Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 22, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
CHINA
AFGHANISTAN
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
DEPARTMENT
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
IRAN
EGYPT
ISRAEL/TURKEY
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
JAPAN/SOUTH KOREA
CHINA/CYBER SECURITY
PERU
UNITED KINGDOM
DEPARTMENT
ETHIOPIA
DEPARTMENT
IRAQ
TRANSCRIPT:
2:02 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: Got some things at the top here, so just if you could bear with me. Obviously, this is a big week for U.S.-China relations. On Tuesday and Wednesday Secretary Kerry and Secretary Lew are hosting the 7th U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue. In addition, Secretary Kerry will host the 6th Consultation on People-to-People Exchange, and that'll be integrated into these events.
As a precursor to that, I think many of you know today Deputy Secretary Blinken will chair the 5th Strategic Security Dialogue. We are looking to expand our bilateral cooperation on many global challenges such as climate change, development, humanitarian assistance, pandemic response, and ocean conservation.
We will also have the chance to coordinate U.S. and Chinese policies on regional issues like Iran, Iraq, and Syria, North Korea, and Afghanistan, and we will also address areas where we have ongoing differences such as maritime disputes, cyber security, and human rights. As we have said many times, the United States is firmly committed to improving its relationship with China. While our countries disagree on many points, we recognize that there are many areas for mutually beneficial cooperation and, indeed, that no problem can't be better addressed with U.S.-China cooperative efforts. We look forward to all the dialogue being held this week, as they are some of the most important of several mechanisms for tackling our disagreements and advancing our mutual interests.
On Afghanistan, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the attack on Afghanistan's parliament building. This attack demonstrates the gulf between the Taliban and the people of Afghanistan, and shows blatant disregard for human life and for democracy. Our thoughts, of course, are with the victims and their families. And I would note the speedy response and effective response by Afghan National Security Forces to the attack.
Switching to Europe, if I could. We welcome today's decision from the EU's foreign affairs council to extend sanctions in response to Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine. As we and our EU and G7 partners have made clear, sanctions are directly linked to the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. We hope all countries will condemn Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine and we join the international community in imposing sanctions.
We also welcome Martin Sajdik's appointment as the OSCE's special – new special representative in Ukraine and in the Trilateral Contact Group. The implementation of the Minsk agreements by all signatories remains imperative and we offer our full support to Ambassador Sajdik in his mission. We also want to take this opportunity to thank his predecessor, Heidi Tagliavini, for her determined, skillful stewardship of the Trilateral Contact Group over the last year.
And then finally a scheduling note. On Thursday the 25th we will release our annual Human Rights Report. Although I don't have a specific time and details of how that's all going to unfold – we're working on that today – I expect that we'll have a more detailed advisory note out to you guys later today with, again, more specifics. But I did want to let you know that that is going to happen on Thursday.
QUESTION: And you will expect wall-to-wall coverage of it, I'm sure, right?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Not just on one specific country --
MR KIRBY: Indeed.
QUESTION: -- but on all of them?
MR KIRBY: Over to you, Matt.
QUESTION: I'm sure we'll get back into China. I have one about that but I'll wait until others have started the China stuff first. I want to start with Middle East and Israel and the UN Gaza report that came out today. Both the Israelis and Hamas have rejected the report, and I'm wondering what you guys think of it.
MR KIRBY: Well, we're just now in receipt of it, Matt, so we're not in any position to make a comment or pass any judgment on it. Just received it ourselves. As we have made clear in the past, our concerns about the mechanism of using the Commission of Inquiry on this and the bias against Israel that is imparted in that mechanism. So we've been very clear from the get-go that we have concerns over the mechanism itself, and again, we just got the report. Not in a position to comment.
QUESTION: What – the main things that it singles out both sides for – or the possible – or actions that they say that it – that the commission says may have constituted war crimes during the Gaza conflict. On the Israeli side, that would include disproportionate use of force – that's what it said; and on the Hamas side, the targeting of civilians. Both of these things are items that this building in particular, but this Administration called out each side for, perhaps not quite using the word "disproportionate" use of force but there was quite a bit of anger in the Administration about some of the Israeli activities and – as well about the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.
So I'd be curious to know if you have issues with the report, what specifically those issues would be other than the fact that the mechanism, you say, was biased and unfair? So when your people are reading it, we'll be looking – or at least I will be looking for specific issues that you have with it. So when they do, if you could address those – maybe tomorrow – that would be great.
MR KIRBY: To the best of my ability.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on --
MR KIRBY: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Now, the report says that Israel conducted 6,000 raids on Gaza, 50,000 artillery shell – certainly, you find that to be excessive, isn't it?
MR KIRBY: Well, I --
QUESTION: On a densely populated area.
MR KIRBY: I think, as Matt rightly pointed out, we made clear our concerns about the conflict at the time, and continue to urge restraint on all sides. Again, we've just now been in receipt of this report. It's way too soon for any conclusions to be reached or any statements to be made about the veracity in that. And I don't know that we're going to have a point-by-point rebuttal of it. We've – because as I said at the outset, we've also made clear our concern about the mechanism itself of this committee of inquiry. So I just am not in a position to comment on the specific findings.
QUESTION: Can you comment on what the United States will do next? Apparently the report will go before the Security Council, then it will go to the ICC. Will you support any of that effort?
MR KIRBY: Again, we've expressed concerns about the mechanism itself. So I don't foresee any – a U.S. role here in the process of it moving forward. We've expressed concerns about this commission of inquiry from the get-go, and I just – I don't have anything for you on that.
QUESTION: And finally, just one last point: The Israeli Government just called the United Nations being hijacked by a terrorist group. Do you agree with that assessment --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen it.
QUESTION: -- that the United Nations has been hijacked by a terrorist group?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments. Obviously we continue to be members in good standing at the UN.
QUESTION: Iran?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Can we move to Iran? First, just any reaction to the weekend vote by the parliament there banning IAEA access to the very sites that our negotiators are attempting to secure access to?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, as we understand it, these are sort of initial or preliminary legislative steps that Iran's parliament has obviously expressed an interest in taking. What we would say is what we've been saying, and that's that the talks continue in Vienna as we speak; that our expectation is that Iran will meet all the parameters in the agreements made in Lausanne; and of course there's final negotiations going on right now, and those require being able to provide the necessary access to IAEA inspectors so that the agreements can be fully verified. There's going to be – there are – there have been many voices in this process on all sides. There will continue to be many voices in this process. But as we've said before, James, no deal is better than a bad deal.
QUESTION: So this isn't regarded as a serious obstacle, it sounds like.
MR KIRBY: Again, we've – we noted it, but we're sitting down right now in Vienna with negotiating teams from all the countries. Those talks continue, and our expectation is that we're going to get – if there's an agreement to be had, that it will be the right agreement, it'll be a good deal, and it'll be a deal that ensures that Iran does not ever come into possession of a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: And one last one: We had a colloquy in this room on Friday that – it seemed to end on a kind of an unclear note, and I would appreciate a chance to clarify it here – and it related to some language that you used. And when you were questioned about it in the terms of a follow-up question, you then retreated to the position of you weren't going to discuss anything that's going on in the negotiation room, which is, in fact, what briefers at this very podium have been doing for 18 months. So if you could just add a little bit of clarity to this.
In your responses to us on Friday, you alluded to the possibility that the final deal could contain – your word now – "parameters" for IAEA access. And I just want to nail this down with you so that there is clarity. Could it be the case that any final deal that we would negotiate and ink would itself contain parameters for access that would be subject to further negotiation after the finalization of the final deal?
MR KIRBY: I am not going to talk about what the final deal will or will not look like. Again, negotiators are hard at work right now, and I think we need to give them the space to do that work. What I – what is true, however, is that at Lausanne in April, it was agreed that Iran would provide the parameters to allow the necessary access by IAEA inspectors. That was agreed in April, and that agreement is still in effect. That does not constitute the final deal, though, James, and that's what they're working out right now. And that's really as far as I can go with it today.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the parliament vote for a second? Does it give you any pause or any concern that a significant number of members of parliament in Tehran were chanting "death to America" as they voted on this law that would bar the inspections of military sites, or is that – do you think that that's just kind of political grandstanding?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I'm not in a position to speak for every individual that might have been shouting "death to America."
QUESTION: No, no, no, I don't want you to speak for them.
MR KIRBY: No, I know. I'm not – and I'm not going to qualify the degree of concern that there may be over those chants. I mean, these are chants we've heard before from Iran. I think what's more telling, Matt, is less the chants or perhaps the vitriol by some hardliners and more the fact that we are sitting down with a team in Vienna and progress is being made. And you heard Foreign Secretary – UK Foreign Secretary Hammond say this morning that he still is hopeful that June 30th can be met. So work's being done, and I think that's where Secretary Kerry's focus is and that's where Wendy Sherman's focus is: the work there at the table and not necessarily the chants from people in Iran.
QUESTION: Okay. But, I mean, is it not dismaying at all? Does it give you – I mean --
MR KIRBY: It's certainly not --
QUESTION: -- these are the elected representatives. The Secretary made a big point out of saying at one point that Iran has a democratically-elected government, and that would include the executive and the legislative branch, and these are the elected representatives of the Iranian people who are saying this. It – this is not dismaying to you at all?
MR KIRBY: It's certainly not helpful --
QUESTION: Okay. All right.
MR KIRBY: -- to the kind of dialogue that we're trying to pursue, but is it going to have a major impact on the negotiating teams in Vienna? No.
QUESTION: John, can I just --
QUESTION: Will the Secretary join the talks this week?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Will the Secretary join the talks --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates on the Secretary's schedule to announce today.
QUESTION: Can I ask about – part of what happened in the parliament was that the parliament agreed that they would not have the final review of the deal, that they would pass it to the Supreme National Security Council. What is this building's opinion about that move? Does it make final passage of any kind of deal more possible or harder?
MR KIRBY: We're not taking a position on this particular legislative step right now, Jo. And again, as I said earlier, there's – there have been many voices in this process. There will continue to be as we move forward. Our focus right now really is on getting the deal done and then --
QUESTION: But the Supreme National Security Council would presumably have more of a direct line to the supreme leader, so – I mean, it could make it – I don't know. Could it make it harder?
MR KIRBY: I just think it's too soon to really try to play that hypothetical out, and again, our focus is on the deal itself and then subsequent legislative discussions. And there will be legislative discussions in every country involved in this, not just Iran. We'll take that when it comes, but I think it's important that our focus remain on the negotiating teams right now in Vienna and trying to work towards a deal.
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: John.
MR KIRBY: What would be the legislative action that is going to happen in China?
MR KIRBY: Well – okay, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, there --
MR KIRBY: I mean, I get the point, but my main argument is here that there's – as I said, there's going to be lots of voices in this process.
QUESTION: Ratification, most likely.
MR KIRBY: Lots of voices in this process. And I just – I think where we need to stay focused is on the work in Vienna right now and not the hypotheticals about what it would mean later in Iran and through their legislative process.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up. Foreign Minister Zarif said that it's better to get a good deal than to stick to a date, suggesting perhaps that there may be an extension. Do you agree with that?
MR KIRBY: Our focus remains on, if a good deal is going to be had, to work towards June 30th.
QUESTION: Well, I know you're working --
MR KIRBY: That's what we're still focused.
QUESTION: May I? I know you're working towards June 30th, but that's about a week away, okay? And you say that progress has been made, but there are tough issues remaining. The ministers are still not there. Would you say that so much progress has been made that a deal is at hand by Wednesday?
MR KIRBY: I would say that we continue to be focused on June 30th as the goal and the objective, and Foreign Secretary Hammond said the same thing. That's where Secretary Kerry has been. I think he told you the same thing. And that's what the teams are working on over there. I think it would be --
QUESTION: But it's also important to be realistic, right? I mean --
MR KIRBY: I think everybody's been suitably realistic about this too, Elise.
QUESTION: It doesn't sound very realistic that a deal – I mean, it doesn't sound --
MR KIRBY: I didn't say --
QUESTION: Given the fact that the ministers – last time, it took them over a week. They're not even there yet and presumably won't be before the end of the week. I mean, it just seems that a deal – I'm not saying it even matters to most of the people in this room, but the fact that you're so insistent on June 30th is just going to be that much more – peoples will be asking that much more questions about you missing the deadline when it goes past on Wednesday.
MR KIRBY: Well, it sure seems to matter to some of you because the question keeps coming up. (Laughter.) I would tell you that we – we're focused on June 30th. And we've said it before: Deadlines are a good thing because they do help drive outcomes. And I'm – I just think that it would be counterproductive for me to speculate up here and hypothesize about any possible work past June 30th. The teams are working hard in Vienna. We need to let them do their work. Everybody's focused on that day. And we'll see where we are in a week.
QUESTION: I understand. But what you're saying about the amount of progress that's been made and the – and what we are all discussing about that the issues are on the table, it seems like you'd be trying to shoehorn a deal in by June 30th just to get the deal done by June 30th. I mean, from what – the situation you're describing in terms of progresses that have been made, the hang-ups that remain and still need to be negotiated, it just doesn't look like that's possible. And so we come back to you and say, are you trying to – is the date more important than the deal?
MR KIRBY: No, the date is not more important than the deal --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- of course. And when I talk about progress, Elise, I'm not – I don't think that I have overstated it in any way at all. I've been very --
QUESTION: I don't think so either.
MR KIRBY: I've been very frank about the fact that yes, progress is being made, but it's slow. The discussions are still tough. There are still issues that need to be resolved. And nobody, I don't think, is overpromising here. And as we've said many, many times, no deal is better than a bad deal. And that's where we are.
QUESTION: Can a deal be reached?
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Can a deal be reached?
MR KIRBY: I believe that, again, without getting into specifics of the discussions, I think everybody's working toward that end.
QUESTION: But John, can I ask this this way: Should one be alarmed if the discussions go beyond the 30th? Does that mean that there is some kind of breakdown or that a deal might not be possible?
MR KIRBY: It's going to – the answer to your question is it depends on what the issues outstanding are. I mean, in Lausanne in April they went a couple of days over the self-imposed deadline and obviously they weren't of a nature that prevented reaching that agreement. So I mean, I can't answer the question right now since – because we're not there yet. It's just going to depend.
QUESTION: One thing it seems to me you could answer, which is what I was kind of driving at earlier, is the idea that a final deal wouldn't really be final. I wonder if you can assure the American people that when a final deal is – if and when a final deal is reached, there will be no further room for negotiation; thereafter, it'll be the final deal.
MR KIRBY: We're all trying – we're all working toward trying to get a deal by the end of this month. That's the work that's going on right now: A deal that will ensure that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon. So you want to call that final? Call it final. But that's the deal that we are working toward. And the guts inside of that that are being negotiated now, obviously, we – we're not in a position to talk about specifically.
But look, James, I think to your question, assuring the American people, I think Secretary Kerry would – has and would want me to continue to assure the American people that that's the goal we're focused on, is a deal that will prevent them from possessing a nuclear weapon. And work continues toward that end. Achieving that end diplomatically is obviously better than through any other type of means, and that's what the teams are focused on.
QUESTION: I don't mean to belabor it, I just – maybe a different way of asking is simply to ask whether the United States would regard it as unsatisfactory for any actual important details to be left still to be negotiated after a final deal has been finalized.
MR KIRBY: I think the only – the best way I can answer it is the important details – those are being hashed out, and they will be hashed out, or there won't be a deal.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: We've seen former President Mohamed Morsy in red execution uniform. We saw that on Sunday. That's basically an indication that he's officially been placed on the death row. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those images. We've long made our concerns very, very clear about the rule of law and a responsible judicial system there in Egypt. I'm just not at --
QUESTION: But on Monday --
MR KIRBY: -- liberty to talk about an image I haven't seen.
QUESTION: But on Monday, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo announced that Egypt just received two shipments of weapons. So doesn't that, like, send the message that the United States might voice concern but refuses to take any action --
MR KIRBY: No, I wouldn't say that at all. We have a defense relationship with Egypt that is particularly aimed at helping that country battle the terrorism threat inside the country, and the security work that they are doing. So no, I don't think that that's the intent of it, and I don't think that anybody should read any other messages into that other than we have a commitment on a – through a defense relationship with Egypt in that regard. We've, again, long made clear our concerns about rule of law procedures.
QUESTION: Also on Egypt?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Al Jazeera announced over the weekend that one of its journalists who was tried in – convicted in absentia was arrested in Germany. I don't know what the very, very latest --
QUESTION: He was released.
QUESTION: He was released.
QUESTION: He – oh, I'm sorry.
MR KIRBY: He's been released.
QUESTION: Well, forget it. I mean – okay, but just a follow-on. I mean, should these journalists that have been tried and convicted in absentia be afraid to travel around the world because they're – they might have some relations with Egypt?
MR KIRBY: I'm not in a position to talk about their travel habits or where they're – where they may go or may not go. That said, Elise, I mean, again, we've been very clear about our expectations about freedom of the press and due process in protecting the rights of those who are objectively trying to cover events there in Egypt. I think we've been very, very clear about that.
QUESTION: John, let me follow on with that. The fact is there was no INTERPOL Red Notice for Ahmed Mansour or for the other nine journalists who have been convicted in absentia. And to go to Elise's point, should people who have been convicted in absentia without an INTERPOL Red Notice basically be held captive in whatever country they happen to be in? Should they be afraid of trying to travel just because one country says, "Well, you are now a felon under our laws"?
MR KIRBY: We certainly wouldn't want them to feel held captive, obviously. But I'm not in a position to make a comment about what they should or shouldn't do, and I would refer you to INTERPOL for speaking to their processes. But again, we've made very clear what our expectations are for freedom of the press.
QUESTION: Do you know whether anyone from the U.S. Government has spoken to the Egyptians about trying to bring someone that it considers a criminal to justice absent the INTERPOL intervention? Or is this a simple matter of we think this person is on the lam, we want this person to be held accountable, and this is no different than any other extradition request?
MR KIRBY: We certainly made clear in a dialogue with Egyptian authorities, again, our expectations about rule of law, judicial process, and certainly freedom of the press. I don't know if there's been specific discussions with Egyptian authorities about the Interpol arrest warrant process. But again, more broadly we've made – we've certainly made our positions known.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Tolga.
QUESTION: A different topic. According to the press reports, Turkish and Israeli officials met today in Rome to --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- to resume the reconciliation negotiations between the two countries. Since the President Obama actually facilitated this process in 2013, did you play any role in this new attempt or do you have any reaction?
MR KIRBY: We certainly welcome any efforts by both sides to improve their relationship. I would refer you to both governments to speak to these talks, and I'm not aware of any U.S. role in them.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Israel?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. The visit of French Foreign Minister Fabius this weekend to Israel. He apparently submitted a peace proposal – not a peace proposal, but to re – sort of restart the talks, direct talks maybe under an international umbrella. But he also said this during his press conference: that if the United States opposed their proposal then they will not submit it to the United Nations. Have you taken a look at the proposal, and do you have any idea on what will you do once it is submitted?
MR KIRBY: Well, without getting ahead of anything, what I would say is nothing's changed about our policy of supporting a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: Right. And we continue to look to the Israeli Government's policies and actions as well as those of the Palestinians that demonstrate their commitment to moving forward on a two-state solution. I won't speak today to Foreign Minister Fabius' agenda, his trip, or his – or his findings about that. But nothing's changed about our policy with respect to the --
QUESTION: Do you know if there has been any conversation between the French foreign minister and Secretary of State Kerry --
MR KIRBY: Well, they spoke --
QUESTION: -- on this issue?
MR KIRBY: As I said, they spoke on Thursday before the foreign minister made his trip. I'm not aware of any discussions since then.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Change topics?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: I just have a quick one on East Asia and then maybe segue that into China after that. Could I get your reaction to the dual statements issued by Prime Minister Abe and President Park on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the re-establishment of relations?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, we certainly welcome the – their agreement to participate in those events. And as I said, I think Friday, we more broadly welcome efforts to improve the bilateral relationship between Japan and Korea.
QUESTION: Are you hopeful that this will lead to perhaps a more substantive dialogue directly between the two leaders? They didn't actually address each other in these statements, obviously.
MR KIRBY: I think it's an important step that they're – that they've agreed to attend this commemoration together. That President Park is willing to go and do that, I think that's not insignificant. And certainly, should that lead to better relations, better cooperation, better dialogue between the two, that's always welcome, too. I wouldn't be in a position to try to predict what attendance at this commemoration would do, but certainly, we look forward to that relationship getting broader and deeper.
QUESTION: And then I have one on China, unless there are any follow-ups on this issue.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Something that didn't really come up in the backgrounder earlier was the issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I was wondering if you could perhaps tell us if there's been any evolution at all in the thinking of the Administration on this and what kind of position will be – will he be conveying to the Chinese in your meetings this week?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates to Administration policy with respect to that. But as a – I think it's safe to assume that it will be discussed along the broad array of economic issues and development issues that we expect to discuss over the next two days. At the end of the two days there'll be a press conference, and I'm sure that the principals will have things to say about the discussions writ large. I don't know how specific it'll be to that, but certainly, economic issues are high on the agenda for the next couple of days.
QUESTION: John, on China, you mentioned at the top that – where – that they would talk about areas of cooperation but also areas where you have differences, and you listed three: maritime disputes, presumably South China Sea; cyber security; and then human rights. On cyber security, what exactly is the disagreement that you have with the Chinese? Is the disagreement that you accuse them of hacking major amount – massive amounts of material and they deny it? Is that the difference? Or is --
MR KIRBY: I think – I don't have the – and I don't think we have sort of a laundry list of specific allegations or anything like that, Matt, but – and we've talked about this a long time. I mean, cyber security is one of those realms, one of those domains where we have had differences with the Chinese in terms of --
QUESTION: But you're both opposed to it, right?
MR KIRBY: Opposed to --
QUESTION: Hacking. And you're both in favor of strong cyber security, right? So I'm trying to figure out what the difference is. The difference is you think that they're hacking into you?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: And they deny it?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to level charges here one way or the other from the podium, Matt. I mean, this is a – it's a very new and dynamic domain. It is one in which international norms and sets of parameters are not well established. And again, we've made our concerns clear not just to China but to other state and non-state actors. And I think it's an area where, while we don't necessarily always agree on the approach to cyber security and cyber defense, it is certainly one of those areas where there is room for better cooperation and better dialogue and more transparency.
QUESTION: So – okay. More transparency would mean what? Them admitting --
MR KIRBY: No, I mean, you're --
QUESTION: I'm trying to --
MR KIRBY: Please don't try to – I don't – I'm not – don't try to distill what I'm saying down to some, like, there's going to be specific charges levied against them for this or that incident.
QUESTION: Why wouldn't there be?
MR KIRBY: There – it's a discussion that we routinely have with the Chinese, and I --
QUESTION: I know, but I --
MR KIRBY: -- suspect it will continue.
QUESTION: The – based on – I mean, I understand what it – what you mean when you say that you have differences on – over the maritime disputes in the South China Sea. I get that. That's pretty cut and dried. They think that they're entitled to do what they're doing; you think that that's bad and that they should settle these things peacefully with their neighbors. On human rights, they don't think that it's an issue to lock up people that they think are a threat to their security, and you do; there's a difference. But on cyber security issue, I'm not – I just – I'm not sure where the difference is, because the Chinese profess to have exactly the same goal as you do, which is protecting sensitive data.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: And at the same time, you say that the Chinese – or not you, maybe, but people in the Administration accuse the Chinese of being behind this massive hack. There were these PLA guys who were charged a year and a half ago, two years ago with hacking. And so the difference – I mean, when you talk about a difference, it seems to me that you are accusing the Chinese of bad behavior, and they're denying it. Is that correct? Is that what the difference is here?
MR KIRBY: I think if you're right and I'm wrong and that we – they really do --
QUESTION: Well, that is always going to be the case. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: If their view of cyber security is the same as ours and there's no areas of disagreement – if I'm wrong about that – then it'll be a very short discussion.
QUESTION: All right, okay.
MR KIRBY: Yes, in the back here.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So the senior State Department official says on the OPM hack there will – the issue will be addressed directly to Chinese during the S&ED dialogue. Does that – doesn't that mean U.S. Government thinks that's what the China did on this --
MR KIRBY: There's been no allegation levied against any actor, state or non-state, with respect to that particular breach. It remains under investigation by the FBI.
QUESTION: But you will – you will be --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) public allegation.
QUESTION: You will address that issues to Chinese during this session?
MR KIRBY: To Matt's question, obviously cyber security will be discussed over the next couple of days, as it routinely is every time we engage with senior leaders from China. But I'm not going to get into this specific breach. There's, again, no – been no allegation of responsibility.
QUESTION: You mean no official allegation.
MR KIRBY: There's been no allegation of responsibility for this breach --
QUESTION: Well, actually --
MR KIRBY: -- and it's still under investigation.
QUESTION: I mean, respectfully, there have been allegations; they just haven't been from named officials.
MR KIRBY: Right, right.
QUESTION: But there are plenty of U.S. officials in this --
MR KIRBY: I don't – I wouldn't consider those official.
QUESTION: John, drawing on your past work experience, do you understand that the Obama Administration anywhere has issued any kind of overarching cyber security doctrine, and if so, where that is to be found?
MR KIRBY: There have been – there have been policy documents with respect to cyber security produced across the U.S. Government. I'm not an expert on all of those. In my past life, as you just pointed to, yes, I mean, the Pentagon, of course – in fact, they just issued not long ago a new cyber doctrine – document. It's something that – it's such a dynamic, fast-moving domain that federal agencies across the government are constantly looking at this and refreshing ideas and trying to get a grip on it. But I don't have the dossier on exactly who's done what.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: New topic?
QUESTION: China as well.
MR KIRBY: Sure, sure.
QUESTION: And the senior Administration official also said the S&ED is very important because – in order to narrow the differences. But the fact is that China has almost finished the reclamation work in the Spratly Islands, and they have – also have the outpost there. So my question is: Does the U.S. Government admit and accept the status quo – or I mean additional island – as an established fact?
MR KIRBY: Are you asking me if we – because they've completed reclamation --
QUESTION: Yeah. They have also – yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- do we just accept that as --
QUESTION: They also continue to have the outpost over there, so --
MR KIRBY: I think --
QUESTION: -- it's not easy to change the status quo, so --
MR KIRBY: Well, we're – we – it's not about accepting status quo. We've made clear our concerns about those land reclamation activities that they now claim to have stopped and the militarization of them, which they have claimed that they won't stop. Nothing's changed about our position on the concerns that we continue to have over that activity, and I do think – again, I think you've heard that it will certainly be a topic of discussion over the next couple of days.
QUESTION: How are you going to narrow differences on this issue?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, why don't we get through the next couple of days and we'll see where we are at that. But this is something that we're always talking to the Chinese about.
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: No, just one more question on the Chinese.
QUESTION: John, same thing?
MR KIRBY: Okay, sure, then we'll come back to James. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just to clarify about the hacking, the senior State Department official said it would be addressed in direct terms. So if there's not – if they're not going to talk about it in terms of suspicions or concerns that the Chinese were behind it, what are the direct terms?
MR KIRBY: We talk very directly with the Chinese about cyber security issues all the time. It's not unusual for those discussions to be quite blunt and quite candid.
QUESTION: Just one quick --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) said that Hong Kong – how are you going to raise the issue on Hong Kong universal suffrage? As you know, they – I mean, what is the U.S. position of the rejection of the bill last week in Hong Kong?
MR KIRBY: Well – yeah, I mean, I --
QUESTION: Are you going to talk about this tomorrow – today and tomorrow?
MR KIRBY: I don't know – I can't – I don't know if I can read out that it's going to – that Hong Kong legislative reform is necessarily going to be addressed. It very well could. I don't – it's not a specific agenda item. But we encourage the Hong Kong authorities, the central government authorities, and the Hong Kong people to continue to work together towards the goal of achieving universal suffrage in accordance with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. As we've said previously, we believe the legitimacy of the chief executive would be greatly enhanced if the chief executive were selected through universal suffrage and if Hong Kong's residents had a meaningful choice of candidates.
Before I go to James, are we done with China or are you on China?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Are you still on China too?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Okay. We're going – so one more and then we'll go – yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. Thank you, sir. In the background call moments ago, the senior official said President Obama will meet the special representative of President Xi Jinping in the White House. So what will be at the top of the agenda during their discussion, and how will this round of S&ED, from your perspective, pave the way for a successful visit by President Xi Jinping to the United States in this September?
MR KIRBY: As for what they're going to discuss at the Oval Office with the President, that's for the White House to talk to, not me, so I wouldn't do that. We do see this S&ED as a useful precursor to the president's visit later this fall – again, if for nothing else, because it gives us opportunities to continue the dialogue on issues we agree and issues where we don't agree. And all that dialogue and in increase in transparency is always useful leading up to the visit in the fall.
QUESTION: And also, SSD today. Will we – can we expect a readout from the State Department about today's SSD?
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I don't think there's going to be a specific readout coming at the end of today's events. But again, at the end of Wednesday's events there'll be a joint press conference with both delegations, and I think that'll be the forum at which we'll be able to kind of communicate everything that happened this week.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay, James.
QUESTION: Do you have any information about the tragic case of the American citizen who took his own life in Peru earlier this month and whose family is apparently encountering extraordinary difficulties with various elements of the Peruvian Government in arranging for the return of the individual's remains?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we can confirm that Christopher Miller died in Piura, Peru – I think I'm pronouncing that correctly. We extend our deepest condolences, obviously, to his friends and his families. We're offering the family all appropriate consular assistance to help repatriate Mr. Miller's remains to the United States in accordance with the family's wishes and international and local law and regulations. Out of consideration for the family, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to go into too much more detail. But yes, our embassy has been in touch with the family, continue to work with them to try to get those remains repatriated.
QUESTION: Just for the sake of the record, are you able to say whether it appears that various elements of the Peruvian Government are behaving inappropriately in this case?
MR KIRBY: Here's what I'd say: that in this particular case, local authorities refused to release the body while they investigated the cause of death. On the 18th of June, our Embassy in Lima requested assistance from the ministry of justice, and Mr. Miller's body was released later that day.
Again, as I said at the – my – at the outset, James, there's – it's not just U.S. customs requirements; it's not just U.S. policies; it's not just concern that we have, obviously, for helping the family. There are local laws and regulations that sometimes weigh in here. So again, we're working very closely on this and with the family to get those remains back home to the family.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: NATO?
MR KIRBY: NATO. Is that okay with everybody? NATO, okay.
QUESTION: More specifically, the U.S. and the U.K. How concerned is the Obama Administration about the Cameron government's commitment to meet its 2 percent of GDP spending on defense? It appears that the defense secretary, Michael Fallon, has given some less than clear statements in recent days about whether the government's efforts to cut overall spending will affect defense spending as well.
MR KIRBY: This is really a question better put to my colleagues at the Defense Department, not here at the State Department. But I'll just say, broadly speaking, the U.K. is our closest ally. And Secretary Kerry is confident that his counterpart and that the people of U.K. will continue to meet the security commitments that they've laid out for themselves, that they'll remain a staunch ally, and that we'll move forward past this. I mean, we've also had over many months conversations with our NATO counterparts about defense spending and in – and the – our concern over all of them and their ability to meet that 2 percent GDP limit. It's – we also recognize that that can be hard to do. So again, I would refer you to the Defense Department, but there's no closer relationship that we value more deeply, and we're in constant contact with them.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up, though: But in light of the fact that the U.S. is working very hard with the EU to try to maintain a united front and confronting what you all say is Russia's aggression, particularly in Ukraine, is it helpful to even have one of the U.S.'s closest allies even intimating that it may be cutting back on defense spending and perhaps embolden the authorities in Russia to do more?
MR KIRBY: Again, I won't speak to the – it's not appropriate for me at this podium to speak to defense spending in the U.K. But --
QUESTION: But in terms of the overall policy.
MR KIRBY: And that's where I was getting. In overall policy, the U.K. has been in lockstep with the United States with respect to the – Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine and the instability that's causing on the continent. And I don't think there's going to be – would not predict any break in that commitment or in their shared sense of purpose with the United States.
QUESTION: Quick one on the visas: Is there any update on the attempts to fix this?
MR KIRBY: There's a little bit of an update. I mean – let me get the – still working through the issue. They haven't got it fixed yet. We do expect that hopefully sometime this week it will get resolved, but the team is still working at this 24/7. There are – I think some 1,250 H2 visas for agricultural and temporary workers were issued last week. So they are trying to get those applicants processed. Those were mostly people who had biometric data that was already captured before the systems went down. So they're trying to work some alternative solutions, but it is – it's still a big problem and they're still working on it.
QUESTION: I had a quick one on Ethiopia.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: The election results are out today and the ruling party has managed to win every one of the 546 seats that was in parliament. That gives them one more than they had before they knocked out the single opposition seat. The chairman of the electoral commission says that there was high turnout, orderly conduct, and that these were fair, free, peaceful, credible, and democratic elections. I wondered, in a society where the one party that's ruled for 20 years gets every single seat in the elections, whether the United States would concur that these were fair and free and credible elections.
MR KIRBY: I don't think we're in a position right now as we speak to state a position on this particular election. Clearly, we've noted that the ruling party got every seat. There's – that certainly was noticed here at the State Department. But again, we'll have to come back to you.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On elections? This is brief. Venezuela has announced elections for December. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR KIRBY: Matt, I don't know if I do. I don't know if I do. Let me see if I can come back to you, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Abigail.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on whether or not the State Department has been contacted by the Select Committee on Benghazi, or any response to Chairman Gowdy's comments today about the finding of new emails?
MR KIRBY: Have we been in touch with --
QUESTION: Has the committee been in touch with the State Department – sorry – regarding the emails given to them by Blumenthal?
MR KIRBY: Yes, there has been communication between the select committee and the State Department over these – the Blumenthal emails. I think you've probably seen that many, if not all of them, I think the committee posted. And we're working through that right now to determine if there are emails in that batch that we either didn't have or may have not provided. And again, I'd remind you that what was specifically asked from the State Department was Benghazi-related material, so --
QUESTION: Do you think they're moving the goalposts, the committee --
MR KIRBY: Did that answer your question? Okay.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you think that the committee is moving the goalposts? And when they say, like, oh, the State Department didn't give us these specific emails or that specific emails, it seems to be that the committee is widening their probe not just from Benghazi, but from U.S. policy in Libya in its totality. And I'm wondering if that makes your job more difficult, if you think that they're kind of moving the goalposts of the type of correspondence that they're looking for from you.
MR KIRBY: Well, it's up to the select committee to determine what they want to examine. That's – our mandate is pretty clear, and that's – and Secretary Kerry has been very clear that we're going to cooperate with them to the best of our ability. And we continue to do that. But this is for them to speak to in terms of what they want to get to.
Now I will say, Elise, that the more that is asked for in terms of scope, the more resources it will consume here at the State Department, and the more time it will take. There's no doubt about that. But it's up to them to determine what they want to look at.
QUESTION: But they are – in kind of widening their ask of what they asked for initially, it seems as if what they're asking for you now or having had expected from you now is different than their initial ask.
MR KIRBY: The initial request that we operated under, and through which we provided those 300, was for specific Benghazi-related material.
QUESTION: And now they're asking for wider stuff?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any new requests for wider stuff. But again, if the task list grows bigger, then obviously, the resources it consumes and the time it takes also grows longer.
QUESTION: Well, but the emails that they put out today, do you have any reason to believe that they were in fact in your – in the possession of the State Department prior to Mr. Blumenthal giving them to committee? And if they were, whether or not it was a mistake – they were – for whatever reason, they were not sent to the committee. Do you – what you've seen – so there's two bits here.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, you lost me on the second one.
QUESTION: One, did you have the emails – these specific emails that they released today before? And two, if you did, why weren't they sent to the committee before he gave them to the committee? Did they not meet what you understood to be the guidelines?
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Or was it an error, or was it some kind of attempt to hide something?
MR KIRBY: We're still working our way through those emails. I don't have an inventory for you of those that we know we match up and were submitted and those, perhaps, that were not, either because they didn't meet the request for Benghazi-related material or for some other reason. It appears that – at a cursory look – and I want to make sure that I make it clear it's a cursory look at those that the committee has released – that certainly, there were some that we also gave them, that we were in possession of and provided that former Secretary Clinton had given to us and we had given to them to meet their requirements. So it does appear there's some overlap. I don't have – again, I don't have the complete audit.
QUESTION: Okay. But some – you're saying that some of these – just to make sure I understand this – so you're saying some of the 60 that the committee put out today – put online today had already been turned over to them, and they were not new to the committee?
MR KIRBY: That is correct.
QUESTION: All right. Sorry, that they were already – had been turned over to the committee or that they had already – the State Department had already had them?
MR KIRBY: Some of the emails made public today by the select committee were already provided by the State Department --
QUESTION: To the committee?
MR KIRBY: -- to the committee.
QUESTION: Gotcha.
MR KIRBY: Yes. I'll take just a couple of more and I owe you an answer on Venezuela, Matt.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Iraq, there are reports talking about the Taqaddum base that – which is considered to be used for the 45 percent – for the 450 advisors – U.S. advisors to be positioned there. So it's – there are reports talking about that this is also shared by the Shia militias which is considered as Iranian-backed Shia militias. And there are reports that are talking about that these militias are spying on the U.S. advisors or the other personnels there. Do you have any response for that, or do you have any concerns if the Shia militia's also positioned in this base?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the reports. I don't know to what degree Shia militia members are on al-Taqaddum and the base or where they are. I mean, I would refer you to the Defense Department for that kind of thing. That's certainly not something that we would speak to here at the State Department.
QUESTION: But in any case like that, if you positioned these advisors, is that going to be something – will be used by U.S. advisors or other Iraqi forces?
MR KIRBY: Again, you're asking questions that are much better put to the Defense Department. What we've said is that all the forces operating against ISIL inside Iraq need to be under the command and control of Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government. Prime Minister Abadi has made that very, very clear that that's his expectation. As for the particulars of who's on what base and how close they are, I think you just – I'd have to refer you to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: And lastly, I wanted --
MR KIRBY: I wasn't trying to do an Abbott and Costello thing there either.
QUESTION: Last one on Iraq? One more?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The WikiLeaks document talking about the Iraqi officials and Iraqi – some of the Iraq Sunni politicians and also political parties got fund from the Saudi Arabia. Do you think this is going to impact – have a negative impact on the Iraq and Saudi relations? I mean, including also U.S. in the past encouraged the – promoting the relations between Iraq and Saudi and also even opening the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Baghdad – one of the good steps seen by the State Department as a good step of relations between Iraq. So do you think these kind of documents revealed will have a negative impact on that relation?
MR KIRBY: We've made it pretty clear policy that we're not going to talk about the content of leaked documents, so just not going to touch that.
Abigail.
QUESTION: State Department issued – or updated a travel warning today warning U.S. citizens from going and joining the conflict in Iraq. Just wondering, as the last one was at the end of April and there's usually a greater length of time, is there any new concern regarding U.S. citizens traveling to Iraq to join the conflict?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't read too much into the timing of this particular travel warning. As you know, they're routinely reviewed. Now they're always on a six-month thing, but they can be reviewed and updated outside the six-month window, and that was the case with this one. But you're right, it did specifically talk about Americans going to join the conflict, and I think that that's an issue that we have been continuing to watch and to be concerned about. And I think it just follows – makes good sense to – as we looked at this travel warning to update it.
But it wasn't driven by – and I wouldn't want to leave you with the idea that it was driven by a specific case or a specific incident or a specific terrorist in mind or anything like that. The flow of foreign fighters, even those from the United States into the fight, remains a significant concern for the coalition. As I've said before, more than 30 nations have taken administrative and legal action to try to stem that flow. The United States is one of those nations that's trying to do that, and I think this travel warning simply follows on just good, prudent thinking about a tough problem.
QUESTION: John, I have a quick question on Mosul. Do you have an update about the situation in Mosul? Because it's – Kurdish politicians are arguing that ISIL is losing ground within Mosul because of some logistical problems.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I --
QUESTION: Do you agree with them?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, when I took off the uniform, I stopped doing battlefield updates.
QUESTION: (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: You're going to have to go to the Defense Department.
Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)
DPB # 109
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
