time?
MR KIRBY: I don't know that there's a relationship to any previous hardware problems and what's going on now. But they have figured a way through this, basically by recreating their backup system. And that's what they're working on now. I don't know if there's a relation to it in the past, but again, they're working on this real hard.
QUESTION: All right. And you're sure that this hardware failure was not caused by any kind of outside mischief or --
MR KIRBY: That's correct.
QUESTION: All right. So on the – onto policy substance. You are correct that the Secretary was very clear yesterday, but I don't think you're correct in what he was clear about. The Secretary was very clear that the United States and its partners in the P5+1 negotiations are, quote/unquote, "not fixated" on the PMD issue --
MR KIRBY: That's right.
QUESTION: -- and that what is of more concern is what they are going to do in the future. Now, that suggests that what had been a hard and fast line for a long time, that Iran resolve the PMDs as part of a final agreement, has now been kicked down the road so that all they have to do, or all you are asking them to do, is to present a plan whereby those concerns can be resolved at some point after a final deal is reached. That is the interpretation that I think everyone in this room had, and the reports that you say that are wrong said, so what's --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: How exactly is that a misinterpretation of what he said?
MR KIRBY: I agree with you that that is the way some people have interpreted it, and I can understand --
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: I can understand why that suggestion may have been considered by some of those covering it. But saying that we're not fixated – and he said we're not fixated on any point in time. He didn't say that past or present possible military dimensions of their program don't matter. Of course they matter. They were mentioned in – it's very clear in the JPOA that was signed in November, and then again in the parameters that were signed in April – it's very clear what the expectations are of Iran in addressing the concerns and resolving those concerns to the IAEA.
So saying we're not fixated on a point in time is true, but it's also true that past possible military dimensions do figure prominently in this.
QUESTION: Yeah, right, but I don't think anyone said that they don't – no one reported that the Secretary said they don't matter. What was reported and what the Secretary said – and I think that the reporting was an accurate reflection of what he said – was that they do not have to be resolved for there to be an agreement, or that the inference that one could make – that they don't have to be resolved before an agreement is made. Therefore, what you're looking for now is – and this is what I'm trying to find out – it sounds as though what you're looking for now is not a resolution of those concerns, but rather an agreement with Iran that somehow those concerns will be addressed in the future, if it is – if it expects to get some, not all, of the sanctions relief that it believes it's entitled to.
MR KIRBY: And again, I'd tell you that that interpretation of his comments is incorrect. Let me, if I could, read to you what he actually said to you in your question: "On something like possible military dimensions" – this is from yesterday – "the JPOA refers to that and says that it's got to be addressed in the context of the final product. And that remains true; it has to be. And we have to resolve our questions about it with specificity. Access is very, very critical. It's always been critical from day one; it remains critical. And we defined that at Lausanne, and those are sorts of fundamental outlines, if you will." Within that context, there is leeway to define further certain things, but not this one.
So he was very, very clear in his answer to you.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, he was very – I will stop. I'm sure other people want to take a crack at this. But I mean, what you just read there is fine, but it does not say that they have to be resolved to get a final deal.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to go into – I think I've answered the question and I'm certainly not going to negotiate with Iran here from this podium. I think I've answered the question. There is no change, none whatsoever, in the policy with respect to possible military dimensions, or the things that were agreed to in November and then again in April --
QUESTION: All right. Last one very briefly.
MR KIRBY: -- in terms of Iran meeting those concerns.
QUESTION: So does that mean that it was never a requirement from the U.S. perspective for Iran to resolve these things to get a final deal?
MR KIRBY: It's been – I mean --
QUESTION: If that's what you're saying, then I think that there's – that a lot of people have misunderstood the U.S. position, or the P5+1 position, from the very beginning. If that's --
MR KIRBY: I can only --
QUESTION: If it's incorrect that that was not a requirement for a final deal to be reached, then a lot of people have been wrong for a lot of – for a long time and no one has ever sought to correct that until now.
MR KIRBY: Let me just read to you right out of the two keystone documents here. The November 2013 JPOA, we said that the P5+1, the EU and Iran will work within the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. Then in April, the Lausanne parameters said that Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA's concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of its program.
QUESTION: It's a selective reading.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, Michael.
QUESTION: John, you say you'd like to put a fork in this issue. I'm going to give you the opportunity to do that. The question that was put to the Secretary yesterday was: Do the IAEA's concerns regarding possible military dimensions need to be fully resolved before sanctions are eased or removed or suspended?
MR KIRBY: And as I said --
QUESTION: That's the – excuse me, that's the question. So my question to – and the Secretary gave his response yesterday, which you assert was misinterpreted; I don't think it was. But you can express the position today. So I'm asking you: Do the IAEA's concerns over possible military dimensions have to be fully resolved before sanctions are eased, removed, or suspended?
MR KIRBY: As I --
QUESTION: What's the answer?
MR KIRBY: As I said at the outset, Michael, I am not going to negotiate in public here. There are still many details that are being worked out by the team. But as I also said at the outset, sanctions lifting is only going to occur as Iran takes agreed nuclear steps. Some of those steps are the steps that are being negotiated now. But sanctions relief is only going to occur when those steps have been taken, including addressing possible military dimension.
QUESTION: Okay. So just to clarify here, because you're asserting we misinterpreted what he said. I don't believe we did. And you're not directly answering this question, with all due respect. That was the question that was put to the Secretary yesterday, and what he said in response is that we're not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another, and then he went on to say what we're concerned about is going forward.
So the Secretary certainly left the impression that all of the IAEA's concerns about possible military dimensions did not need to be resolved as a condition or requirement for lifting sanctions. And again, with all due respect, nothing that you've just said contradicts that. You've not said that these things need to be resolved for sanctions --
MR KIRBY: I have. I have.
QUESTION: -- to be removed. You simply said there are going to be negotiations. We know that. You haven't – you haven't stuck a fork in it.
MR KIRBY: Iran still has to give the IAEA the access that they need to resolve possible military dimension of their program. That's been the position all along. It doesn't – it hasn't changed.
QUESTION: The question was, do --
MR KIRBY: The stories --
QUESTION: -- is that a requirement for sanctions to be removed? And that's a question – as I've heard what you said, you haven't answered that directly.
MR KIRBY: The stories alleged that he was backing off some other requirement, or that we were willing to make some concession on this.
QUESTION: No, the story asserted, since I wrote it, that – (laughter) – was that – I was one of those who wrote it – was that the Secretary was not – I didn't use the term "backing off." The Secretary stated that it was not a requirement that these issues be fully resolved for sanctions to be eased or removed.
MR KIRBY: And I've just told you --
QUESTION: And then it went on to discuss he still wanted access.
MR KIRBY: I've just told you that --
QUESTION: That's what the story asserted. I didn't hear you say anything that contradicts that.
MR KIRBY: I've just told you that they do have to be resolved.
QUESTION: As a condition --
MR KIRBY: That is part of --
QUESTION: As a condition for removing sanctions?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into specific conditions here. But they do have to be resolved. There's been no change, none.
QUESTION: Does this turn on – to follow up on Michael's question – the distinction between lifting any sanctions and lifting sanctions? In other words, what Michael, I think, is getting at is: Do the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program have to be addressed prior to the lifting of any sanctions?
MR KIRBY: As I said, sanctions lifting --
QUESTION: And your answer is no; that some can be lifted without – prior to that and some won't be, correct?
MR KIRBY: Sanctions lifting is only going to occur as Iran meets agreed-to steps, including addressing the concerns IAEA has over possible military dimensions.
QUESTION: But you're still not addressing the question of whether any sanctions relief can occur prior to the resolution of the PMD issues.
MR KIRBY: I'm – I think I've answered it as far as I'm going to answer it today.
QUESTION: John, you said that you're not interested in a confession. Isn't it not true that Administration officials, including secretaries of state past and present, the President, have said on hundreds of occasions, Iran must come clean on its past military activity.
MR KIRBY: But the Secretary also said we have a good understanding of what that past military activity was. And look, I mean, the whole reason --
QUESTION: Well, so that – does that not a change then?
MR KIRBY: The whole reason that we're having these negotiations and there's a deal being worked is because we know they were working on a potential military program.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And we want to avoid that from happening in the future. And that's what this is about.
QUESTION: But there's, one, this issue of coming clean stands by itself. If they're not – if they – if you're not fixated on a full accounting of all its past activity, then that's been changed.
MR KIRBY: What the Secretary said was we're not fixated on a single point in time. He didn't say that past --
QUESTION: Shouldn't we be fixated on all points in time?
MR KIRBY: Brad, let me finish. Let me finish. He said we're not fixated on a single point in time, right. He didn't say, and we've never said, that past potential military dimensions of this program don't matter. Of course, they matter. We wouldn't be sitting down with them having a negotiation about this if it didn't matter.
QUESTION: And can I – number two, a lot of people say – experts in the field, widely regarded experts – that until you have a full accounting of everything they did, you can't hold them truly accountable for everything that they may or may not be doing in the future. That is, if you don't know everything they did, how can you ask all the right questions about whether this is going on here still. This is going on here still. You'd be just going off of what you think has happened. But if Iran acknowledges everything that it ever did everywhere it ever did – did it, you could then verify whether any of that is still going on.
MR KIRBY: So what's the question?
QUESTION: So how can you ensure future compliance that it is not engaged in any military activity, unless you know with certitude everything that it did previously?
MR KIRBY: I just said ad nauseam that the IAEA's concerns about possible military dimensions past and present have to be fully addressed before there's going to be a deal. And if we don't – if they don't get the access that they need to address and resolve their concerns, then there's not going to be a deal.
QUESTION: So basically you're – basically kind of conceding to Brad's point, which I think is the key point, that in order for the IAEA to certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful, you're going to need to have access to individuals and sites that might have been used in the past.
MR KIRBY: We've always said we're going to have the necessary access.
QUESTION: And that's going to have to happen before June 30th if you want a deal. You said if there's not – to get – these have to be fully addressed before there's going to be a deal. The deal – the deadline at the moment is June 30th, but if it slips into early July, that doesn't really matter, but I mean, that means these issues that we're talking about – the PMDs – are going to have to addressed before June 30th --
MR KIRBY: Well, we're working --
QUESTION: -- to your satisfaction.
MR KIRBY: The team is working through all that right now.
QUESTION: Well, isn't it more --
QUESTION: But how can you possibly --
QUESTION: Excuse me.
MR KIRBY: Hey – take it easy, guys.
QUESTION: Isn't it more that there has to be agreement on the sites themselves that they're going to have access to in order for the deal to take affect, or it doesn't have to be agreed to – my understanding is that it doesn't have to be agreed – this doesn't all have to be kind of declared before the deal, but you have to have certainty --
MR KIRBY: A set of parameters --
QUESTION: -- that you're going to have access as part of implementation for the deal --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- for those sanctions to be lifted.
MR KIRBY: That's right. We've talked about them having established the set of parameters that would address the concerns to include access that the IAEA needs. It's the set of parameters. That's what they agreed to in April at Lausanne.
Yes.
QUESTION: Clarification on the steps. He said there are – there has to be agreed upon – there have to be – Iran has to implement the agreed upon steps. Are these steps sequential, or they have to happen simultaneously?
MR KIRBY: I don't --
QUESTION: How can they be – or are they steps, by their very nature, are sequential?
MR KIRBY: Again, I think we've got – look, we have a team over there right now. I'm not going to get into --
QUESTION: So how --
MR KIRBY: -- every little aspect of the negotiations.
QUESTION: Okay. Or independent upon the number of steps, can you still do it by, let's say, the 30th of June? Or does it have to be extended?
MR KIRBY: Again, to Elise's question, what they've agreed to do is establish a set of parameters that would address the possible military dimensions to include access.
QUESTION: But does that --
MR KIRBY: But – now hang on a second here – as for the deal, June 30th still remains the goal. Everybody's very fixated on that date and there – we're all – and we've got a team over there now and, again, things are progressing.
QUESTION: So you're fixated on the date, you're not fixated on the PMD. Okay.
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) All right. So --
QUESTION: Can I just – wait – one other thing that the Secretary said that was – attempt at a joke – one of the things the Secretary said was we're not looking for a confession. We know what they did. You have the intel on what they did. Well, the IAEA doesn't know or says that it does not know exactly what the Iranians did. So if you guys know and you have all the intel about what Iran was doing in its past, alleged military nuclear work, will you turn that over to the IAEA so they can answer the questions that they have?
MR KIRBY: I'm not at liberty to talk about intelligence matters from the podium, and I wouldn't do that. Again, this is about making sure that the --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- IAEA gets the access they need to address the concerns they have, as well as the P5 countries about possible military dimensions.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And I won't talk about the transmission of information at a classified level.
QUESTION: Okay, but the IAEA has a long list of questions that it wants answers to from Iran. Among those questions are kind of – are lists of stuff that they – possible dual-use items that they may have imported, that kind of thing. The Secretary yesterday suggested that the U.S. knows all of that, has all that information, or at least a lot of it or enough of it to be confident to – in knowing what Iran was up to previously. So if that is the case, why doesn't the Administration turn all this information over to the IAEA? That way you can eliminate the PMD issue completely as an issue of concern.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, Matt, I'm not going to talk about the transmission of confidential classified information here.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one last thing --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- on this issue? I don't want to beat the dead horse, but just to make a distinction that – which I think you're making, just to clarify, the IAEA has a whole process to come to its conclusions about possible military dimensions --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that can be lengthy and methodical and thorough. What I think I heard you say is that it's a condition of lifting some of the sanctions and having an agreement that the IAEA be granted access to whatever it needs in Iran to carry out its investigation, but that it's not a requirement that the IAEA complete its process and resolve to its satisfaction an issue of finding on possible military dimensions, which can be a rather lengthy process, in order for these sanctions to be lifted. So I thought I heard you make a distinction between giving the IAEA access it needs and – on the one hand, but not making it a prerequisite that the IAEA process be completed entirely and – on PMD before sanctions are released. This is sort of two different things, because they could get the access and it could then take them some time --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- to resolve these issues to their satisfaction.
MR KIRBY: And I think those are – that is the level of detail I think they're still talking about there in Vienna, Michael. And that's why I don't have anything further or more specific to go into that today.
QUESTION: Can I ask on the – you mentioned that there's a team on the ground at the moment. Who is actually there on the U.S. side?
MR KIRBY: I can get you the – I mean, obviously, Wendy Sherman has been very involved.
QUESTION: Is she there at the moment?
MR KIRBY: I believe she's back now. Or no, actually, I don't think she's --
QUESTION: Because I know Araghchi left yesterday --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- for talks in Vienna today, so I'm just wondering --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don't know where --
QUESTION: -- at what level we're at in the next few days.
MR KIRBY: She's been --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: She's been involved in being the lead over there. Now she was back here for a few days this week. I actually am not up to speed on her travel plans, so we can find out if she's already back there for you or not, or on her way back. But she's certainly going to be back there this week before the end of the week.
QUESTION: And do you know, if she's back there before the end of the week, how long this planned stint is going to be?
MR KIRBY: I don't. I don't. Again, we're still very concentrated – not fixated – concentrated on getting this deal done by the end of the month.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject --
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- to Syria and the use of chemical weapons --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- use of chlorine gas as a chemical weapon? The Secretary said yesterday that you are convinced or you have proof – you're – that that the vast majority of these attacks – or vast preponderance, I think you said, are at the hands of the regime because the opposition does not have any use of helicopters for barrel bombs and such. Now there is a UN resolution that bans the use of chlorine gas passed in March as a chemical – as – used as a weapon. So technically, if you have evidence that the Assad regime is responsible for these attacks, then you know that it's in violation of this resolution. That's a Chapter 7 resolution. What are you going to do about it?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, as the Secretary stressed yesterday, it's been significantly documented. The OPCW fact-finding mission reported witnesses saw and heard helicopters coinciding with chlorine barrel bomb attacks in Syria in the spring of 2014. They continue to flout international standards and norms, including the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN Security Council's resolutions, as you've pointed.
QUESTION: That's not standard and norm. That's international law.
MR KIRBY: That's right. You're right.
QUESTION: So they're in violation of a Chapter 7 UN Security Council resolution, and there is virtually no talk in Washington or at the UN Security Council about consequences for Syria for violating this?
MR KIRBY: Look, there's been a lot of pressure put on the Assad regime and will continue to be put on the Assad regime. Nothing's changed about our policy that he needs to go. But we've also been clear that there has to be a political resolution in – to the – political resolution to the situation inside Syria.
QUESTION: Can I ask --
QUESTION: Wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
QUESTION: On the --
QUESTION: Can I finish? I understand. But the civil war and the fighting with the – between the regime and the opposition is quite different than the use of chemical agents and chemical weapons, which this Administration was ready to launch military strikes against Assad for. Now, the only reason he didn't was because – that President Obama decided not to do that was because of this deal between – that Russia and the U.S. negotiated to rid Assad of his chemical weapons.
So now he's using a chemical agent that's banned under international law and flouting a UN Security Council resolution. What are the consequences for him outside of any political negotiation? I mean, there doesn't need to be a political negotiation for Assad to be in accordance with international law and UN Security Council resolutions.
MR KIRBY: I think we've been very clear that there's not going to be a military solution to the situation in Syria with the exception, of course, to the pressure that's being applied militarily to ISIL inside Syria. We've been very clear about that.
QUESTION: But President Obama, when he was deciding to use military action because of the use of these chemical weapons, said this has nothing --
MR KIRBY: And had it not been for the --
QUESTION: -- this has nothing to do with the U.S. wading into a civil war or the political process. He very narrowly said this is in response to Assad's use of chemical agents against his people. And now he's doing it again.
MR KIRBY: Again, the international community is united against the Assad regime in the use of chlorine gas against their own people, which we know the preponderance of the use is.
QUESTION: To what end, though?
MR KIRBY: Look, there's not going to be a military solution. And it was the credible threat of military force that drew Assad to allowing the declared stockpiles to be removed from the country. So we know that that's gone. Yes, we still believe that he's using chlorine gas.
QUESTION: So maybe the credible threat of using it again would get him to stop using chlorine gas on those people?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to dictate military policy from here. As I said --
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: Can I follow up?
MR KIRBY: As I said --
QUESTION: You sure? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I'm pretty sure. I don't do that anymore.
There's not going to be – we've been long clear there's not going to be a military solution to the crisis inside Syria.
QUESTION: I'm not saying that.
MR KIRBY: I know --
QUESTION: We're talking specifically about him gassing his own people, which is very different than a civil war. This is – there is a precedent for the U.S. not wading into the civil war, which clearly it doesn't want to do, and taking action or paying lip service to taking action to --
MR KIRBY: I don't have actions to announce today --
QUESTION: Could you take the question?
MR KIRBY: -- about addressing specifically his use of chlorine gas.
QUESTION: Can you take the question whether the U.S. --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Can I just – there was a --
QUESTION: On the use of chlorine gas --
QUESTION: -- there was a --
MR KIRBY: Let's move --
QUESTION: On the use of --
MR KIRBY: Let's move back a little bit. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Now, on the use of chlorine gas, is that a chemical weapon? I mean, that is a commercially available product --
MR KIRBY: That's right.
QUESTION: -- and it is said that Jabhat al-Nusrah, which controls a great mass of territory – I'm not saying because you said that you're confident it was the regime that used these --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- this bomb in these attacks. But it is said that Jabhat al-Nusrah, which controls large territory, expansive territory, actually has large stockpiles of chlorine. So is it a chemical weapon?
MR KIRBY: It's a toxic chemical that obviously has commercial use, but he's using it as a chemical weapon.
Yes, back here.
QUESTION: There was a hearing on the Hill this morning from – on – exactly on this issue at which – the use of chemical weapons – at which former Ambassador Ford was speaking. And he along with a number of other doctors – doctors – sorry, he's not a doctor – were talking about the effects, and they showed a very horrifying videos of some small children who had been victim of chemical weapons attacks.
All of the people in that panel – and they were probably chosen for a certain reason – but all of them suggested that one way of protecting the people – these attacks mostly are happening in Idlib province – would be to go back to the idea or a plan that's been long on the table of a no-fly zone, which they suggested in one particular area would be relatively easy to implement. Is the United States at all thinking about ways of trying to protect the citizens on the ground who have been falling victims to these attacks?
MR KIRBY: Again, you're asking about military policy, and I'm in no position to speak to that. I know of no plans to establish no-fly zones or safe zones for that – to that end.
QUESTION: Is it not something that might be worth considering, though?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm in no position to announce or discuss military policy here from this podium. There's no plans to conduct or to effect a no-fly zone over Syria with respect to the use of these chemicals. What has to happen is he has to stop using them. I mean – and he's already --
QUESTION: Or what?
MR KIRBY: He's already lost legitimacy to govern his country, which is why groups like ISIL have been able to run rampant, particularly over the north and to the east.
Yes.
QUESTION: Instead of proscription --
MR KIRBY: Brad, come on. Back here.
QUESTION: What --
MR KIRBY: Brad, Brad, come on.
QUESTION: What did Secretary mean yesterday when he said that the international community's patience with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's behavior was wearing thin? How will the international community react?
MR KIRBY: There is already pressure applied on the Assad regime. That pressure will continue to be applied. Again, he's lost legitimacy to govern. There needs to be a negotiated political settlement inside Syria. We've said that repeatedly. That's still the effort that's being applied right now.
Yeah. Yeah, back here.
QUESTION: Hi. And good to see you, John, today.
MR KIRBY: Thanks. Brad, I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: And I have a quick question regarding the situation in northern Syria. When Jeff was asked about this question last Friday first and then on Monday – about the allegation that Kurdish forces are trying to force the Arabs in the region to leave their towns – you had said that you are monitoring the situation. Have you reached a conclusion about the situation on the ground in terms of these allegations regarding the PYD forces against Arab --
MR KIRBY: I missed a part of your question because of the ice jingling here. Can you – what allegations?
QUESTION: First Jeff was asked this question last Friday and then this Monday, regarding the allegations that the PYD forces are forcing the Arab people in the region in northern Syria – actually, in Tal Abyad after the fights between ISIL and Kurdish forces – they are forcing the Arab people to leave their towns. And you said that you are monitoring the situation regarding these past reports.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Have you reached a conclusion about these allegations?
MR KIRBY: I've got nothing more to add than what we've said before. We continue to monitor. We've made our concerns known about the PYD and YPG with respect to human rights issues, but I've got nothing to – specific to announce on that.
QUESTION: Because Turkish officials --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, guys. Just – let's do one at a time, one at a time. You're killing me today. Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry. Can I finish?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkish officials raised – according to the – Turkish officials spoke to the Reuters on this issue. They said that they raised these concerns with you regarding these allegations. That's why I'm trying to get a – and, I mean, what is your response?
MR KIRBY: And we take those allegations seriously. As I said, we continue to monitor. We've made our concerns known. I don't have anything more to give you on that today.
Back here.
QUESTION: First of all, John, sir, congratulations and we wish you all the best. I hope this is for the good.
My question – I have two questions. One is that last year when Prime Minister Modi was in the U.S., including at the United Nations, he declared International Day of Yoga. And UN declared June 21st – next week – International Day of Yoga. My question is that, including U.S. among 177 countries who adopted this day, is – Secretary Kerry is going to participate, which will be next week on the Mall, on the Washington Monument, including around the globe?
QUESTION: Can you tell us if a broken femur is a good – it's good to practice yoga with a broken leg? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I don't believe the Secretary has any plans to participate at all in that.
Yeah, over here.
QUESTION: And second question --
MR KIRBY: Over here.
QUESTION: Change topics. Do you have any update on – we've been asking last two weeks – Myanmar, like Rohingya issue – Rohingya and Bangladeshi Muslims is in big trouble in Myanmar. So do you have any update on Myanmar issue, the Rohingya Muslims?
MR KIRBY: Update on what?
QUESTION: Rohingya Muslims.
QUESTION: The Rohingya. Burma.
QUESTION: Rohingya issue in Myanmar.
MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates on that today.
Brad.
QUESTION: My follow-up question has long since been superseded by questions about yoga and other topics, but I'll try again. Since – in lieu of a proscriptive, can you simply say what the U.S. and its partners are doing to stop the Assad government from launching further chemical weapons attacks?
MR KIRBY: As I said before, there continues to be international pressure applied to Assad. What's going on in Syria is something that Secretary Kerry focuses on virtually every day, every time he talks to Foreign Minister Lavrov. Everybody recognizes the danger that Assad represents in the region and to his own people, but the policy that we're following now is not to pursue military options. So there --
QUESTION: Right. I'm not suggesting --
MR KIRBY: There is constant dialogue in the region and between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov about this issue and about how best to address it. I don't have any specific measures here that I can lay out for you in a laundry list, but pressure continues to be applied and, frankly, from within Syria continues to be applied on Assad.
QUESTION: So the international pressure at this point is discussions with partners; it hasn't been translated into some sort of active plan of pressure actually on Assad?
MR KIRBY: I think it just – I don't have a plan to detail for you, Brad, but pressure continues to be applied.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And again --
QUESTION: I'm just trying to understand what the pressure is. That's my point, not saying it should be military or anything. What is it that you're doing?
MR KIRBY: I got you.
QUESTION: But without some kind of credible, demonstrative show of pressure to prevent him from doing that, where is the incentive for him to stop? I mean, the concern among experts, Syrians on the ground, the doctors today at this Congress, and even in this own building, is that without some kind of measure to get him to stop, whether it's military strikes or a no-fly zone or whatever it is, that as he loses on the battlefield, the only thing he has left to gain territory is to continue these attacks. And the concern is that over the summer these attacks are going to increase. So how do you get him to stop if there's no credible way to prevent him?
MR KIRBY: I recognize it's another way of stating the same question. I think I've answered it. I think we're just going to --
QUESTION: I don't think you have.
MR KIRBY: We're going to have to move on.
Back here.
QUESTION: Iraq.
QUESTION: Question about --
MR KIRBY: Back here.
QUESTION: A few days ago, the Chinese foreign ministry came out and said that they're going to stop the land reclamation in the Spratly Islands. Can – do you have a reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. We've seen the announcement that they're going to stop land reclamation. We also saw that they intend to continue to militarizing the ones that they've reclaimed. And we've made it very clear privately and publicly that that only increases tensions, that – and that it's unhelpful, and we continue to call for a cessation of land reclamation and militarization of them in the region. It doesn't do anything to increase the stability and security.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Have a related question.
MR KIRBY: This will have to be the last one.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a related question on China – Chinese action --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: You got a lot more?
QUESTION: I got a question on --
QUESTION: They're all pretty quick, but – (laughter). It's a --
MR KIRBY: Wait a minute. Whoa, whoa, whoa.
QUESTION: It's a very large world out there.
MR KIRBY: And you were the guys that told me, "Hey, briefings are too long; you got to wrap them up." (Laughter.) So I'm trying to wrap it up. You want to keep it going? We'll keep going for a few more minutes.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: About China --
MR KIRBY: Hang on, hang on. Everybody, just – hey, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Thank you. They chose to make this announcement shortly before this S&ED conference here in Washington, D.C. – the talk between the United States and China.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Does it tell you something about the Chinese posture about this issue? I mean, you've been telling them to stop the reclamation. You've been telling them to not make actions to raise tension for quite some time, and they – they don't seems to be listening. Is there any serious review on the part of the State Department about Chinese policy?
MR KIRBY: I've – again, I think we've made our position clear repeatedly privately and publicly.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: As for the timing of their announcement, you have to talk to them about that. Nothing's changed about our view of these destabilizing activities there in the South China Sea. And I think – I suspect that this will be an issue that comes up. In fact, I know it will come up next week. And again, Secretary Kerry will continue to press the same concerns that we've been pressing throughout.
Yeah, back here.
QUESTION: On Iraq, on the consequences of the Senate refusal to directly arm Peshmerga, have you got any concern from the KRG side on that, especially when Secretary Kerry sent a letter to the Senate and discouraging them to go forward and change the amendment that made in the House?
MR KIRBY: So let me just talk more broadly. We do continue to arm and equip the Peshmerga, and we do it in coordination and through the Iraqi Government in Baghdad. So any suggestion that they're not getting arms and equipment and things they need is just simply not true. It's being done through the government in Baghdad, who has been very responsive in making sure that they aren't stopping or hindering the flow of that equipment. And it's been quite a bit: coalition-wide, over 95 airlift missions, 8 million pounds of donated ammunition and equipment, and more keeps coming. So I'm not going to speak specifically to action on the Hill, but I can tell you that the Pesh continue to get what they need and we continue to look at ways to get them more.
QUESTION: But have you got any concern from the KRG side to the State Department? (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: Have I heard of any concerns from the KRG side to the State Department?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of anything. I think they've made their – I think they – in the past, they've regularly made their concerns known, and they've stated that.
QUESTION: But on this issue --
MR KIRBY: But they continue to get, we believe – and I can – can show that they're continuing to get arms and equipment and materiel and that will continue to flow.
QUESTION: But the Senate amendment would have given you the authority to give them directly heavy weapons, like tanks and maybe rocket launchers and perhaps helicopters and so on. Will that – is that issue now put to rest? You don't --
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about pending legislation here or the status of it. It is – it's our policy, of Secretary Kerry, the policy that we're executing, to work through the Baghdad government to provide this materiel and assistance, and it is getting to them. I mean, the policy, as being executed, is working.
QUESTION: Now, on the issue of troops on the ground, seeing that – from last week, seeing that U.S. troops now in Iraq are at the brigade level, maybe 4,000 people, how is that not mission creep? How is that not going up incrementally?
MR KIRBY: Well, mission creep is when the mission changes --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- and the mission expands and grows. The mission is not changing. The mission, with respect to advise and assist, is exactly the same as it's been since when we started it months ago.
QUESTION: So you could --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: You could conceivably have a division in there and the mission will not change?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to – I don't think it's kind of very useful to get into hypothetical estimates of what – of how many more troops there's going to be. This isn't about numbers of troops; it's about what they're doing. And the "what" hasn't changed at all. Part and parcel of this strategy is assisting the Iraqi Security Forces, improving their competence and battlefield capability, and that's what this extra – additional, I should say, additional 450 troops are going to do there in Anbar province.
QUESTION: Can we change topic? A few quick things.
QUESTION: One more on Iraq.
QUESTION: They're easy. Yemen. Do you have any comment on the car bombings today, and in particular, do you have any idea of who may have been behind them?
MR KIRBY: I don't. I'm afraid not. And I've only just recently seen reports of the bombings and --
QUESTION: Okay. And then --
MR KIRBY: -- I'd be loath to comment on it. Yeah.
QUESTION: And the second – oh yeah? Okay, then I've got one on Greece, so --
QUESTION: On Yemen: There is apparently one of – one member of the delegation to the Geneva talks on the Yemen – the current de facto, or whatever you want to call it, government side --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is a specially designated global terrorist --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- member of AQAP, apparently. Do you guys have an issue with that?
MR KIRBY: We understand that this individual was at the UN talks as part of the Yemeni Government delegation, and that he's the head of the al-Rashad Party. The Department of Treasury designated him for connections to terrorism, and I'd refer you to the Department of Treasury for further details. I'd also remind you that these are UN-led talks.
QUESTION: Right, but one other thing: In the Treasury designation, it says that this guy and the AQAP leadership have planned – or plan to establish a new political party in Yemen, which AQAP planned to use as a cover for the recruitment and training of fighters and as a means to attract broader support. Since you now say that he's the leader of a political party, it certainly seems as though Treasury's prediction came true. You don't have any problem with him being – floating around in Geneva at a luxury hotel talking with the UN and others about the way forward in this country?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we've been very clear, and I think can prove it in just recent activities, how seriously we take the threat of terrorism and those that participate in terrorist activities. There's no change to our stance on individuals like this. That said, I would refer you to the Department of Treasury on this particular individual.
QUESTION: All right. Can you say – can you take the question as to whether you're in touch with the UN, since this is their talks, about them hosting a guy who you think was not so long ago – or back in December when he was designated – trying to create a faux political – or December 2013, was in the process of creating a political party, which he now heads, that you guys suspected was going to be a cover for AQAP? I'm just wondering if you guys have talked to the UN about this and said, "Hey, it's not appropriate for this guy" --
MR KIRBY: To the question on the specific of whether we talked to them --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: -- I'll take that.
Yes.
QUESTION: (inaudible) claims that they executed a number of Saudis in Yemen, accusing them of spying for the United States. Do you have any information on that?
MR KIRBY: I don't.
QUESTION: Or can you confirm it?
MR KIRBY: I don't.
Yes, back here.
QUESTION: After Secretary's call to the Pakistani prime minister yesterday on increasing tension between India and Pakistan, has there been a similar effort to reach out to the Indians by the State Department?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional calls by the Secretary with respect to his Indian counterpart, but as you know, it's a close relationship – we do talk to them all the time. And again, I mean, the Secretary, I think, spoke about this yesterday, about the need – our desire that relations between the two countries continue to improve over a range of issues.
Yeah, way back here.
QUESTION: So I have two topics. First, has the Benghazi Select Committee reached out to the State Department about the Blumenthal emails? Does the committee possess any documents that State doesn't have?
MR KIRBY: I had points on that and now I don't know what I did with them. Hang on a second. The documents provided Friday by Mr. Blumenthal have not been shared with the department, so I can't speak to their contents or whether they – or whether any of them were provided to us by Secretary Clinton.
QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, on Iraq, is Iraq today a quagmire? Is it a stalemate in which no side can win and the U.S. is just sinking its resources?
MR KIRBY: Are these your words that you want to apply to Iraq or are you reading from somebody else's commentary?
QUESTION: I mean, do you have a response?
MR KIRBY: I think what we're dealing with in Iraq is a very dangerous, lethal group, and it's not just from their perspective, Iraq. It's Iraq and Syria. And this is a fight that the Iraqis need to lead. It's their fight. This is their strategy we're helping them execute. And I would add that though it's going to be a long slog and though it continues to be dangerous, and though this group continues to be quite lethal and determined, there has been progress made across almost all the lines of effort.
So nobody said this is going to be easy. We've long said three to five years, and I think we still hold to that.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the email for just a second?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: You said that the emails that were provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the committee on Friday were not shared with the Department. Does that mean that the committee didn't share them, or you did not have them to give to the committee?
MR KIRBY: No, no. I meant that the documents that Mr. Blumenthal turned over to the – we – they were not shared with us either by him or by the committee.
QUESTION: Well, did you have them?
QUESTION: You might have them.
QUESTION: Yeah, do you have – do you might theoretically have them?
MR KIRBY: I can't speak to their contents. We haven't – we don't – we haven't seen them, so I can't speak to the contents or --
QUESTION: Okay. When --
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: Or whether you have them?
QUESTION: But the point is --
QUESTION: So Congressman Gowdy --
MR KIRBY: Or tell you whether we have them or not.
QUESTION: But it's potentially possible that you do have them from Secretary Clinton --
MR KIRBY: It is --
QUESTION: -- you just don't know because you haven't seen them.
MR KIRBY: It is possible. We haven't seen that inventory.
QUESTION: So Congressman Gowdy has said that he is going to make them public, these emails. Can you, once they have been made – or even before they've been made public, but as soon as this building sees them and can look at them in comparison to what the – what former Secretary Clinton turned over, can you then tell us whether or not these emails were among those that she turned over to the building? And if in fact they were, why exactly did this building not turn them over to the committee?
MR KIRBY: Well, let's not put the cart before the horse, Matt. Obviously --
QUESTION: Well, right, but --
MR KIRBY: -- if we get to see them, we will certainly make a judgment about --
QUESTION: Well, I would hope that you would want to see them – I mean, that you would be looking to see whether – the question is if the secretary – if you did have them – and why were they not turned over to the committee by the building? Why did they have to get them from Mr. Blumenthal? And it may be – there may be a very simple explanation that may not have been covered by what the committee had asked the State Department for. But it would be good to know what the explanation is, if in fact you did have them. And then if you didn't have them, does the building think that it was – it didn't get all of the emails it should have gotten from former Secretary Clinton? Those are the questions.
MR KIRBY: All great questions that we're just not able to answer right now.
QUESTION: Just one more on the emails, just more about the investigation itself. Chairman Gowdy has made pretty clear that he's branching the investigation and the work – the scope of his committee's focus from just the Benghazi incident to U.S. policy in Libya in its totality. Do you feel is that within the mandate of this committee, or are you concerned that this is mission creep?
MR KIRBY: Well, that's not for us to say here at the State Department. I mean, Mr. Gowdy has to speak for the way he's --
QUESTION: But is that what you see them doing here?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to characterize the work of the select committee. Secretary Kerry's been very clear with the department that we're going to cooperate with them as best we can. I will say, however, that the broader the scope of the information that is sought by the committee certainly entails more time and more resources here at the State Department to meet those needs. We will meet those needs. Again, Secretary Kerry has been very clear that we're going to cooperate fully, and we're going to be – to Matt's question – we're going to be as transparent as we possibly can. But the broader that it goes, the more difficult that becomes for the staff here to provide that information. Doesn't mean we won't, doesn't mean we're not going to try any less hard, it's just – it will take more time and more resources to get that done.
QUESTION: Can I ask about the Palestinians, please? Can I change the subject? The Palestinian unity government has resigned today, and I wondered if there was a U.S. reaction or comment on this, particularly because it was the government of technocrats which has now resigned, and it seems to be what we could get is now a government of politicians which, at the time – if that includes Hamas politicians – at the time when this government – the previous government was formed, the United States was very against the idea of having any Hamas politicians in a Palestinian government for obvious reasons. So I wondered if you had a reaction, please.
MR KIRBY: A government of politicians.
QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Heaven help us. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Look, I've seen the press reports. I – but that's about all I've seen on this. As always, we're going to judge any Palestinian government by its composition and by its policies, but I think it's too soon to tell right now and to say what these recent reports mean in terms of an actual change in the government makeup or its politics and policies. And of course, we're going to monitor this closely. That's really about as far as I can go on that today.
QUESTION: Okay. And I just wanted to ask – the reason why they've resigned is because Hamas has been having indirect talks with Israel about the Gaza ceasefire. Do you have a comment on that? Is that something you can confirm? Have you been involved with that at all?
MR KIRBY: I can't confirm that at all.
QUESTION: Can we stay --
QUESTION: New topic, please?
QUESTION: Can we stay on the topic?
QUESTION: -- in the region, though?
QUESTION: Can we stay on the Palestinians?
QUESTION: Yes, well, on Israel.
MR KIRBY: Okay, let's go to Matt. Here, no.
QUESTION: I'll go after Matt. I'll go after Matt.
QUESTION: I'm wondering if you had a chance to take a look at either the op-ed written by former Israel ambassador Michael Oren in The Wall Street Journal or seen the book that apparently is coming out, in which he is very critical of the Obama Administration, says that it's basically its fault and the President's fault for the deterioration in relations between the U.S. and Israel. Have you? And if you have – or even if you haven't – what do you think of it?
MR KIRBY: I haven't read the book. Seen the op-ed, so has Secretary Kerry. The Secretary's view is that his story, at least as related in the op-ed – the Secretary hasn't read the book – conveys his perspective as an advocate for his government, and now as a politician who's promoting a book. The Secretary also believes that as ambassador – and doesn't believe, but knows – Mr. Oren had limited visibility into many of the private discussions and deliberations that he describes. And it's the Secretary's view that his account, particularly the account of President Obama's leadership in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, is absolutely inaccurate and false, and doesn't reflect what actually happened in the past.
And then the other thing I'd say is – and I spoke with Secretary Kerry myself this morning – I mean, his view is what matters is moving forward here. This is an important relationship, the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and the bonds are unbreakable, and it's more important that we move forward in a constructive way than dwell on these accusations, false as they may be.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, all right. Fair enough. But he – Ambassador Oren is not just a former diplomat, not just a member of the Israeli parliament, and he is a respected historian who's written several highly praised books – one about the Six-Day War, one about U.S. involvement in Middle East going – that dates back to shortly after this country was founded. So he's not some crack or quack, a crackpot out there just fulminating. I mean, he may well be an author in search of book sales, but he is also a respected historian and you just basically and the Secretary have just trashed him to high heaven. I mean, regardless of whether you think that he is wrong or right, his comments would seem to reflect a general view from Israel and from pro-Israel people in the U.S. And so at the very least, I think they're symptomatic of a perception problem. And it's getting to the point now where $3 billion a year, Iron Dome, and diplomatic protection at the UN won't get the Secretary or the President a cup of coffee in Beirut or Jerusalem these days. So what exactly is it that they're getting wrong, and why is it that you think that you've been – that this Administration's been unable to convey its – or get people to believe, to buy into the idea that you've repeated over and over again that this – the relationship – the security relationship, at least, between the U.S. and Israel is stronger than it's ever been before? How is it possible that you have falsehoods and whatever you want to call them coming out, like the former ambassador's? How is it?
MR KIRBY: Well, Matt, there is a lot in there.
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I mean, there's a lot of baggage here.
MR KIRBY: I mean, let's just pull on up. Pull up a chair, we'll have a chat on this. I look --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR KIRBY: I didn't call him a crackpot and I didn't trash him. I said he's a former ambassador.
QUESTION: Well, you trashed his book.
MR KIRBY: I didn't trash the book. I haven't read the book.
QUESTION: Okay, the op-ed.
MR KIRBY: I said he's a former ambassador and he's a politician with a book to promote. Those are – those are truisms. That's not trashing Mr. Oren. And I think that, look, even the best of friends, even the closest of allies aren't going to agree on every matter, and there are certainly issues in the past, and I suspect in the future, that the United States and Israel will have differences of opinion. That's what friends do; you work through those and you talk about them. But as you said – and I'm – and I actually agree – I don't know if you were asking me the question or you were making a statement of fact, but I certainly would agree with the assertion that the security relationship between the United States and Israel is very strong, probably the strongest it's ever been. And the commitment that the United States – and from a military perspective and from a diplomatic perspective – to Israel and to Israel's security and their future remains absolutely unshakable.
Are there going to be differences? Yes. But every Administration since the Truman Administration has supported Israel in its security and its future, and that's not going to change.
QUESTION: You're focusing on the security now. So, I mean, basically what you're saying – I mean, you're not discounting the idea that the political and diplomatic ties are quite weak right now. And what you're saying is despite any disagreements that you currently have, which are obvious and on the table and there for anyone to see, you're still going to protect Israel's – Israel's security is sacrosanct --
MR KIRBY: Right, but --
QUESTION: -- despite the tensions in the political, diplomatic arena.
MR KIRBY: Absolutely. And I'm – but I'm also – don't misunderstand by answer to Matt to mean that I'm conceding some of the arguments – or the main two arguments, at least, in Mr. Oren's op-ed piece --
QUESTION: Well, I mean --
MR KIRBY: -- about "no daylight," "no surprises." I mean, we continue to work at this and have a close relationship beyond just security with Israel. And again, our view of his version of events is that it's not accurate, and not an accurate depiction of what we've observed in the relationship --
QUESTION: Change --
MR KIRBY: -- between us and Israel.
QUESTION: Could I just quickly follow up on Palestine-Israel for a minute? I mean, on Monday, Jeff, I think, responded to the question on the commission of inquiry – the Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry – he said that you support the Israeli position. Then he acknowledged that you neither read the report of the commission, the Human Rights Commission, or the Israeli report. And Israel proceeded to prevent the delegation from entering into Israel. Could you tell us, how will you push forward to see that whatever crimes that were committed – either by the Israelis or by the Palestinians – are actually investigated?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything beyond what Jeff has told you on this – on this issue. I mean, I think we routinely make our concerns known to countries all around the world about these kinds of issues. But I'm not going to weigh in on this particular investigation.
QUESTION: But you will accept the Israeli report on face value?
MR KIRBY: I'm not prepared to make a comment one way or the other on this.
QUESTION: Have you had a chance to look at the Israeli report?
MR KIRBY: I have not, no.
Ma'am.
QUESTION: Can we go to --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Arshad, just let me move back here, and then we'll come back.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can I change the subject?
MR KIRBY: That would be great. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Could you --
MR KIRBY: Unless it's something I don't want to talk about.
QUESTION: It's something you want to talk about, and you are knowledge about. Could you confirm on the record that this September, during United Nations General Assembly, the State Department is now going to use Waldorf Astoria as a meetings facilities and to set up a press conference – a press center?
MR KIRBY: No, I don't have any venue decisions to read out today whatsoever. I will tell you that, as always, we're looking forward to the UN General Assembly in the fall. Secretary Kerry's got a lot of business he wants to get done up there, and we're focused on that right now.
QUESTION: So are you saying that the State Department is still using Waldorf Astoria as a meeting facilities?
MR KIRBY: What I'm saying is I don't have any venue decisions or any venue issues to talk about today. We look forward to the General Assembly and we're focused on the issues right now.
QUESTION: Do you know if there is any discussion to change the venue?
MR KIRBY: I think I've answered it. I can say the same thing again if you want, but I don't have any venue issues to talk about today.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yeah. On North Korea. The North Korean state media is reporting that the country faces its worst drought in 100 years. I was wondering if you have any reaction or --
MR KIRBY: Seen the reports about the drought. I don't have any specific information about the validity of the drought.
QUESTION: Would the United States consider humanitarian assistance, like food aid, if the situation warranted?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such plans, no.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On the agreement between U.S. and South Korea nuclear energy cooperations: What is different between your agreement, 123 agreement? How different (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I understand it, this is – this agreement replaces the existing --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- 123 agreement which entered in force in the mid-1970s and it's expected – it's supposed to expire in March of next year. So once this agreement enters into force, it's going to mark a major milestone for our alliance and it'll establish a framework for a reciprocal dynamic and robust bilateral cooperation in civil nuclear energy for many years. So it's a continuation of an exist – an agreement that has existed for quite some time, and we were glad to get it signed this week.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Representatives Royce and Engel have voiced their concerns to Secretary Kerry about the State Department decision to cut program funding to a Lebanese nongovernment organization that's focused on combatting the political power of Hizballah. Has the Secretary addressed this concern?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I want to make clear there's no change in policy here on this. This is a very small issue about the alteration of one grant due to the difficulty of a subgrantee and their ability to achieve programming objectives. We do this all the time. It's about spending taxpayer money efficiently and effectively. This technical modification was based on our assessment of the effectiveness of specific activities of this specific subgrant NGO in supporting moderate Shia and should not be misinterpreted as any shift in our approach or policy.
QUESTION: So does that mean that there was – that the – there was a report, and I think the concerns are based on, that said that this was part of an elimination of all programs to encourage or support moderate Shia groups in Lebanon. You're saying that that's incorrect.
MR KIRBY: That is incorrect.
QUESTION: There is no such thing. It was just an issue with this – with a subgrantee of this one thing.
MR KIRBY: That is exactly right, Matt. Thank you for clarifying.
QUESTION: Do you have other programs that you are still supporting that --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I mean there's a public diplomacy grant, teach women English program. There's an embassy small grants program.
QUESTION: No, no. Regarding combatting Hizballah political power.
QUESTION: Or alternative Shia – moderate alternative Shia voices, like --
MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I --
QUESTION: Basically, this story kind of argued that you canceled this grantee because you have decided because of your budding relationship with Iran, as a nod to Iran, to stop supporting --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- programs that support alternative Shia voices. You said that this was with one grantee. And he's asking whether there are other programs to support moderate Shia activists or --
QUESTION: That were not --
MR KIRBY: There are a range of like – of similar programs that we – that we continue to support. This is not – this decision was a very technical decision regarding a very small amount of money compared to the programs that we fund in the region on this effort and is not at all tied to the Iran deal that we're trying to pursue on nuclear programs. There's no connection, and nobody should try to draw anything more out of it than simply our view, our assessment, that this subgrantee of another larger NGO wasn't performing up to standards. And that – again, it's good stewardship of the taxpayer dollars.
We're going to take one more. Brad.
QUESTION: Sorry, I didn't mean to be the last one.
QUESTION: Can I get the go for a question then on Greece, or have you given up on that and you're not going to come back to me for it?
MR KIRBY: I'll do Brad and then I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: Great, thank you.
MR KIRBY: I don't think the sarcasm is necessarily warranted.
QUESTION: Well, you said you'd come back to me and then you said last one, so it's --
MR KIRBY: Arshad, I'll get to you.
QUESTION: No, it's okay. Go ahead.
MR KIRBY: Let's just all stay civil here if we can. That would be really nice. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you – can you give us an update on where the U.S.-Cuban effort is to re-establish embassies, whether there are still hang-ups in their process, and when you hope they might be completed?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything specific to read out to you, Brad. Discussions continue. I think they're moving in a positive direction. I don't have any timeline to offer today or specific schedule to announce, but our teams continue to talk. And again, those talks are going well and we're looking forward to getting an embassy stood up there. But it's – I just don't have anything more on that.
QUESTION: Would you say the process is close to completion?
MR KIRBY: I'd say it's moving along in a very positive direction. And I want to walk – I think I'd want to stay away from qualitative descriptions at this point. But it's going – but it's all going well.
QUESTION: Well, would it be fair to say that the deal is done and you're just looking for a date?
MR KIRBY: That would not be fair to say.
QUESTION: Well, wait, wait. Just a --
QUESTION: Have you notified Congress?
QUESTION: Is there – are there ongoing – are there discussions that are currently ongoing right now that are outside of Havana and outside of here, I mean, that you're aware of?
MR KIRBY: No, no, nothing outside what we've been doing in talking with our Cuban counterparts.
Yeah, Arshad.
QUESTION: Have you notified Congress about the intention to change the status of the embassy?
MR KIRBY: No.
Arshad.
QUESTION: Has the Secretary had any phone calls either to his Greek counterpart or other members of the Greek Government regarding their debt negotiations?
MR KIRBY: I don't – I'm – I don't believe he has had any calls in the recent past. In fact, I know he hasn't on this particular topic. So I don't have any calls to read out to you.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Hope you enjoyed your first day. Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
