Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 30, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
SYRIA/IRAQ/TURKEY/REGION
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN
RUSSIA/UKRAINE/IRAN/SYRIA
CHINA/REGION
EGYPT
IRAN
IRAQ
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
JAPAN
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
JAPAN
IRAN
CHINA
SYRIA
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
DEPARTMENT
ZIMBABWE
TRANSCRIPT:
2:21 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Welcome, everybody, to the State Department. Sorry to be just a wee bit late. I know some of you were watching what was happening at the Treasury – Department of Treasury, so I wanted to give you a little bit more time for that. But also --
QUESTION: I was actually trying to figure out how big a cubit is.
MR TONER: (Laughter.) I have no idea. Don't ask me that. I'll have to take that question.
Just before I get into your questions, I just wanted to – a very brief statement at the top to say that we strongly support President Poroshenko's call to sign an agreement on the withdrawal of heavy weapons under 100 millimeters in caliber in eastern Ukraine, and we urge all sides to implement such an agreement immediately. We welcome Ukraine's recent steps to ensure Mariupol's defense and stabilize Shcholkine and we commend Ukraine's extensive efforts to implement the Minsk agreements.
We call upon Russia and the separatists it supports to cease their aggression and implement their Minsk commitments, including a full ceasefire, unfettered access to the OSCE special monitoring mission, as well as the withdrawal of foreign troops and equipment and the establishment of Ukrainian control of the international border and the release of all hostages.
That is all after, believe it or not, how many days that we were dark here that I have to --
QUESTION: Three.
MR TONER: Three days. So I'll take your questions. Matt, go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, just on the – on your opening statement --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The call – Poroshenko's call for the withdrawal, is that not already covered under Minsk or is this something (inaudible)?
MR TONER: It's not. The Minsk agreement, I believe, covers larger-caliber heavy weapons over 120 millimeters, which I would add that is still the separatists and the Russians have not complied with that, but this is extending that, is my understanding, to smaller-caliber weaponry as well.
QUESTION: So it's extending it to some --
MR TONER: It says extending it – right – extending it to --
QUESTION: Extending it to something that also is not going to be complied with.
MR TONER: Point taken.
QUESTION: Right?
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, point taken. We want to see --
QUESTION: From 120 to 100?
MR TONER: We want to see – yeah. We want to see 120 to 100. Yep.
QUESTION: So you want to see everything over 100 --
MR TONER: Well, let me --
QUESTION: -- over 100 caliber out --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- but they haven't even gotten to the point where the 120 are out yet, right?
MR TONER: Correct. They have not – they have not fully complied with the withdrawal of those heavy weapons.
QUESTION: Wouldn't it make sense before – wouldn't it make sense to have them comply with the smaller or the – with the initial part of it before expanding it to include something that includes – to include other weapons that aren't covered by the existing agreements that haven't been complied with yet?
MR TONER: Well, I think, again, this is President Poroshenko's initiative and we obviously support it because it takes – it broadens the withdrawal of heavy weaponry, which is something we obviously support.
QUESTION: Fair.
MR TONER: But you're right in the sense that all sides need to at least comply with the initial Minsk agreement.
QUESTION: Have both sides – is it both sides that are still in violation of the 120 caliber?
MR TONER: I know that on the Russian separatist side that's the case. I would have to get an update whether the Ukrainians have fully complied with that.
QUESTION: Just to clarify --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- you say 100. That's artillery, right? You're talking about artillery?
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: I mean, that's not like, I mean, machine guns or anything like that.
MR TONER: My understanding is it would qualify as heavy weaponry, yes.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay. So anything that – like howitzers or whatever artillery?
MR TONER: Right, right.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: On Ukraine?
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Austrian police have stopped nine U.S. soldiers at the Vienna airport with M16 assault rifles in their bags on their way to Ukraine. Do you know why they were stopped?
MR TONER: I don't. And frankly, I don't have much information. I just saw the press reports, so I'd refer you to DOD on that one.
QUESTION: Well, we, in fact, confirmed with the prosecutor's office in Austria that there is, in fact, an investigation and that the report about the detention is correct. And Austrian authorities said they informed the U.S. embassy in Austria. Has the embassy informed the State Department or --
MR TONER: I'm sure we've been – as we normally do, we're in touch with our embassies. I haven't seen any follow-up on that. Obviously, these are official Americans. I'm not sure in what capacity they were traveling. I just don't have any more details for you, but I would probably refer you – your best bet is the Department of Defense for more information.
QUESTION: But that – U.S. citizens detained, they're active duty, so does that – that would – does that concern the State Department?
MR TONER: They're active – I don't even – I, again, I don't have – I apologize, I just don't have the details for you. Again, I would refer you to the Department of Defense.
QUESTION: If I come back tomorrow, will you have details?
MR TONER: I may, but again, you can contact the Department of Defense for more details since they're – if they are active military, they would have that.
QUESTION: Change topics?
QUESTION: But it's not just active military but also U.S. citizens, right, detained, and they --
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: They – the authorities have informed the State Department – the embassy, which is effectively – so you would have a comment on that, wouldn't you?
MR TONER: Again, I don't have the details of this. I've seen press reports. I don't have any more information, except for what you just me that they have informed our embassy. I just don't have anything else to say about it.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Your DOD colleagues have spoken to this a little bit, but do you have anything on the kidnapping of a – the leader of a U.S.-backed rebel group in Syria?
MR TONER: Yeah. You're talking about reports that some members --
QUESTION: By al-Nusrah --
MR TONER: Right. Were – of a opposition group were kidnapped.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR TONER: I've just seen press reports that some opposition leaders have been detained and I just – I don't have much more to add. I think it's – are you talking about the al-Nusrah's --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, obviously, our position on al-Nusrah is well known. It's publicly declared itself as an al-Qaida affiliate and it shares al-Qaida's terrorist aims, so obviously, we condemn this act.
QUESTION: Is it a concern for you that the association with the U.S. for some opposition groups might be cause for them to be targeted by groups like al-Nusrah?
MR TONER: Again, I'm not sure that that actually applies in this case. We've been very clear and have been very clear for months now and years even that we're reaching out to moderate Syrian opposition groups in pursuit of a political resolution to the situation in Syria. And also, we have a train and equip program which we've spoken about many times here with Turkey's help in training up moderate Syrian opposition forces. So it's hard for me to know what the details of this actual kidnapping were, but obviously we strongly condemn it.
Yeah, please. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Still on Syria.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, the United Nations Special Envoy to Syria de Mistura came out with four points or four suggestions creating – or four committees and so on. How do you envision the United States working with this?
He also said that the deal with Iran – everybody alluded to that – is maybe a plus in going forward with the resolution to Syria. Could you comment on that?
MR TONER: First part of your question is reaction to de Mistura's – as you said, his presentation, briefing at the UNSC yesterday. We obviously share his deep concern for the horrific violence and the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Syria, as well as the regional implications that this – and all this, frankly, reinforces the need for a political settlement and solution to the situation there. We support a UN-led process. We support de Mistura's efforts and welcome his proposal to form UN-led Syrian working groups to advance prospects for a political solution to the crisis there.
And to that end, I know our new Special Envoy for Syria Michael Ratney is actually meeting today with de Mistura, the special envoy, to discuss further collaboration, how we can be helpful, and just to get a more thorough briefing.
Please.
QUESTION: And you still consider that the basis for any kind of political settlement or resolution is Geneva I, correct?
MR TONER: That's correct, yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And if you recall, in Geneva II, Iran was not invited, apparently because the Saudis were not cool with that. So would you sort of welcome any kind of extension of the process of Geneva I to include Iran and Saudi Arabia?
MR TONER: I don't want to get out ahead – in front of the process. What I would just say is and what we've been very clear about is we need a political process and a political resolution in Syria, and one that certainly doesn't include Assad. And so to that end, that's our ultimate goal. That's who we're working with, and we're working with like-minded partners and allies to that end. So I don't want to get out in front of and talk about Iran's possible role in this or – I think we're getting in front of the issue.
QUESTION: These committees and so on, they're supposed to represent all Syrians.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, to the best of all data that's available and so on, Assad – the Assad regime represents a great portion of the population. Why wouldn't you want to model the process completely?
MR TONER: Assad?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. I mean, he's – the regime itself represents a great portion of Christians, Alawis, other minorities, and so on. So there's a hefty minority that is represented by the regime and in fact Assad himself.
MR TONER: Said, you've heard me and others say countless times here, I mean, Assad's lost all credibility as a potential leader or leader of Syria. He needs to be out. He's killed countless innocents, brought tremendous violence, created, frankly, the conditions that we find in Syria today – that is, parts of it are lawless, controlled by ISIL. We're beating back ISIL in those parts working with the coalition members on it, but Assad is fully culpable in creating the situation that exists in Syria today. And for that reason, he can't be part of any kind of political solution.
Please.
QUESTION: There are some media reports, including a story in today's edition of The New York Times, that the U.S. relationship with the Syrian Kurds, namely the PYD, had become complicated because of the Turkish bombardment of the PKK in northern Iraq. Are those reports accurate?
MR TONER: Not at all. We've – I mean, we did a background call the other day where we talked at length about this, but we've been very clear in delineating between the PKK and, as we talked, the anti-ISIL forces, of which the Kurds are some of them, but also there's Syrian Arabs that are also engaged in this fight and this struggle, and frankly, have been very effective in bringing the fight against – in bringing the fight to ISIL, and frankly, clearing them out of parts of northern Syria. And so the coalition's been helpful in bringing airstrikes to help these forces – these anti-ISIL forces – in their efforts to clear ISIL.
Now, you're talking about the PKK – that's a separate organization. We've been very clear that we support Turkey's right to self-defense, and frankly, the PKK has carried out attacks on Turkish troops, Turkish soldiers, Turkish police, and so we view Turkey's strikes against PKK elements, mostly in northern Iraq, as a form of self-defense. And our view is quite clear: We view the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization.
Please.
QUESTION: So are you saying the Syrian Kurds have had no concern voiced to you about that, and so it has been no problem as a result of this between you and – the United States Government and the Syrian Kurds?
MR TONER: You're talking about whether the Syrian Kurds have actually told us that they have an issue?
QUESTION: Their concern about that and that might complicate your military relationship, apparently, with them. Because apparently, according to the media, according to --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- the United States, the relationship between the United States and Syrian Kurds is mostly confined to the airstrikes helping them win back territory against ISIS.
MR TONER: Right. And frankly, that's been – I mean, obviously, they're and these other anti-ISIL forces are the ones who are doing the fighting on the ground, but these airstrikes have been very effective in supporting those efforts. But I don't have any more to add in terms of disgruntlement or anything like that. We've been very clear: Our focus is on combating ISIL in northern Syria, driving them out of northern Syria, obviously in conjunction now with Turkey. There's a separate effort by Turkey to retaliate against PKK strikes.
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: I have one more --
MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.
QUESTION: -- just on the issue of the abductions by al-Nusrah.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I was wondering if you view this as a setback or a potential setback in your efforts to identify groups that you can work with to create this ISIL-free zone that you guys have talked about.
MR TONER: No, I wouldn't put it that way. As I said, I mean, for specific questions about the train and equip program, first of all, DOD's really the go-to place for that. But we – it's a fact of the matter that many of these opposition – moderate opposition forces tend to – or continue to be attacked on two fronts, both by the Assad regime as well as violent extremists, whether they're ISIL or al-Nusrah. It's a difficult situation, it's a contentious and complex situation, but we're going to continue training these moderate forces because we believe they can be an effective force against ISIL.
But as we've been very transparent about, that program – the train and equip program – has been slow to get off the ground, but we're going to continue to build those efforts.
QUESTION: But do you have a confirmation of --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the detentions other than the press reports?
MR TONER: No, I don't. I just have press reports.
QUESTION: Because DOD yesterday refused the allegations and said that there have been no abductions of this train and equip --
MR TONER: Again, I'd just say – all I have in front of me is that I've seen – we've seen the press reports, but I don't have anything to add in terms of the details.
QUESTION: Can I --
MR TONER: We just don't know. I mean, quite frankly, it's Syria. We don't have eyes on the ground there.
QUESTION: Okay. A follow-up question on YPG?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: John Kirby said on Monday that Turkish air bases will be used to provide air support for YPG forces in Syria. But Turkish foreign ministry spokesperson disagreed with that and said it wasn't part of the Turkish-American understanding. Is there a misunderstanding in here or --
MR TONER: Not at all, and I wouldn't – I think you're putting words, perhaps, into John's mouth. I think he was very clear saying in support of anti-ISIL forces, of which Kurdish forces are a part, but it's a much broader group of people.
QUESTION: He exactly said, "The fact that we now have access to bases in Turkey will allow for that support to be more timely and perhaps even more effective. So I would expect that that kind of air support will continue."
MR TONER: For anti-ISIL forces in northern Iraq.
QUESTION: But the question was related to YPG.
MR TONER: All I know is he was referring to – again, I don't want to – I mean, he was referring to, more broadly, anti-ISIL. You're right that that includes Syrian Kurds as part of that group, as well as Syrian Arabs, but it's not fair to say it's just one group.
Please, go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: On Turkey?
MR TONER: I'm sorry. Matt. Or why don't we do you, Pam.
QUESTION: Staying with Turkey --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- you indicated earlier – you said the U.S. believes that Turkey's attacks against the PKK are a form of self-defense. Overall, is there U.S. concern that if these types of attacks continue that it's going to be destabilizing to the overall U.S.-led mission against the Islamic State?
MR TONER: Well – and thank you. I can't reinforce that enough, that the recent PKK attacks, and, of course, the Turkish military response, have nothing to do with our counter-ISIL efforts. And I know that there's a tendency to lump them together. We've been – we can't be more clear about that. That said, it's PKK that's initiated this violence; Turkey's retaliated in self-defense. But we want to see, obviously, that situation calm down. We want to see the PKK cease violence and return to negotiations, and we would urge the Turkish Government, obviously, to respond proportionately.
QUESTION: Is there a concern that they have not responded proportionally so far?
MR TONER: Again, I don't – these are longstanding issues. This was the PKK that carried out attacks against Turkish military. They have carried out a series of airstrikes in retaliation. I think what we want to see generally is the PKK to stop these attacks so that the situation can calm down.
QUESTION: Yeah, but do you think that the Turkish airstrikes have been disproportionate?
MR TONER: No. I would say it's been in self-defense, and we would --
QUESTION: So so far --
MR TONER: -- and that's been very clearly our line.
QUESTION: So thus far, at least, what the Turks have done in terms of the airstrikes against the PKK is okay and is in accordance with the U.S.-Turkey understanding on how to go about business, the business of countering ISIL?
MR TONER: Well, again, I don't want to – I want to separate the two out. Because what we agreed to in terms of our coordinating closely with Turkey on anti-ISIL efforts is a different thing altogether than these PKK attacks and the strikes carried out by Turkey.
QUESTION: So you're saying in conversations with the Turks about this the PKK has not come up once?
MR TONER: Oh, I don't necessarily think that. In fact, we – look, our position's clear. We're – they're a foreign terrorist organization. We consult with the Turks a lot on PKK issues. But I think we want to see – just to be clear, we want to see the PKK stop these provocative attacks, and we want to see the Turkish Government respond proportionately.
QUESTION: Yeah --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but is there anything having to do with attacks on the PKK that is contained within this understanding that you reached with Ankara?
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: Okay. So as far as you're concerned, the Turks can do whatever they want with the PKK in terms of airstrikes, as long as they don't hit the YPG, the other Kurds?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think --
QUESTION: The non-FTO Kurds?
MR TONER: Right, but I think that we want to see – we want to see this settled down.
QUESTION: I understand what you want to see, but you're not going to complain if the Turks continue to attack the PKK.
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: Is that right?
MR TONER: Well, I don't know "complain," but we've been very clear that these are separate and that Turkey does have a right to defend itself.
QUESTION: From a policy perspective rather than a --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- on-the-ground military perspective --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- how does one tell the difference between the PKK and the – how do you tell the difference between a good Kurd and a bad Kurd? And how should the Turks make that distinction? Do they have to wear uniforms that say "FTO" on them, the PKK? (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Look, Matt, in all honesty --
QUESTION: Well, I mean, how does this work? It seems like you said "no, not at all" --
MR TONER: In all --
QUESTION: -- in response to a question about whether or not this complicates things there.
MR TONER: We know --
QUESTION: And I would submit to you that regardless of whether you think it complicates stuff standing in Washington right now, on the ground there it does complicate things.
MR TONER: Yeah, but there's – anyway, they're located geographically in different areas. Again, I don't want to get into the details about how you tell them apart, but it's very clear that they are separate entities.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So your alliances are based on geography? I'm sorry.
MR TONER: I apologize. That's --
QUESTION: You form your alliances based on geography?
MR TONER: No, no. We just know that the PKK, where they hang out. That's all I'm clarifying. They're in northern Iraq mostly is where they base their operations.
QUESTION: Right, but they're mobile. I mean, people move, so you can't – it just can't be a geographic thing, especially in an area which --
MR TONER: Understood.
QUESTION: -- where the lines of the map have become completely blurred.
MR TONER: I understand – I understood your question, but again, I would refer you to the experts who are following these kind of movements on the ground and can delineate.
Yeah, please. Go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: Just two questions. The U.S. ambassador in Iraq and General Austin met with President Barzani yesterday. And according to local media reports, they discussed the Turkey-PKK conflict. Do you have anything about the content of those meetings to share with us?
MR TONER: I don't, frankly. So I can try to get more of a readout. I don't know what we – we consult, obviously, all the time with the Kurdish region. But I don't have any specific readout of that meeting.
QUESTION: One more question. The PKK claimed responsibility for blowing up the Kurdistan-Ceyhan pipeline that carries Kurdish crude from northern Iraq to Turkey. Don't you see that Turkey-PKK conflict almost getting out of control, not between just – as a conflict between the Kurds and Turks but also between the Iraqi Kurds and the Turkish Kurds – the PKK? Because now the Iraqi Kurds are kind of --
MR TONER: Well, I mean, I --
QUESTION: -- going against the PKK for blowing up that pipe?
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, without belaboring it, I think I've been clear that it is problematic that the PKK is carrying out attacks against the Turks. The Turks are retaliating in kind, as is their right – it's a foreign terrorist organization. It killed Turkish soldiers and police. It's problematic in the sense we want to see the PKK stop these attacks and return to the reconciliation process.
Yeah, go ahead. Hey.
QUESTION: Can we move to Afghanistan?
MR TONER: Been back – you're back on – from vacation? Great.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. From my long vacation. (Laughter.) My French vacation. (Laughter).
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on PKK?
MR TONER: Oh, sure. Please. I'll just – then I'll finish. I'll get to you. Thanks. Yeah, please.
QUESTION: If PKK calmed down and wanted – and said that they wanted to return to negotiations, will the Turkish Government return to negotiations? Do you know anything?
MR TONER: What I said is – and what others have said --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) going to negotiate (inaudible)?
MR TONER: What we said is we would urge the PKK to stop the violence and we would also urge Turkey to respond accordingly – or proportionately, I think, is the word I used.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So on Afghanistan and the now confirmed death of Mullah Omar.
MR TONER: Yes. Oh, I'm not breaking that news right now? Is that right? No, sorry. Joke – bad joke.
QUESTION: So do you believe it would be – it will have an impact on the emerging talks between the Taliban and the Kabul government? And second question: Are you concerned about the fact that more and more Taliban commanders are joining the ranks of the Islamic State?
MR TONER: Sure. First question, it's clearly – without being able to predict the future and what this, frankly, will mean – it's clearly a moment of opportunity and we would encourage the Taliban to use this time of opportunity to make genuine peace with the Afghan Government and to rebuild their lives in peace in Afghanistan. They can accept the Government of Afghanistan's invitation to join a peace process and ultimately become part of the legitimate political system of a sovereign, united Afghanistan supported by the international community, or they can choose to continue fighting Afghans and destabilizing their own country. So again, it's just – clearly, it couldn't be a more clear moment of opportunity for them to really embrace this reconciliation process.
You had asked – your second question was about ISIL. I mean, we're aware that there are – the presence of ISIL-affiliated militants in Afghanistan and obviously we're monitoring that very closely, whether their emergence will have any kind of meaningful or significant impact on the threat environment in the region. But that's all I can really say about that.
QUESTION: But --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the postponement of the next round of talks?
MR TONER: Again, just that – just to say – reiterate the fact that we think the time is right for these reconciliation talks to move forward, and there's an opportunity here.
QUESTION: Is it --
QUESTION: So you would have preferred if the Pakistanis had not postponed it?
MR TONER: We want – we think they should go forward. I mean, we – that's our --
QUESTION: Are you aware of reports that --
MR TONER: But again, we also – I mean, sorry, just to – I didn't mean to interrupt you. I mean, Pakistan has played a helpful role in these reconciliation process and we continue to want – want to continue to see them play that constructive role.
QUESTION: I just wanted --
MR TONER: Yes, Said.
QUESTION: -- to follow up quickly on this point.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any – of reports that say there is an internal struggle between the new leader Akhtar Mansour and, apparently, the son of Mullah Omar and so on, and that's why it was postponed? Are you --
MR TONER: No, I'm not. And I'm not going to wade into those kinds of political situations that are so fraught I don't know – not my role here. (Laughter.)
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Russia.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any information – or can you confirm that Secretary Kerry's still meeting with minister Lavrov? Is it August 3rd? Are they going to meet Monday?
MR TONER: I believe so, and I believe that's – has that been formally announced, he asked quizzically.
QUESTION: He announced it.
MR TONER: He did. I'm almost positive he did. But anyway, yeah, I believe it's going to take place – or at least it's planned to take place in Doha.
QUESTION: And any information on what they're going to discuss?
MR TONER: These guys meet frequently, obviously in the context of the Iran nuclear deal most recently, but also to talk about a panoply of other issues, importantly, as we discussed earlier, Syria and a resolution of the conflict there, but also Ukraine and others.
QUESTION: Because he's talked about – U.S. officials have talked about U.S. and Russia cooperating on anti-ISIL campaign, chemical weapons, and even the political settlement. Has anything changed? Are there new wrinkles or new proposals from either side that might be brought to light, or has anything changed since the last time they met on these issues?
MR TONER: On Syria specifically?
QUESTION: Syria.
MR TONER: Sure. We've had – and we've said this, I think – we've recently had conversation with the Russians at various levels on the urgency of moving forward on a genuine and sustainable political transition in Syria, and so – one that's consistent, as we said earlier, with the Geneva communique. And those discussions we hope will continue.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry, do you have one on Syria or no?
QUESTION: Not on Syria. Different topic.
MR TONER: Okay. You and you, please.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks. On China, the ministry of defense had some rather strong words about U.S. activities in the South China Sea, saying that the U.S. is militarizing it and that U.S. actions raise the question of whether the U.S. wants nothing but chaos in the region. Do you have a response to that?
MR TONER: Sure, I'll take a measured, historical response. And that is, since the end of the Second World War, the United States has consistently played a helpful and constructive but a critical role in supporting peace and stability in the Asia Pacific. Through our alliances and our security partnerships we have helped to sustain a rules-based maritime regime that safeguards for all nations the freedoms of navigation and overflight and other related issues and uses of the sea. And this system has frankly been instrumental in creating the regional stability that's allowed Asia, the region's, remarkable growth.
So we continue to call on all South China Sea claimants to peacefully manage and resolve their disputes in accordance with international law.
QUESTION: Does the timing of this rhetoric concern you at all, given that it's coming right before the ASEAN Forums where you guys were hoping to make progress on these issues?
MR TONER: I mean look, I mean obviously, that'll be a topic of discussion there. But other than that, no.
QUESTION: But these kinds of public remarks seem to suggest that the Chinese don't really intend to engage; do they not?
MR TONER: This is an ongoing debate, and our positions – we hope, I hope – has been very clearly stated. We want to see the claimants in the South China Sea work together, peacefully resolve and manage their disputes. Obviously, it's a topic of discussion, but I don't want to try to speak to whether this is some kind of omen.
Please. Oh yeah, I'm sorry, apologize.
QUESTION: That's okay. Fine.
MR TONER: Thank you.
QUESTION: It's about Egypt, please.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any readout for the Secretary meeting with Egyptian members of civil society, as you called them, this morning?
MR TONER: I honestly don't. I'll see if I can get to you some more. Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason for this meeting? I mean, it's like a – it's a part of this strategy dialogue that it's going to take place after three days or four days?
MR TONER: I'll try to get – I don't have any visibility on it, so I'll try to get you some more information on it.
QUESTION: So can I ask some about the dialogue --
MR TONER: Yeah, please. Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: -- the strategic dialogue. You mentioned in strategic dialogue main headlines, which is security, politics, economy, culture, and all these issues. Do you have any specific details about what kind of issues the Secretary is going to discuss specifically with Egyptian counterparts and --
MR TONER: Well, we're still a little bit ways out from that. I know we're going to do some background briefings on Friday to brief you – not just this part of the trip but the entire trip the Secretary is taking. So I'll let – I'll wait for that.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Which is tomorrow?
MR TONER: That's correct. Sorry. So you don't have to wait long at all.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: I mean, when you're taking the question about the civil society meeting, can you find out why you chose to do that here? Are these people based in the U.S.? If so, why are they based in the U.S. and why not do it in Cairo? Is it a timing thing or is it a fear factor?
MR TONER: Yeah, I'll get – I simply don't know. I'm not aware. Yeah, I'll find out.
QUESTION: Can I go to Iran?
MR TONER: Sure. Sorry, I'll get to you.
QUESTION: So the Secretary and his colleagues took a bit of a beating up on the Hill this week in successive hearings. And one of the things that lawmakers were expressing a lot of concern about – one of several things – was the access for the IAEA access to resolve the PMD question. And either this morning or yesterday, Senator Corker said that he had invited the head of the IAEA, Dr. Amano, to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on what one presumes to be precisely this topic, and that Dr. Amano had not accepted that invitation.
And I'm just wondering if the Administration had any position on whether he should or should not testify, because it would seem that the questions that lawmakers were asking would be best able to be answered by him.
MR TONER: Well, I don't have a specific answer to whether we believe he should testify. What the Secretary and others have been very clear about is that there's no secret deals, and we heard that expression thrown out constantly over the last couple of days. That couldn't be farther from the truth. The IAEA, which is the one that verifies – will verify this deal, does create arrangements with countries under what's called the Additional Protocol. And Under Secretary Sherman has already had a secure briefing with the House leadership talking about this arrangement, and we've continued to provide or we will continue to provide those briefings in a classified setting, as needed.
QUESTION: That was when?
MR TONER: I think it was yesterday.
QUESTION: Yesterday morning?
MR TONER: That's correct. And told them frankly what was in the arrangements made between the IAEA and Iran. So the perception that this has somehow been – that Congress hasn't been looped in on this, and what we know about these arrangements is, frankly, incorrect. But they've had to take place in a classified setting, as we've explained before.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But the notion – you said the notion that Congress hasn't been looped in, but you haven't been looped in because you guys haven't read it.
MR TONER: We haven't received a written copy of it, but we have been briefed on the contents.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: And Secretary Moniz --
QUESTION: So someone with a photographic memory has looked at it and copied everything down in their brain and then repeated it up on the Hill?
MR TONER: Well, let's put it this way: Nuclear experts with much bigger degrees than I can ever attain have looked at this and their comfort level with it is good.
QUESTION: But the issue is --
MR TONER: But the question is whether – yeah.
QUESTION: Well --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, the question is you say that it's not a secret deal, but in fact, if the deal is – if there is a written version of this and it's not being made available, whether that's standard practice --
MR TONER: Exactly, yeah, okay.
QUESTION: -- for the IAEA or not, I don't see how you can say there's no secret deal because the – "secret" means – that's almost the very definition of "secret." But at any rate, what is the --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- does the Administration have a position on whether Dr. Amano should come and tell the Senate as much as he can about this deal to allay any concerns that they might have? Or is it – well, that's --
MR TONER: No, I mean, ultimately it's Dr. Amano's decision to make and an IAEA decision to make.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, do you have a – don't you think it might be a good idea since a lot of these questions that were being asked of the Secretary and Secretary Moniz and Secretary Lew would seem to be better answered, given the circumstances, by the head of the IAEA?
MR TONER: I'm also unclear. I would need to check on – it's not exactly common to have --
QUESTION: No, I'm – I don't think anyone's suggesting that he has to or that he could be forced to or even that the Senate or Congress has any control over the IAEA as a UN body --
MR TONER: Right, right.
QUESTION: -- independent UN body.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: But I mean, just for the sake of clarifying, clearing up what appears to be a rather high level of concern about this, doesn't the Administration think that it would be a good idea for him to come and answer questions, at least as much as he can, about what this agreement actually is and does and --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- why he has confidence in it going forward? Because as we know, there aren't going to be any Americans on the team.
MR TONER: Understood.
QUESTION: And Secretary Moniz said it's going to be the IAEA who determines whether these questions --
MR TONER: But --
QUESTION: -- are resolved. So wouldn't it make sense for the IAEA director to answer some questions about it?
MR TONER: Well, again, we have made every effort to explain, inform Congress about these arrangements, these agreements in classified settings. I'm not sure what restrictions he would be operating to go and have those kinds of discussions with our Congress, frankly. But we've explained that we're comfortable with it; the IAEA is comfortable with these arrangements. We'll continue to try to, obviously, explain these and reach out to Congress. But I don't have a specific answer to that.
QUESTION: All right. Well, I'll stop after this.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: But you're comfortable with it; you say the IAEA is comfortable with it.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But there are a lot of people on the Hill who are not comfortable with it, right? I mean, even after these briefings, right? So wouldn't it make sense, then, for the IAEA, which is actually going to be doing these inspections, to speak for itself as to whether it is comfortable with the agreements that it has with Iran?
MR TONER: I'm not going to decide that for the IAEA.
Please, Said.
QUESTION: Would you oppose if – in the event that the IAEA and Dr. Amano agree to appear before the Senate here, would you oppose that or would you advise him not to?
MR TONER: I don't – I mean, I – again, I don't see why we would oppose that. But that decision hasn't been made, so --
QUESTION: Right. But you do think that, actually, if he did, it would make – it would facilitate the case that --
MR TONER: Again, I would just put it within the framework of, obviously, we want congressional support going forward. It's an important deal; it's a good deal. We believe that. We believe this is the best option in preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons capability. So anything we can do to convince Congress and to win that support we're willing to do. Whether it's holding classified briefings where we talk about this arrangement or the panoply of issues and the hearings that have taken place over the last couple days, our engagement with Congress is going to continue. I think it's been, frankly, extraordinary in the sense of the hearings that the Secretary and obviously Secretary Moniz and Secretary Lew have engaged in – Secretary Carter yesterday. This is a full court press and we've been very aggressive, I would say, in trying to get out there and explain and make the case.
Please.
QUESTION: Two --
MR TONER: Oh, I'm so sorry. No, I --
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR TONER: No, it's not your fault; it's my bad. Go ahead. Sorry.
QUESTION: Just there's an emergency message out for the U.S. citizens in Erbil City, saying there's a credible threat. Do you have any further information on that?
MR TONER: In Erbil?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR TONER: I don't, actually. I mean, I know more generally a worldwide caution was put out yesterday, but that's a very standard update on the kind of general security situation around the world. I don't know of a specific security threat.
QUESTION: Specific to public places in Erbil.
MR TONER: Yeah. I'll take the question. I don't know.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Two quick questions on Israel.
MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Following on your clear – pretty clear statement yesterday night on the settlements, are you aware of any candid and direct conversation between the U.S. Government and the Israeli authorities?
MR TONER: So I know we have raised – sorry, I just want to make sure I check – but obviously, yes, we were very straightforward in condemning, as we – and our clear policy states – condemning settlements and viewing them as illegitimate. We obviously, as the statement made clear, oppose steps to advance construction in the West Bank in East Jerusalem. Why? Because settlement expansion threatens the two-state solution and calls into question, frankly, Israel's commitment. And we have some – to clarify that, so we have made our profound concerns about continued settlement construction clear to Israel's leaders, obviously publicly, but also privately.
QUESTION: So you don't just express concern; you're also condemning the settlement activity?
MR TONER: We – no, we view them --
QUESTION: I mean, I'm just using your words.
MR TONER: Sorry, I apologize. Yeah, just to clarify, we – and we've been very clear about this, there's no change in our policy – we oppose steps to advance construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and we view settlements as illegitimate.
QUESTION: Let me ask you – I mean, you --
MR TONER: Thanks, sir.
QUESTION: You have issued this statement time and again. Every time there was a settlement, you issued similar statements and so on. But the Israelis seem to not care at all about your expressions of concern and so on. Will you ever take a step, sort of a practical step, that maybe can convince them to really cease these settlement activities and perhaps give peace a chance?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, we – we're constantly in dialogue with the Israelis about getting a peace process back on track, which is why, as I said, we were – we take these kinds of activities with – review them with concern, because we feel like that impedes any forward momentum we might have or might be able to get. So we're very clear and clear-eyed in our assessment and clear with the Israelis when we talk to them about the effects of those.
QUESTION: You know there's been an uptick in --
MR TONER: Yeah, please go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, there's been an uptick in the repression of Palestinians by the Israeli occupation forces – three young men have been killed this week so far and so on. Are you concerned that this may blow out of control? Are you cautioning the Israelis to sort of scale back this level of repression?
MR TONER: I would just say we continue to urge a peace process to get back on track, to get – and to that end, we don't want to see any provocative actions by either side.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Wait, wait, can I just --
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, sure thing.
QUESTION: Are you aware of – at least recently, in terms of the past several days or the past week – of at least two, and there may be more, cases of Palestinian Americans being – or at least complaining or alleging that they've been harassed or mistreated by Israeli officials upon entering?
MR TONER: I am not, Matt. I apologize.
QUESTION: All right. Could you --
MR TONER: I have reams of paper about it, but not that specific thing, so I can check.
QUESTION: Okay, yeah. Could you check and --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- find out what you're able to say, if you're able to say anything about it and quickly.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And if you've – and if there has been any contact with Israeli officials about it.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Amnesty also issued a statement saying that Israel's war on Gaza last year amounts to a war crime. Do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: Just our position is well-known. Obviously, we made clear during last summer's conflict that we support Israel's right to self-defense. At the same time, we expressed deep concern about the welfare of civilians and urged all parties to do what they could to protect civilians. But as to this current report, I don't have any comment on it or reaction to it.
QUESTION: So you disagree with Amnesty's report designating Israel's --
MR TONER: We're aware of the report. I'm not going to make that type of judgment from the podium.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: And then you, I'm sorry. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Mark, I've got a question --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- about where the State Department thinks U.S.-Japan relations should evolve beyond August 15th, beyond the 70th memorial of the end of World War II. Specifically, the question is: Does the State Department think that the work of the Japanese and American foundations that work with each other – for example, the Hitachi Foundation, the Toyota Foundation, the Mitsubishi Foundation, or the American counterpart like the Mansfield Foundation – are going to play an important part in the next chapter of U.S.-Japan relations? And specifically, in other words, do you agree that these are very important aspects of our bilateral relationship?
MR TONER: What a sweeping question, by the way. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I'm sorry.
MR TONER: Thank you. But just to clarify, you're talking about the role of foundations in general, or those foundations specifically and how they might --
QUESTION: Foundations – relationship between the two countries --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- beyond those countries – those --
MR TONER: I mean, generally speaking – and I'm by no means an expert on the specific foundations that you mentioned – but generally speaking, we want to see our strong bilateral relations with Japan continue to be strengthened going forward. We believe they're on the path to do so. And this is a relationship that's obviously been pivotal to the peace and stability of the Asia Pacific region, and we continue to want to grow those ties. And speaking more narrowly to your question about the role of these kinds of foundations and the work that they do in terms of fostering people-to-people growth, exchanges, and interaction – absolutely that work is vital, not just specifically to U.S. and Japan, but all around the world. So we do believe that that kind of work is vital to growing a really healthy bilateral relationship.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Sorry, you were next. Yeah, apologies. Yeah, go ahead. And then the back.
QUESTION: As I understand, this is just in from the Treasury. The Office of Foreign Assets Control has updated sanctions against Russia. They've added new individuals, new companies. What events on the ground in Ukraine have warranted such an update of sanctions?
MR TONER: So this is – this was a – and I would urge you to, obviously, to talk to the Department of Treasury for in-the-weeds details, but – to ensure the efficacy of existing sanctions, the Department of Treasury designated and identified a range of individuals and entities under four executive orders related to Russia and Ukraine. But let's – today's action is not – there's not new sanctions. This is designed to strengthen existing sanctions, counter attempts to circumvent our sanctions, and further align U.S. measures with those of our international partners – obviously, in Europe – and to provide additional information to assist the private sector with sanctions compliance. And just --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) related to specific events on the ground, changes, anything?
MR TONER: So what we're – we're actually strengthening the existing sanctions regime – again, because without these kinds of – I call them maintenance actions, the impact of these sanctions can erode over time. Sanctioned entities can find ways to work around restrictions, et cetera. So this is a fairly common practice with sanctions.
But let's be clear: These sanctions are related to compliance with the Minsk agreements and full implementation of the Minsk agreements. So once the Minsk agreements are fully implemented, we can talk about those sanctions being rolled back.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Yes, on Japan. It was reported last week that Governor Onaga of Okinawa will likely be speaking before the Human Rights Commission in Geneva --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- likely in September, I think. Do you have any comment or – on that?
MR TONER: I don't. It's a long way off, but I don't have any comment on it.
QUESTION: Do you have any assertion to the – response to the assertion that the Futenma relocation facility is a violation of the Okinawan people's human rights?
MR TONER: I think the – Futenma's been – has been worked out between the U.S. and Japan. We've reached an agreement on that, and we continue to have ongoing dialogue. But I don't have anything new to say.
Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Do you have any response to Iran's deputy foreign minister saying that they would not – they will only allow inspectors from countries that have diplomatic relations with their country to inspect nuclear facilities?
MR TONER: I mean, I'm not aware of those comments. I think that that's – I don't have anything particular to speak to that. That's – you're saying it's – who was it who said this?
QUESTION: Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas --
QUESTION: Araghchi.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: I don't have anything to --
QUESTION: No. Okay.
QUESTION: But what – this is a --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- this goes to the issue of the IAEA and the inspections. And wouldn't it be a good idea to have the director general of the IAEA – (laughter) – come and answer some questions about – I just don't understand why --
MR TONER: Look, I --
QUESTION: I mean, I realize that you don't control the IAEA --
MR TONER: Exactly.
QUESTION: -- and I realize that the IAEA doesn't report to Congress. But still, it would seem to make sense to me that if you wanted to explain and have questions directly – that directly relate to the IAEA's monitoring and verification, that you would encourage or even maybe proactively suggest to Dr. Amano that he answer questions maybe even in written form to allay or to try to allay the concerns of the lawmakers. Anyway --
MR TONER: Your point is well made, Matt, and well taken. I just don't have anything to add other than to say we're going to continue to – our outreach with Congress, explain the deal, advocate for the deal, and leave it at that.
Please.
QUESTION: On China, so China is having a military parade next – not next month, in September.
MR TONER: You're talking about the 70th – yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, of the World War II.
MR TONER: Right, exactly.
QUESTION: Has the U.S. received an invitation, and will the U.S. be sending a representative?
MR TONER: We have not yet received an invitation, but I don't --
QUESTION: No.
MR TONER: That's right. But – and so I can't speak to what our delegation might look like once we do receive an invitation. That would be getting out in front of the process, which we rarely do here at the State Department. In any case, I'd say more generally, obviously, we believe constructive relations – constructive relations between all the countries in the region is the goal here, and so we would encourage Beijing to make their September 3rd commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II a forward-looking event that promotes reconciliation and healing.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up on that?
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: You said you haven't received an invitation, but if you do, would you accept it?
MR TONER: Yeah, but that's a hypothetical, so we don't answer those.
QUESTION: Okay, fine.
MR TONER: No, I'm just kidding. I mean, we'll talk about that once we do. But I don't want to get ahead and talk about what delegation, who might be in it. I mean, that's all to be decided. We just haven't received an invitation yet.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Michael Ratney for a second?
MR TONER: Yes, I love Michael Ratney.
QUESTION: Okay. Now, will he be going to Syria anytime soon or to the region? Where will he operate out of – the State Department or maybe Amman or something like that?
MR TONER: I believe he's traveling to the region, and if that's incorrect I will correct that. But he was just announced the other day. Obviously, he's getting up to speed on the issues, or the issue. And as I said, he's speaking with de Mistura today about the UN's efforts. I don't know exactly where he might be going. I'll try to get more information.
QUESTION: Is he required to be confirmed by the Senate?
MR TONER: I don't believe so.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the sanctions very briefly?
MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah.
QUESTION: About – it's about the timing. My question is about the timing. Why now? I mean, new names, new companies added to the list.
MR TONER: Again, no specific date or anniversary. It's just we do this all the time as part --
QUESTION: This comes – yes.
MR TONER: Sorry, I don't mean to --
QUESTION: -- a day after Russia's vote at the UN Security Council. Could it be in any way related?
MR TONER: No, this is – I'm not – it's just a way to strengthen existing sanctions. It is unrelated to any other things other than the fact that we constantly look at this, and frankly Treasury but also in working in conjunction with our sanctions people here at the State Department, to look at ways we need to strengthen these sanctions in order for them to continue to have the maximum impact.
QUESTION: What is the regularity of such updates?
MR TONER: I don't know. I don't have a – I don't have that level of detail. It's just something we do periodically. But I don't have – I can't say we do it every three months or six months. I just know that to understand sanctions, there's workarounds, there's – in order to keep them as strong as possible, you constantly need to freshen them and make sure that the gaps are filled.
Is that it, guys? Go ahead, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Hillary emails.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any response to an article that came out a few days ago saying that there was a conspicuous two-month gap in the emails that were submitted to the Benghazi committee, specifically May and June of 2012, where they said there was a lot of escalating violence in Libya at the time?
MR TONER: Just to say a couple of thoughts or a couple of things to say about that. One is that a two-month gap doesn't mean that she was somehow not informed about ongoing events. I mean, the Secretary of State receives – and we can't make this point often enough – receives information from a variety of sources, not just through periodic emails or emails in general. There's updates provided to her, obviously, verbally but also via paper, cable, et cetera. So I wouldn't conclude the absence or presence of a particular issue or a gap in the emails to indicate that there was somehow a lack of awareness of an issue.
I would also say that only Benghazi-related emails have been sent to Congress – or have been released from the Clinton – sorry. So only Benghazi-related emails have been released from Clinton – from Secretary Clinton that had been sent in 2011 and 2012, so we haven't gotten up to – we may not have been able to release these particular months yet. It's still ongoing. And the way the process is, without getting too confusing, it's not necessarily in chronological order. So --
QUESTION: So tomorrow's tranche is – will be what? Is there any way to characterize them in terms of the dates or subjects or anything? Or is it just going to be like a hodgepodge of stuff that's thrown online with no rhyme or reason?
MR TONER: No, I mean – I mean, we try to move in a chronological fashion. The only reason I made that point is that just the way this – the way this works and these emails were received – again, without getting into the nitty-gritty details – some of them are – there's some disconnects that we need to – but we're trying to go forward – move forward on them in a semi-chronological fashion, and just going through them. So the next tranche is due out tomorrow, as we said – or as you've said. And I don't – frankly, I don't have in front of me the specific date range.
QUESTION: All right. Do you have anything to say to the – yesterday in court there was another production of a large quantity of emails accompanied by remonstrations of the judge who, again, is – I don't know, dumbfounded, flabbergasted, to use a – that this is taking so long from the State – do you have any response to him?
MR TONER: I mean – you're talking about the FOIA --
QUESTION: Correct.
MR TONER: -- the AP case? I – I'm – I'm limited in what I can say in matters – on matters of ongoing litigation. But I would say that we take very seriously our records management responsibilities. And just, as I think I've said before or John has said, we're working hard to stretch our resources to respond to the backload in FOIA requests. But just some quick stats on this: In 2008, the department received 6,000 new FOIA requests. By the end of FY2014 we had received nearly 20,000 new requests. So that's a pretty massive increase. And this year we've been on pace to exceed that. We've already received more than 16,000 new requests since October. So obviously, the workload has increased on this, but we're making every effort to comply with our FOIA obligations.
Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Wait --
QUESTION: One more on that --
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead – sorry – Matt. Finish, then I'll --
QUESTION: On this?
QUESTION: Yeah, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I just – I mean --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I've asked this question before.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Between – to what do you attribute this jump of 14,000?
MR TONER: You have asked that question before --
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR TONER: -- and I don't have a good answer for you.
QUESTION: And you didn't.
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: And when you say that they --
MR TONER: I didn't get the question before, but now I don't have a good answer for you. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yes. Right. Well, now you know how it feels to get the same – (laughter.) Since October of last year, I presume, since we're not at October yet, there have been 16,000?
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: And all of those were – do you know, do the majority of those go – are – they're asking for documents from Secretary Clinton's time, or from current --
MR TONER: No, not necessarily; no, not at all. But, I mean, they're – but it's just a massive increase in FOIA requests that we're obligated to fulfill. But let me see if I can – I mean, I don't have any reason to – just that the workload has increased voluminously.
QUESTION: There was a --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: There was another report out today --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- a lot of which I think was covered on Friday in discussion of the --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- IG's reports. But it asserted that classified information from five different intelligence agencies was contained in these emails. Do you have any response to that? Do you --
MR TONER: No. I mean, we talked a lot about this last Friday, and the fact that we don't know some of the – these emails that were shared with the IG, our IG – our Office of Inspector General as well as the ICIG. We've been very clear and diligent about process. We have intelligence community folks who help us go through these emails and look at them, and again, to assess whether they need to be upgraded in classification. And that continues.
QUESTION: Yesterday at the --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- White House, your colleague over there said that Secretary Kerry was going to meet this week with the IG, State IG to discuss the --
MR TONER: Met. Yeah, he met already. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no. He said he was going to meet. So, one, why is the White House spokesman talking about a meeting between Secretary Kerry and the State Department inspector general that happened the day before – right?
MR TONER: Because we didn't brief --
QUESTION: Because if it happened on Wednesday, was he just misinformed that it was going to happen later --
MR TONER: Oh, I think --
QUESTION: -- this week or next week, in fact, was what he said at one point? And I believe unless the inspector general is going to be on the plane with Secretary Kerry, that meeting would be impossible.
MR TONER: I think – actually, I looked back at the transcript. I think he said this week. I don't think he said next week. But I think he was responding to a question, a direct question about it.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: So I don't think it was anything nefarious --
QUESTION: But that meeting actually took place on Wednesday?
MR TONER: It did. Yeah, it did. And these are – as we discussed, it's not unusual. They last met in April, so --
QUESTION: All right. And I have one last one that is --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- wildly not related to anything. And it – apropos of whatever you want to take it, the extradition treaty that the United States – that Secretary Albright signed with Zimbabwe in 1997 and took effect in 2000. Are you aware that that is still in full effect? Has it been amended or revised in any way, since post-2000 the U.S. relationship with Zimbabwe has, shall we say, been on a downward slope – a precipitous downward slope? Is it still in – is it still, to this day, in effect with the same provisions that it was in 2000 when it came into effect?
MR TONER: My understanding is that it is still – I mean, it's still in effect. That it still exists. I'm not aware that it's been changed in any way, shape, or form.
QUESTION: Are you aware if it has ever actually been used?
MR TONER: I'm not.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah. Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:21 p.m.)
DPB # 130
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
