• 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

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 18, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

RUSSIA/UKRAINE
DEPARTMENT
ISRAEL
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT/SYRIA/REGION
CHAD/REGION/COUNTERTERRORISM
CHINA/REGION
DEPARTMENT
GREECE/RUSSIA/REGION
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
IRAN
DEPARTMENT
ISIL/IRAQ/IRAN
DEPARTMENT
ISIL/IRAQ/SYRIA
CLIMATE CHANGE
IRAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:06 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello. Welcome to day two.

MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) I am trying so hard to make it on time, and I promise you I'll keep getting the gap down. I think I'm --

QUESTION: This is on time.

MR KIRBY: I'm only about five minutes late.

QUESTION: This is on time. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: All right. Just a couple of things at the top and then we'll get right at it. I want to start out with Russia-Ukraine. We're concerned by reports of new attacks by combined Russian and separatist forces on Ukrainian positions in Maryinka, Shyrokyne, and northeast of Mariupol, all on the Ukrainian Government-controlled side of the cease-fire line. These attacks reportedly used heavy weapons that are prohibited by the Minsk agreements. Russia bears direct responsibility for these aggressive actions by combined Russian-separatist forces, which are unacceptable and contravene those agreements. Any attempts to seize additional Ukrainian territory will be met with increased cost.

Also, earlier today you might have seen the UN Refugee Agency issued its Global Trends Report, announcing that nearly 60 million people – one of every 122 people on Earth – have become displaced both within their countries as well as outside their borders as a result of war, conflict, persecution. That's the largest number the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has ever counted, and 8 million more than the record set just one year ago.

On Saturday – this Saturday, the 20th, will mark World Refugee Day to draw attention to the plight of these people. The ordeals and aspirations of refugees and displaced persons resonate, of course, with Americans. And you may have seen that Secretary Kerry just a little bit ago released a statement of his own. Our country, as you know, was in large part founded by people fleeing persecution, and the United States believes that we have a duty to the millions stranded away from home, not just to preserve life but to safeguard their dignity and hope. The United States is proud to have provided more than $6 billion last year to aid agencies providing humanitarian assistance, and we'll also resettle in the United States nearly 70,000 refugees through UNHCR this year.

Today's report shows that now is the time for everyone – individuals and countries alike – to work harder together not only to assist these individuals but to find solutions to the causes of this tide of human displacement.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: I'm sure we may get back to Ukraine and Russia, but I just wanted to tie up a couple loose ends from yesterday. One on Israel and former ambassador Oren's comments. There was a report, an Israeli newspaper report today that says that Ambassador Shapiro asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to disavow either former – his former ambassador or at least his former ambassador's comments about the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and that Prime Minister Netanyahu refused to do so. Is that report correct? Did the – was the U.S. seeking some kind of a disavowal from Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR KIRBY: I've seen that report, Matt, and I'm just not going to be at liberty to discuss the diplomatic conversations that our ambassador has with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

QUESTION: Well, regard – forget about the diplomatic conversations that he might have had. Would the Administration like to see Prime Minister Netanyahu disavow those remarks?

MR KIRBY: I think what we'd like to see, and I talked about this yesterday, is the relationship between the United States and Israel continue to grow and to deepen. It is a very strong strategic partnership and we've talked about that repeatedly, and our focus, as I said yesterday, Secretary Kerry's specific focus, is to move beyond this and to focus on the future of the relationship.

QUESTION: So do you – does the Administration consider this whole kerfuffle to be done, over with?

MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to speak for the Administration, but speaking for Secretary Kerry – as I said yesterday, he's read the op-ed piece; he's obviously not read Mr. Oren's book – he differs deeply with Mr. Oren's conclusions in that op-ed piece that he wrote. But again, his focus is on the future.

QUESTION: So it's closed – case closed, chapter –

MR KIRBY: Secretary Kerry is moving on.

QUESTION: Turned the page. Okay, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be within the diplomatic protocol for Ambassador Shapiro to raise that kind of issue with the prime minister of Israel? Would it have been within normal protocol?

MR KIRBY: Again, not speak – I'm not going to speak for the conversations that our diplomats have with the governments that – in which they're working around the world. I wouldn't do that. But I mean, so separate and distinct from that, and I'm – and by what I'm about to say next, I am in no way confirming this Israeli news report. But our ambassadors speak to their – the governments that they're working with routinely every day across a wide range of issues, and talk to high government officials about all number of things.

QUESTION: Staying on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, yesterday the Israelis pulled out something like 1,800 trees in the West Bank, they uprooted trees and so on. I mean, we talked about the commission of inquiry and human rights abuses and so on. Is that something that you would like to see the Israelis stop doing?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the report on the trees being uprooted. You're going to have to let me go back and look at that. I just don't have anything on that.

Yeah, back here. Hey, Paul. Good to see you.

QUESTION: How are you? I came to see you in civilian clothes. (Laughter.) So on this refugee issue, does the Administration favor expanding the number of refugees that the U.S. accepts each year because of this?

MR KIRBY: There's – I know of no plans, Paul, to increase that number. I gave the number 70,000. It's been about at that level now for the last several years, and I know of no plans to increase it. And the one thing that we need to be careful of here as we talk about this – I mean, obviously, settling here in the United States, it's a – that's a – that is a viable option for so many of these people. But what we don't want to do is we don't – you don't want to overstate that, you don't want to make that your prime goal, because what you really want, as I alluded to in my opening statement, is better conditions where they live. Most of these people, actually, they want to go back home to where they're from. And so the long-term goal, and it's obviously a long-term goal, is to try to help create the conditions around the world where these people can go back to their own homes, their own countries, and renew – and pick up their lives again.

But no, the short answer is I don't see – I don't know of any and have nothing to announce in terms of plans to increase that number.

Ma'am.

QUESTION: On refugees again. Since you mentioned that number and considering the colossal humanitarian costs of the Syrian crisis – 4 million refugees – the United States is accepting the least number in comparison to the neighboring countries and Western Europe, which is under 1,000. Can you explain why is that?

MR KIRBY: It's actually just over 1,000 this week, and we continue to consider more and more Syrian refugees over time. I don't have new numbers to announce, but again, we've – it went over 1,000 just this week. And I know there are others that are in consideration. This is something we're taking very, very seriously. I also – it's also important to remember that the process by which an individual is resettled in another country, at least for the United States, it can be and it should be a thorough and sometimes lengthy process to make sure that individuals are properly vetted before they're allowed into the country.

So again, we take it very seriously. And I also want to go back to my answer to Paul. I mean, we – while resettlement here in the United States is an important component of this, and we are admitting – 70,000 is more than any other country – it is really not what you want as the end goal here to solve the refugee problem. The – what needs to be done is, in places like Syria, is good governance, no Assad regime, a Syria that is governed with the voice of the people and responsive to their needs. That's what really needs to happen, and that's a longer – obviously, a longer-term issue.

QUESTION: Is security a factor here? Because I don't know if you're aware, but a few congressmen has been raising the idea, at least, that some of ISIS sleeper cells might come into the United States with refugees. Is this a concern for you, the security issue?

MR KIRBY: The concern of foreign fighters or radicalized individuals, particularly those drawn to the ISIL narrative and ideology, it remains a concern. It's one of the reasons why the foreign fighter issue is taken up so seriously by so many other countries. I'm not going to parse out that --

QUESTION: Right, I meant the refugees.

MR KIRBY: -- we're concerned about them coming from any one country. I mean, obviously, we are concerned about foreign fighters coming from outside the United States in that have been radicalized, whether self or institutionally radicalized by ISIL. We also have a concern about Americans who are becoming radicalized or attracted to ISIL and going to leave to fight.

QUESTION: On the refugee issue and on the numbers, can you – as you probably know, the U.S. considers for admission as a refugee people who have been referred to it – only people who have been referred to it – to the United States by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In many cases, they don't refer that many to the United – do you know what that figure is? If you've accepted 1,000, how many has UNHCR referred to the U.S. that you --

MR KIRBY: From Syria?

QUESTION: No. From – well, yeah, from Syria, Iraq, this – what we're talking about here --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- from that area for resettlement in the United States. Because if the number is only 1,200, then accepting 1,000 of them is not bad; that's pretty good, in fact. Do you have that number?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, that's a great point, Matt, and I don't have that. We'll take that as a question and get back to you.

Yeah.

QUESTION: On this --

MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you in a second, Lesley.

QUESTION: Yeah, a related issue.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. These foreign fighters – the question: Do you believe that, especially after the capture of Tal Abyad by the Kurdish forces will help to prevent the foreign fighters influx to the region (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: We've said that. I mean, that town – one of the significant aspects of Tal Abyad was that it was a logistics and supply route, a venue through which foreign fighters and equipment could reach ISIL, particularly in Raqqa. So hard to put a number on it right now, and I wouldn't want to get predictive, but we do believe that that will help, certainly.

QUESTION: Are you cooperating with PYD forces on – specifically on this issue, to stop the foreign fighters influx to Raqqa or to other ISIL --

MR KIRBY: Well, the cooperation with respect to taking the town was really done through airstrikes, coalition airstrikes.

QUESTION: And the last one: Right now and after the capture of the town, the Kurdish forces are trying to clean the villages from the booby traps or the mines, et cetera. Do you have any cooperation in that sense with the local forces, through the NGOs or through --

MR KIRBY: I think I answered it before. The cooperation was really in the realm of coalition airstrikes.

Lesley.

QUESTION: Change the subject to Boko Haram? There's been a – certainly it appears an uptick in attacks from across the border to – twin suicide bombings in Chad yesterday. Today there have been two villages in Southern Niger that were attacked. At the same time, the White House announced 35 million for – to France for operations to – in Mali, Niger, and Chad to help with the Boko Haram fight. First of all, has there been a noticeable uptick in these attacks from Boko Haram? And number two, can you explain the funding? Because Linda, the assistant secretary for Africa here, announced 5 million for this task force to fight Boko Haram just a few days ago. Can you explain the funding issue at all?

MR KIRBY: No, I can't.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: You'll have to let me get you – get back with you on that.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

MR KIRBY: And as for the operational stuff, I'd refer you to the Pentagon. I did put out a statement yesterday condemning these attacks.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Obviously, we're watching this very closely. To your other question about an uptick or an increase, I mean, I don't know that we're prepared, just based on yesterday's attacks, to say now there's a new trend of an increase. But we're watching this very closely.

QUESTION: Because --

MR KIRBY: They remain – obviously, they remain a dangerous group.

QUESTION: Because there seems to be – and obviously, funding – there's a funding initiative going on here from --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and the State Department's involved in that. So --

MR KIRBY: Yep. I appreciate that.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) --

MR KIRBY: Let me get back to you on that.

Over here.

QUESTION: Go to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic to – on China?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah, thanks so much.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: A pleasure to meet you here. Thank you so much. On the South China Sea. And I understand – since I joined the press conference in this morning, I know the United States position on Spratly Island. The formal Chinese statement is not enough to reduce the tension. I'm sure that Secretary Kerry is going to raise a concern on the next S&ED meeting next week, S&ED meeting. But I'm just wondering, if the United States and the international community confirmed artificial island and to be militarized as established fact, which China has already created, it would be a – probably be a undesirable example, so – which allow other nation to do the same thing. So how the United States and international community make China understand seriousness and follow the international norm?

MR KIRBY: Well, I've talked about this – I talked about it yesterday.

QUESTION: Yep.

MR KIRBY: We have been crystal clear about our position on land reclamation and the military activities specifically tied to some of those reclamation islands. So I do think you're right. I think it will certainly be a topic of conversation next week, and we'll have more to say about it then. But we've been very clear about our concerns and urging the Chinese to stop this activity which is only increasing tensions.

QUESTION: I'm just wondering, I'm – we are looking at this – looking at a same nonfiction film – like, China establish Air Defense Identification Zone in East China Sea in 2013. And last year, as you know, China did oil rig activity in South China Sea. And they announced the halt of development before a big meeting. And they are doing the same thing this year. So I'm just wondering, what do you think is the most effective strategy, effective way to make China stop these kind of action? They don't listen to the international community.

MR KIRBY: It's an important relationship – one of the most important we have in the world. And it's important that we continue to look for opportunities where we can cooperate on things, such as climate change, and have frank and honest discussions about the things we disagree with. And some of the issues that you mention, though they are a little old, were issues we obviously had disagreements with. It's important to be able to have a relationship where you can have that kind of dialogue and try to effect the change that we believe needs to be affected. But – and that's why this meeting next week is important, because it offers opportunities over the course of two days to have these kinds of exchanges and to make our positions known and make them clear. Nobody is interested in conflict here, and there's no reason why it needs to devolve into conflict. Again, that's why next week's meeting is so important, and Secretary Kerry is very much looking forward to it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Move to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: We'll – sorry, go ahead, Roz.

QUESTION: Can you explain exactly how the land reclamation project is exacerbating tensions in the area? Is it a matter of changing the character of the waters around the Spratly Islands? Is it a matter of interfering with international commercial shipping? What's – what are the problems that the U.S. sees with the planned reclamation?

MR KIRBY: There are potential issues with the freedom of navigation caused by some of these, but I think the most concerning aspect of them is the militarization of at least some of them, which, again, given their proximity to islands claimed by others in the region, just increases tension.

And back here, yes.

QUESTION: Thanks, John. Actually, change topic, if it's okay. This is kind of a tricky --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I mean, I don't mind changing topics. We don't – we just move around, whatever you all want to do.

QUESTION: Okay, fine. This is on State Department personnel issue. The State OIG released an inspection report today on the Department's civil rights office that highlights a significant increase in harassment and sexual harassment claims by Department employees. The report actually says there were 248 such claims last year, compared to just 88 three years ago. So it also explicitly calls on the department to create a mandatory harassment training program. Apparently, one doesn't currently exist. So is such a training program going to be created, and do you have a general comment on this situation?

MR KIRBY: I'd make a couple of comments. First, there's nothing that Secretary Kerry takes more seriously than making sure that everybody here at the State Department is treated with dignity and respect. And he has zero tolerance for harassment of any kind, sexual or otherwise. That's clear. Point number two, the – we just now have received this report, and so we're going through it. I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that the Secretary will or won't make about the recommendations. We are – and then the third thing I'd say is we're grateful for the work that the IG continues to do to take a hard look at the institution and to find ways where we can improve.

But back to the main point: Zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. Secretary Kerry's made that clear, and I think he'll continue to do so.

QUESTION: Does the Pentagon have a mandatory harassment training program?

MR KIRBY: Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Elise.

QUESTION: How would you know that?

QUESTION: Can we --

MR KIRBY: Elise. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can we talk about – we talked a bit about Greece yesterday, but I just want to follow up. President Putin met with the Greek prime minister in St. Petersburg and was talking about a kind of Russian bailout. And I'm wondering if that's a concern to – obviously Greece needs the help, but are you concerned that Russia is trying to use financial influence to divide the EU over Ukraine and the possible rolling over of sanctions or passing new sanctions?

MR KIRBY: I think the way I'd put this, Elise, is we're – we continue to emphasize the need for Greece and international partners to take urgent steps toward compromise. I can't and won't speak specifically to the discussions that Greece and Russia might've had. We also believe it's really important that Greece continue to work with the EU and the IMF to resolve these issues, and that's where the discussion, we believe, needs to take place, and it has been. Again, this discussion notwithstanding, Greece is working with the IMF and the EU to resolve this, and that's what we believe is the proper platform for this.

QUESTION: But on the Russian issue – I mean, you've criticized Russia in the past for trying to use, like, energy blackmail on countries. I'm just concerned if you're worried that Russia is going to throw its money around Europe to try and influence countries from not being tougher on their actions in Ukraine. I mean, that European unity on this issue has been one of the things that's been successful in the sanctions.

MR KIRBY: Right, and I think coming out of the G7 you saw a lot of unity in Europe for continued sanctions against Russia and the possibility for increased sanctions to further isolate Russia. Again, not speaking specifically to this conversation – the one that Greek leaders had with Russian leaders. We still believe that, first of all, Europe remains united against Russia and what they're doing. We've been very clear about Russia's bellicosity not just from a military perspective, but economic as well. And again, we think coming out of the G7 there's great momentum here for the EU and Europe to stay united.

QUESTION: Matt, can I follow up?

QUESTION: Wait. On Greece.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on Greece – you said Greece is working with the IMF and the EU. Well, that might come as a bit of a surprise to the IMF and the EU, because over the course of the last 36, 48 hours, there's been – they've really gone to the brink. They're at the edge of the cliff right now, and I'm just wondering if that's – does the Administration really believe that Greece is working in – is working with – is constructively working with an eye toward resolving this with the EU and the IMF, or if you think that the events of the last 36 hours have called that into question?

MR KIRBY: I don't know that I'd say it calls it into question, Matt. Our position is we're encouraging all the parties to continue to do the work that they have – that they've started. I don't – and I didn't mean to convey in my answer that – saying that they are working, that – for that to be qualitative in terms of how much it's working. I think we're all watching this very, very closely. We're not a direct party to those conversations, but we are encouraging the continued cooperation (inaudible).

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR KIRBY: Brad, let me – I promise you I'll get back to you. Let me go back here and we'll come back to Brad.

QUESTION: Staying on Greece –I'm Katerina Sokou with Greek daily Kathimerini.

MR KIRBY: What's that?

QUESTION: I'm Katarina Sokou with Greek daily Kathimerini. And staying with Greece, Deputy Assistant Secretary Amanda Sloat is currently in Athens meeting with Greek Government officials. Has she conveyed to them a specific message from the U.S. regarding the plans to build the Turkish Stream pipeline and regarding the negotiations with the IMF and the European partners? And as far as the U.S. is concerned, is the onus on Greece to find a solution to reach an agreement with its partners, so that it cave in to their demands?

MR KIRBY: I think it's safe to say that Assistant Secretary Sloat[1] has conveyed the same messages, I think, that I've, in fact, conveyed here: that we encourage all parties to continue to work towards resolution here and to do so as expeditiously as possible.

Brad.

QUESTION: I just want to – unless there's more questions on Greece, I wanted to ask about the Russia component again. The attacks in Maryinka, Shyrokyne, and there was somewhere else --

MR KIRBY: Mariupol. Near Mariupol.

QUESTION: How – right, near Mariupol. How serious do you qualify these to be? Do you see these as an enhancement of the type of daily infractions we've been witnessing?

MR KIRBY: I think what I would characterize it, Brad, is a continuation of the kinds of activities that we have seen. Again, I don't think that I'm in a position to qualitatively describe these real recent reports. We're still trying to gather more information about them. But it is certainly a continuation of the kind of support to Russian separatists that we've seen in the past and, again, another – more violations of international law on Ukrainian territory.

QUESTION: In the past several weeks, the State Department has been speaking about advanced training techniques, more and better equipment being brought toward the front. Are you seeing any of this equipment and new training being used on the battlefield?

MR KIRBY: Can't speak to the training, Brad. But as I said at the topper, we certainly have seen in connection with these aggressive acts that I just talked about heavy weapons as a component of it, the same kinds of heavy weapons that we've seen in the past.

QUESTION: And then you – I just have a couple more, but they're quick. You mentioned that these were combined Russian-separatist forces. Do you believe Russian forces, Russian troops are part of the makeup of this force, of the forces that are attacking in these cities today?

MR KIRBY: Don't have an exact laydown of the separatist forces. But when I say combined separatists, obviously that connotes that there are some Russian force components to it. But it's hard to characterize exactly what that means and how many there are. We just don't have a good sense of it. But we've said all along, Brad, that they – we know because of the kinds of equipment that's being used to support these actions that it requires a certain level of institutional support, whether it's in the form of training or command and control or ISR support. So we know that there is some conventional support being applied to this effort. It's hard for me to go into much more detail than that.

QUESTION: And I have one final one. There's been threats or, let's say, suggestions, veiled and pretty open, about additional sanctions if the violence continues and expands. Do you see this type of violence that we witnessed today as the type of violence that would warrant an additional response, or is this still below the bar for kind of new and tougher measures against Russia?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't get ahead of decisions about additional sanctions that haven't been made yet, so I don't really have anything to announce in that regard or to hypothesize. It is a continuation of the kind of aggression that we've seen. We've continued to say that Russia will continue to bear a cost for this.

As I said to Elise's question, the European community remains united not only about continuing the existing sanctions, but considering future ones. Really, the ball is in President Putin's court here. He's the one who has the choice to do the right thing – not just the international legally thing but the right thing for his own people and for the people of Ukraine.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on the sanctions?

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Sure, Jo. Let me get to Jo.

QUESTION: On the sanctions, the EU actually is signaling that they're going to roll over the sanctions until January 1st of next year.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: Is this the right move? What would be the U.S. reaction to this? And on the back of that, since we've seen lockstep actions between the U.S. and the EU in the past, is there anything that you could foresee coming on the U.S. side?

MR KIRBY: Welcome the decision by the EU to roll over these sanctions. Don't have anything to announce on the U.S. side specifically.

QUESTION: On Russia --

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, is there – since these actions that we've seen on the Russian side have not abated despite the sanctions regime that's in place, is that not an argument to toughen and tighten the sanctions and move on to a different level?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think, again, they talked about this at the G7 – the importance – the role that sanctions have played, the effect that they're having on the Russian economy, the fact that they should be continued – and now we've seen this rollover announcement – and then the – not – the agreement to not – to be able to consider potential for future sanctions.

I'm certainly in no position here today to make a judgment either for this country or others about whether and when additional sanctions will be applied. But as I said at the opening, Russia will continue to pay a cost for its violation of international law, territorial integrity of Ukraine, and of course, the Minsk agreement. But I'm just not in a position now to speculate about what those additional costs would be, when they would be enacted, or through what forum.

Back here.

QUESTION: John, today --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, back here. Let me get back here. I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: New topic.

MR KIRBY: You've already had a chance. Now we're going to move around a little bit. We're going to be nice to everybody.

QUESTION: Yeah, well, we're on the same topic (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Different topic, Iran nuclear. There's a call from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for Secretary Kerry to consider overlooking the June 30th deadline if negotiating longer might produce a better deal. Up to this point, U.S. officials have been very adamant about June 30th. Are officials at a point now where they're considering softening their stance on that deadline?

MR KIRBY: I think I would just say exactly what I said yesterday, I think, to Matt, and that's that we are still focused on June 30th. And Secretary Kerry is – has shown no wavering off of that now. He's still committed to trying to get this deal done by the end of June, so there's been no change to that.

QUESTION: Can I --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- follow particularly on that, John? Can I just on --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- this particular question? But part of the reason that everyone has been so focused on the deadline is because of these congressional timelines in terms of the doubling of the review time and such. And I mean, the Secretary himself has always said, like, a better deal – it's not important that you get the deal on the 30th, it's – while obviously you don't want this to go on forever and you --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- don't want to give the Iranians or anyone else reason to not work towards that deadline --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- that a good deal was better than focusing on that June 30th deadline. So if Congress is willing to give you the extra negotiating time and the Iranians themselves, and in fact, some of your other European partners have also said June 30th is the deadline, it's the goal, but we should be flexible and nimble to make sure that we get the best agreement possible.

MR KIRBY: Take the point, and you're right. We've always said no deal is better than a bad deal, obviously, and we're not going to sign up to a deal that doesn't meet the needs that we've made very clear, that the P5 nations have made very clear. But we also are still working towards June 30th. I mean, that's still the goal, and that hasn't changed. That hasn't changed. Yeah, go ahead. I promised him I'd get to him.

QUESTION: That's fine, but I think you're going to find that it's going to be easier to get through one issue at a time. (Laughter.) Can I just --

MR KIRBY: All right.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you made a big point – you, in fact, opened the briefing with – by saying that we had all misinterpreted the Secretary's comments, pretty much everyone that wrote a story based on what he told us the other day had gotten it completely wrong. I'm wondering if you noticed today that the – that groups and people, experts in the field who have supported the Administration in its negotiations also appear to have misinterpreted the comments. Because they're saying – many of them today – that, well, what Iran did in the past actually isn't that important, and it's much more important to focus on the future, and let's kind of – they're not saying let's let bygones be bygones, but they're saying that there is – that they also do not think that one should be fixated on a certain point of time in the past.

Do you find that at all troubling, that the people who agree with the Administration on the importance and the goodness of a potential deal also seem to have misinterpreted the Secretary's comments, and have carried them forward in defense of an agreement?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the comments made by supporters. I'll take it at face value that you're right about that. And I won't speak for them or how they're interpreting either the deal or the Secretary's comments, and I don't want to have to rehash this all again today. I think we were straightforward yesterday about it. But nothing has changed about our policy with respect to the possible military dimensions. And as I said yesterday, the Secretary said we're not fixated on a certain point in time in the past, but that doesn't – saying that doesn't mean that their past military dimensions that they were pursuing, or the present ones which could be pursued, don't matter anymore. Of course they matter. That's why – frankly, that's why we're at the negotiating table with them.

QUESTION: All right. Two more very brief ones on this. One, you may have seen a report coming off from the Hill saying – noted – pointing out that the State Department every six months is supposed to report to Congress on the Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act findings.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The last one was in December 2014, which would mean six months from now – sorry, six months from then is now, given that we're in June. I'm wondering if that is going to come out soon. And if it is, do you expect that it'll cover anything more than just 2011 to 2012? It doesn't appear that since the negotiations have begun that the Administration has filed a report that covers any of the time period of the negotiations.

MR KIRBY: To your second question, I wouldn't expect it to cover more than 2012. I can tell you that – certainly no disputing the fact that it's late, also no disputing the fact that we're working very diligently on that. I don't have a calendar to give you in terms of the timing of it.

QUESTION: All right. And then another report: You may have seen that Senator Cruz is proposing to fine the State Department --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a percentage of its budget for every 30 days that the Human Rights Reports are late. These were due out in February. And he – I don't think he is particularly – well, he's – I won't speak for him. He's most interested in the Iran report, which is, of course, just one very small part of the overall report. But can you – well, one, I presume that you're opposed to his proposal. And if you are, could you say it, or even if you're not? And number two, can you assure Senator Cruz and others who are suggesting that this is – that the delay is designed to protect Iran from criticism of its human rights record because of the negotiations – the nuclear negotiations – can you assure them that they are wrong?

MR KIRBY: Yes, I can. The delay has nothing to do with the Iran negotiations whatsoever. That is a completely false notion, absolutely no truth to it at all. We recognize that the report is late by several months. We're working very hard on that. And I expect that you will see that report released in the very near future.

QUESTION: Okay. But would one of – the reason that it's been late has to do with the Secretary's travel?

MR KIRBY: There's been a --

QUESTION: One reason --

MR KIRBY: There's been a host of reasons. One of them is a very intense travel schedule by the Secretary the last few months, but also just routine staffing and administrative delays.

QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. But one of the reasons that he's been traveling so much or had been traveling so much was for the Iran negotiations. So to say that it has nothing at all to do with Iran is not entirely correct, right?

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, what I'm looking for --

MR KIRBY: Some of the travel – some of the travel, yes.

QUESTION: This is – well, no, this is why I just want to nail this down, because you open yourself up to people on the Hill and elsewhere saying, "Oh, you're playing fast and loose with the facts." This has nothing to do with protecting Iran – does this have anything to do with protecting Iran from criticism on its human rights record while the negotiations are underway?

MR KIRBY: No, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. No, it does not.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said that there – that you are – Administration is quite disappointed, that they called for the enlistment of 24,000 soldiers to join the Sunni army – some sort of a Sunni militia, but only 7,000 stepped forward, and that you would like to see a greater commitment on the part of the Iraqis to do their own kind of fighting. Could you elaborate a little bit on that? How is this situation (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: I'm certainly not in a position to speak to the Secretary of Defense or his comments, so I won't do that. That said, I think he was certainly reflecting the same concern even President Obama reflected a week or so ago that there has to be Iraqi commitments to this program as well, I mean, and we all know that, and we're working with Prime Minister Abadi to that end. There's – 9,000 Iraqis have been trained. There's another 4,000, I think, in training. There's – the work is being done, and Prime Minister Abadi knows, and he's working on this audit of his own forces to try to get at a good accounting of who he actually has in uniform and who he doesn't. He's mindful of the work ahead of him and we're willing to help him.

QUESTION: So – but what are you doing to sort of incentivize the Iraqis to do this? I mean, I remember I was in Iraq during the surge, and General Petraeus actually went and talked with them one on one and so on and gave them incentives that they would be rehabilitated into the military institutions and so on. What is happening in kind of something akin to this at the present time?

MR KIRBY: Well, that's a better question put to Prime Minister Abadi. It's his – these are his armed forces, not ours. They're a sovereign state. That said – and, I mean, I don't mean to beat the horse any deader than it is, but we are certainly working with Prime Minister Abadi to help him as he tries to more professionalize his forces. That's why we got these additional trainer – advisors going in, and that mission will continue now at five sites.

QUESTION: And finally, General Dempsey said that while they don't want to deploy more forces, the Americans will step in, so to speak, if the battles call for it. What does that mean? I mean, you're – being from the Pentagon, with this great Pentagon background --

MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) But I'm no longer there, and I'd refer you to DOD to speak to General Dempsey and his comments.

Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry, you just said "beat the horse any deader than it is." Is that a military expression that we – (laughter) – can you beat a horse more dead than it already is? Is that possible?

MR KIRBY: I don't – yeah, no, it's not, and that was my point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: That was my point. It's not a military – it's not a military term of art. It's just the history major in me struggling to find the words.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Abadi of Iraq, according to press reports, he tried in his visit to Iran yesterday to convince Iranian officials to establish a mechanism for coordination between Iran military advisors to militias in Iraq and the American military advisors in Iraq. Did you ask him to approach the Iranians with such an idea?

MR KIRBY: I know of no such request that was made by us for that. Prime Minister Abadi should speak to his travels and the conversations that he has with foreign leaders.

QUESTION: Any reaction to his visit to Iran?

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to his visit to Iran?

MR KIRBY: We talked about this the other day. I mean, he's the sovereign – he's the leader of a sovereign nation. Iran is an important neighbor – long border. Longest border they have is with Iran. Iran believes it has interests inside Iraq against ISIL. They've acted on those interests in their own way. We've made clear two things: one, whatever they do, we don't want them to further inflame sectarian tensions; and two, we're not going to coordinate military activities directly with Iran. I would, again, refer you to Prime Minister Abadi to speak to his trip and his objectives, but we recognize that he has to reach out to his neighbors. And oh, by the way, it hasn't just been Iran; he's traveled to other countries in the region as well, and he's still working on getting his government up and going, and outreach to one's neighbors is probably wise policy.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, same --

QUESTION: I just wanted to go back to the Human Rights Reports real quick. State Department officials, including yourself, have now indicated that that's just waiting on a scheduling opportunity to be released. Can you confirm that these reports have been completed and just are waiting to be published at this point?

MR KIRBY: I don't want to get into ticktock in terms of the report, but as I said, it's – I think you can expect us to release this report very soon.

QUESTION: Okay, so they have been completed then?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about how dry the ink is on these things, but I can tell you that we will release the report very, very soon.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it's now 113 days late, which is a historical record by almost a month, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1977 mandates that these things be released by February 25th of every year. Does the Obama Administration believe that they have any obligation to obey that law?

MR KIRBY: Of course we have to obey the law. We know we're late. We're working on the report. We'll have it out very soon.

QUESTION: But could you say why it's – I mean, it seems to be late every year. Is, like, this year – I mean, maybe this year is, like, a little bit longer, but they never come out on time. So what --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, well, I can't speak to the institutional history of homework here at the State Department. But again, we've acknowledged --

QUESTION: In this particular instance?

MR KIRBY: We've acknowledged that it's late. We understand that. We know the concern surrounding that. It will be out very soon, very soon.

Yeah, right here. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. A follow-up on Iraq is you have been talking about the reforms in the Iraqi army, but there are reports also, the Foreign Affairs and International Crisis Group. They are talking about the fragmentation among Peshmerga also, the politicizing by the PUK and KDP forces. There are also a plan by the minister of Peshmerga to reform, and the ministry of Peshmerga too. Would you support this kind of reforms, or are you also concerned about the fragmentation among the Peshmerga forces?

MR KIRBY: I don't think I'm going to make any statements here today about the reform of the Peshmerga. I mean, our focus is fighting against ISIL inside Iraq and in Syria. It's a broad coalition. We're working through the government in Baghdad. That's how the support is getting to the Pesh, is through Baghdad, and I think we'd let the Iraqi Government speak to reforms in there.

What I will say is, writ large, we are constantly as a part of this mission looking for ways to help Iraq improve the capability, competence and the battlefield performance of Iraqi Security Forces. And two, a measure of that has been our support to help advise and assist Peshmerga as well.

I've got just time for a couple more. Back here.

QUESTION: Just on yesterday's comments made by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at the hearing. He said a couple of things, one about Iraq. He said the United States did have a policy for the possibility of the disintegration of Iraq as a country. He said we will enable the local forces and they will not be a single country at that time. Can you elaborate more on that and do you really believe that Iraq is going to disintegrate, that's why you have a policy for it?

MR KIRBY: I didn't see those particular comments, and again, I am not the spokesman for the Secretary of Defense. So it's not my place to speak to what he said or what he meant. Again, I'll go back to – our policies remain unchanged, that the – we're working with Prime Minister Abadi's government, the elected Government of Iraq, which is a sovereign nation, and the support that we provide them militarily and otherwise goes through the government in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Also on Syria --

MR KIRBY: Now, I will – I do want to add that one of the things that – about Prime Minister Abadi's leadership that we have noted with respect is the fact that he is trying to decentralize a little bit and he is trying to empower governors to act more on their behalf.

QUESTION: You do support a decentralized system of governance for Iraq, right?

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You do support a decentralized system of governance?

MR KIRBY: We support Prime Minister Abadi's efforts to decentralize some control in a federal-like way. But ultimately, these are his decisions that he has to make and obviously to be responsive to his electorate, the Iraqi people. But yes, we support his efforts – and these are his efforts. We're – it's not – we're not making him do it; he's doing this.

QUESTION: Just one more question Secretary Carter --

MR KIRBY: I'll come to you in a second.

QUESTION: -- made about Syria. He said the problem with Syria that makes the war against ISIS even more challenging is that we don't have some sort of reliable and effective partner on the ground. Can you tell me whether you also – you consider the Kurdish rebels there as well as unreliable and ineffective, the ones who have defended Kobani? Why don't you have – why don't you see them as a reliable partner? Do you see them or not?

MR KIRBY: I didn't say they were unreliable. What I – when we talk about – one of the issues inside Syria going against ISIL is having capable partners on the ground. Yes, Kurdish fighters in the north have been effective – with our help, with the coalition's help from the air – have been effective. And so we take note of that. But there's also a need for additional partners on the ground, and that's why we've got this – the Pentagon is working on a train and equip program for a moderate Syrian opposition, and they're working on – I'll refer you to them to speak to the details of it, but that's why that's important and that's why we're working on it. I never characterized the Kurdish fighters one way or the other.

QUESTION: Okay. So if you see them as reliable and effective, as you put it --

MR KIRBY: I said they have been in – up in the north in some of these cases.

QUESTION: Okay. But why don't you offer them a more robust support? That's the question everybody is asking. Really, like, you are supporting the Iraqi Kurds to a degree that is unprecedented, but when it comes to the Syrian Kurds, do you see them as unreliable?

MR KIRBY: I think I've answered this. I mean, the recent activity there in the north wouldn't have been possible without the airstrikes that the coalition provided them.

I'll take one more. Nicolas.

QUESTION: Thank you. A very quick one on climate change. I'd like to know if – I'd like to have your take on the very strong warning Pope Francis sent to the world on climate change. I briefly saw a statement or an interview of Secretary Kerry in TIME magazine, but I'd like to have your position on that.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, thanks. And I think you may have seen – I don't know, have we got that out yet? The Secretary's – yeah, the Secretary did a statement as well welcoming the Pope's comments on climate change. Secretary Kerry has made this a priority and it's – it remains front and center with him going forward on the importance of climate change. Peer-reviewed science has obviously made clear the dangers by climate change and the dangers that that can have to not just economies and prosperity, but security as well. So we welcome many voices on this, including the Pope's. And again, the Secretary remains focused on this issue and looking forward to Paris.

QUESTION: So do you think that it's a good thing that the Pope is kind of interfering into these highly global, political issues? Because this question – because a lot of – in the United States didn't like the Pope message, including Republicans and Jeb Bush, saying that it's not up to the Pope to talk about climate change.

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I would just point you to Secretary Kerry's statement on this – on the encyclical that the Pope put out; he welcomed it. And I think he was very clear in his statement how much he welcomed the Pope's comments on this. And I don't think that Secretary Kerry would consider it as papal interference.

QUESTION: John, could you --

MR KIRBY: I'm going to --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) on Venezuela?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything new on Venezuela. (Laughter.) We're going to call it there.

QUESTION: What about U.S. negotiators agreed that some Iranian sites be off limits to inspection?

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Are – my colleagues on the Hill report that – this was briefed – that U.S. negotiators agreed that some Iranian sites will be off limits to inspection.

MR KIRBY: Again, we've talked about this. The proper access needs to be had by IAEA inspectors, and that's what the negotiators are working through on making sure that that access is there. I'm not going to negotiate here from the podium. And we've said if we can't have that kind of access to verify, then there's not going to be a deal.

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: And access on all sites, right?

MR KIRBY: Thank you, thank you.

QUESTION: Wait, hold on, wait. Is there any update on the consular database? What's --

MR KIRBY: No, it's – no, nothing from yesterday.

QUESTION: Two, did you get an answer on the email question, these additional emails that Mr. Blumenthal provided to the committee --

MR KIRBY: I haven't --

QUESTION: -- whether or not the department had them?

MR KIRBY: No, I do not have an update on that.

QUESTION: These questions won't go away.

MR KIRBY: I understand.

QUESTION: Three, did you have an update on the Waldorf and that whole thing?

MR KIRBY: I do not.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:55 p.m.)

DPB # 107

[1] Deputy Assistant Secretary Sloat