Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 31, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
PALESTINIANS/REGION
YEMEN
IRAQ
DEPARTMENT
PALESTINIANS/ISRAEL
ISRAEL/REGION
GAMBIA
DEPARTMENT
JAPAN
TURKEY/IRAQ
SYRIA/ISIS/IRAN
PAKISTAN/IRAN
INDIA
ZIMBABWE
EGYPT
YEMEN/SYRIA
EGYPT
RUSSIA
TPP
CHINA
JAPAN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:32 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Welcome to the State Department. A couple things at the top that I wanted to give to you all. As you saw earlier, we did release a statement about the terrible and vicious terrorist attack that took place in the Palestinian village of Duma. It was an arson attack on a family's home in the dead of night that resulted in the death of an 18-month-old baby as well as the injury of three other family members. And we obviously strongly condemn that attack.
Moving to another event that took place, I think yesterday. We condemn yesterday's violent attack at the Jerusalem pride parade, and our thoughts are with the six reported victims of this attack, their families, friends, as well as the entire Jerusalem LGBT community. We're encouraged by Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments condemning this attack, and we welcome the Government of Israel's commitment to ensuring that the perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.
Turning to Yemen, I did want to note that this morning U.S. Agency for International Development announced that $21 million in emergency food assistance arrived in Yemen. This was a wheat shipment totaling 35,800 tons – enough to feed more than 1 million people for two months – that will now be milled into flour and distributed throughout the – through, rather, the UN World Food Program to the most vulnerable families throughout Yemen. This shipment is the largest humanitarian shipment since the conflict began, and since Fiscal Year 2014 the U.S. Government has provided $188 million in humanitarian assistance to the people of Yemen.
We continue, obviously, to call on all parties involved in the conflict in Yemen to allow for the unimpeded entry and for the delivery of essential food items to civilian populations, including, as I said, urgently needed food as well as medicine and fuel.
I think I'm missing one other thing here. Forgive me.
QUESTION: What could it be?
MR TONER: No, not what you think necessarily, Matt.
QUESTION: Not Cecil the lion?
MR TONER: (Laughter.) That's right. No, no. Sorry about that. My poor organization.
We welcome today's decision by NATO to provide defense capacity building package to Iraq. This decision, which was initially discussed at the NATO summit in Wales last year, underscores NATO's – rather, underscores NATO's commitment to deepening its partnership with Iraq and will strengthen Iraq's security and defense sector by providing support in areas where NATO is best placed to add value. NATO's support for Iraq has been designed to complement efforts carried out by the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, and we look forward to working with our NATO partners in strengthening Iraqi defenses and towards degrading and ultimately defeating ISIL.
With that, I'll take your questions.
QUESTION: So let's just start with the email release.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: People are still going through them, I'm sure.
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: But can you explain why it is that the department was unable to meet the 15 percent threshold that was set by the federal – or the judge in this case?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, as you noted, the State Department released, I think about an hour or so ago, 1,356 additional documents, totaling now – or totaling, rather, 2,200 pages from former Secretary Clinton's email account. And as with our initial release of 296 emails in May and an additional 1,925 documents in June, the department reviewed these emails for public release – of course, as we've stated multiple times – applying Freedom of Information Act standards.
So just to give you perspective here, combined with the May and June releases totaling 3,942 pages, the total page count, 6,148 pages, comes to nearly 12 percent of the full Clinton set of emails.
And Matt, as you noted, while this goal is short of the 15 percent goal set by a court ruling, we're confident that we can catch up in subsequent releases as our interagency partners complete their reviews of more documents that may contain their equities – and we've spoken to this before – and begin to respond in greater volume. But obviously, we take the court's goals very seriously and are making sure that – and have every intention of meeting them in future productions.
I guess the bottom line is we need to obviously be fast, we need to make every effort to meet these deadlines, but we also need to be accurate and make sure other agencies' equities are taken into consideration.
QUESTION: Well, is that why? Because although you say you take the court seriously, I mean, you are in violation of what the court ordered you to do.
MR TONER: Right. Well --
QUESTION: So why is it that – and will you be throwing yourself at the mercy of the court to – I mean, why --
MR TONER: Right, okay.
QUESTION: Why specifically were you unable to meet the judge's demand?
MR TONER: Sure, let me describe – let me explain a little bit more about that. So the technical process for the review and release of these materials is, as we've talked about, very complex, layered, and involves other agencies' equities, experts within our own regional bureaus, the FOIA office here, experts within the – or in the Office of Legal Advisor, among others, and then also other U.S. Government agencies that we consult when they have equities in a given document.
So what we have now are – we have a team from the IC, from the intelligence community, actually at work in the – in the office here present at State that's helping review and move these documents along. Has that added some time to the process? Sure, but it's part of, as I said, we need to be fast, but we also need to make sure we're accurate and have – and have – sorry, rather – and have cleared these and classified them appropriately.
QUESTION: Okay, fair enough. And I'm sorry to keep harping on it.
MR TONER: That's okay. No worries.
QUESTION: You're – essentially, you're violating the court's order by not coming up with the right percent to meet the percentage that he did, and I'm just wondering why it is that that is happening. Are you saying that it's happening – or first of all, did the State Department ever intend to meet the threshold set by the judge?
MR TONER: Well, of course. And we do intend to meet them and make up for the gap.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: What's that?
QUESTION: Well, I know. But that's like – that's an "I will pay you tomorrow for a hamburger I will have today."
MR TONER: But just – that's okay, that's okay. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I mean --
MR TONER: Thank you. Was that from Popeye?
QUESTION: Did you – was it the plan? Did the department ever envision meeting the judge's demand?
MR TONER: No, of course, of course.
QUESTION: Oh, all right.
MR TONER: And let's just explain --
QUESTION: So then what happened that made you unable to do that?
MR TONER: So we still intend – just a little bit more context here. We still intend to complete production on or before the court's deadline of January 29th, 2016. That's ultimately the court-mandated deadline for this. Now, there were monthly goals, as you note, and we fell short this month. We – we're going to catch up, as I explained. We did have additional equities at stake in this last round. We brought in, as I said, a team of IC, intelligence community, reviewers to help us make sure that these emails were being cleared appropriately.
QUESTION: Is that why that you're not meeting the 15 percent, because the people from the intelligence community have to go over stuff that your people had already reviewed?
MR TONER: That's not the case. So what happens is we review it, and then where we view – where we see other agencies' equities at stake, then we share those. Now, to help expedite that process, given the intelligence community's stake in this, we brought them into the process and incorporated them into the actual – the initial review process.
QUESTION: When were they --
MR TONER: But we're also --
QUESTION: When were they brought in?
MR TONER: I don't have that. I don't know that. Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, then I don't understand how it is you can say that you intended --
MR TONER: It was recently --
QUESTION: -- to meet the judge's --
MR TONER: It was recently in an effort to – again, to --
QUESTION: Okay. So the State Department fully intended to comply with the judge's orders to release 15 – a cumulative total of 15 percent by today. But the – and the reason that you couldn't meet it, the reason you only got to 12 percent, was because – because of the concerns of the intel community and classified – potential release of classified information that made – that forced you or that got you to bring in the intel community to look at this stuff. Is that correct?
MR TONER: So – right. So right, but just again, more context, more context. The intel community, the intelligence community, has always been involved in the interagency review process, but we've actually recently incorporated a contingent of reviewers, as I said, within the State Department – within our own department here to be on hand to identify – help further assist in identifying possible equities of other agencies.
But again, I would just emphasize we have every intention of meeting the goals going forward, but as much as we want to be quick about this, we also need to be accurate and make sure that we're protecting --
QUESTION: All right, well, you --
MR TONER: You're looking at me in a dismayed way.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I just --
MR TONER: That's important.
QUESTION: I just don't get what are you going to – I know it's important, but that's why I don't understand why you didn't meet it if you can't offer a decent explanation about what --
MR TONER: But I am. I'm saying we had these additional --
QUESTION: You – but this is unclear. Okay, so --
QUESTION: What do you mean by equities?
MR TONER: -- more people had to come in to do more review, and that's why you can't release the full 15 percent. Is that right?
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, I – fundamentally.
QUESTION: And that's what you're going to tell the judge when he says --
MR TONER: Yes, we will --
QUESTION: -- "Hey, you didn't." But I mean, it's like --
MR TONER: We will go --
QUESTION: -- not paying your taxes and then saying, "Well, don't worry, IRS, I'll pay them next month."
MR TONER: We will go to the court and explain --
QUESTION: They don't care.
MR TONER: Again, though, these are goals. They're not – there is a court-mandated deadline, but these are goals. These are monthly goals, and we will make up for the – I'm sorry, what were you --
QUESTION: Just to clarify --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- so you're saying that this batch of emails had more relevance to other agencies than previous batches of emails?
MR TONER: Not necessarily, but we're trying to – yeah.
QUESTION: But what do you mean by equities? You say equities of other agencies.
MR TONER: Well, equities are just whatever – as we go through the contents of these emails, we have talked about this many times, that we need to look at whether portions of them need to be upgraded in terms of classification. And so as we review these – and I explained it just now – they go through the regional bureaus, they go through various offices within the State Department. It's, as I said, a multilayered process. But we've also – when we see portions that may touch on other agencies' equities, I don't know how better to put it than that, that may have information that they need to be aware of or talk about their functions or whatever, then we obviously need to clear those emails through them as well.
QUESTION: And there are more of those this time than previously?
MR TONER: I wouldn't necessarily say that, but we're just trying to tighten the process and make sure it's more rigorous.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Is there more classified --
MR TONER: Sorry, and I'll get to you, Said. I apologize.
QUESTION: Is there more classified redactions in this release than last release?
MR TONER: That's a good question. I think I have the – sorry, one second here. So in this release, there were – in this production, yes, portions of 37 documents, many of them duplicates, but they were upgraded to confidential. So – and – so that's this count, so I think that – I believe that's correct, yes. So that is higher.
QUESTION: Confidential, not classified?
MR TONER: Sorry?
QUESTION: Confidential, not classified?
MR TONER: Correct. That's correct.
QUESTION: But the B1 FOIA code is for classified material.
MR TONER: These were upgraded to confidential, so none of these documents were classified at the time they were sent but they've been upgraded to confidential. That's – yeah.
Please, Said.
QUESTION: Can we move to another topic?
MR TONER: So – wait, so confidential is a form of – is a stage or a level of classification?
MR TONER: Yes. I mean, it's --
QUESTION: It's the lowest level?
MR TONER: It's the lowest level. Well, there's sensitive but unclassified, but yes, then confidential.
QUESTION: Well, sensitive but unclassified is not classified.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Confidential is classified --
MR TONER: It's --
QUESTION: -- but at the lowest level? Is that correct?
MR TONER: It's at the lowest level. I – yeah, that's right.
QUESTION: And is it correct that there are actually 64 separate redactions in those 37 documents for B1 reasons?
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Or do you not – you might not have --
MR TONER: I don't have that in front of me, but I'll double-check on that. But I think that's correct, yeah.
QUESTION: That's the count --
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: That's the count that we have.
MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we move to another topic?
MR TONER: Yeah, one more question.
QUESTION: Just one more.
MR TONER: No worries, no worries. Go ahead. No problem.
QUESTION: One more.
MR TONER: No, no worries.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I appreciate that. In terms of there being classified or, as you say, confidential material in here --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is there – there are some who think that the State Department or the Department of Justice went after General Petraeus and his classified information and that there's not a fair system. Does the State Department think the FBI should have gone in and secured the server?
MR TONER: You're talking about Secretary Clinton's server.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR TONER: Look, I don't want to necessarily re-litigate that. I mean, that server, the contents are now being held in a – with her lawyers in a secure setting, and she shared with us all of the contents that she deemed relevant, and so we're going through those. But I don't want to --
QUESTION: But that's not how the law works, Mark. I mean, U.S.C. 1924, how you're supposed to handle classified information – and neither Secretary Clinton nor her lawyers should have access to classified information from up to five --
MR TONER: But again, we've – and I – if I haven't been clear on this, to date, we've not seen any classified – information that should have been classified at the time. We've upgraded some of this information, and that's a very common practice, but we have not seen anything as we've conducted this review that indicates any information should have been classified at the time.
QUESTION: But do you think it's fair that the FBI went after General Petraeus's information, his drawers, his house to look for classified information, but the FBI has not done the same for Secretary Clinton's home in Chappaqua, for instance?
MR TONER: I could ask – I'd refer you to the FBI for that.
QUESTION: Wait, this brings --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Even if it wasn't classified at the time, the fact that it has been retroactively classified suggests that it shouldn't be in – no matter how secure it is in a law firm's office, it shouldn't be there, no?
MR TONER: That's not true. We've actually, I mean, done a visual inspection, and it is in a secure setting. There's – I don't need to get into the details of it, frankly, but --
QUESTION: Well, but it doesn't matter if it's in a safe in Kendall's office or not, or if you put it – encased it in a block of concrete and tossed it in the Potomac. It doesn't matter. It's not where it --
MR TONER: But also --
QUESTION: -- you know it's not where it's supposed to be, right?
MR TONER: But also we're – so what we've done is upgrade the classifications on the emails that we've received, and we're continuing that process. I'm not sure I understand the --
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, those emails are all on this thumb drive.
MR TONER: Correctly.
QUESTION: Right? And they now --
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- even if they didn't before, they now have classified information on it, right?
MR TONER: Right. Wait.
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: Wait. What are you – I'm sorry, again, your question. Yeah.
QUESTION: Was this not the point of Lucas's question? The question was why – it has been raised, there have been concerns raised by the IGs that a thumb drive containing all of these emails that you're releasing in un-redacted form is on a thumb drive in the office of the lawyer of the former secretary. And they – the IGs, the DNI IG in particular, is concerned that this is not a good thing and a violation of the law because that information, whether or not it was classified at the time it was sent, is now classified.
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: So I think that was the --
MR TONER: Again, we provided Secretary --
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: But --
QUESTION: And it doesn't matter how secure it might be.
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: I mean, he could have swallowed it. It doesn't matter.
QUESTION: And who did that assessment and said, "We took a look at the" --
QUESTION: But it's not in government – it's not in a secure government facility.
MR TONER: So we provided Secretary Clinton's lawyers with instructions regarding appropriate measures for physically securing the documents and confirmed, via a physical security expert, that they're taking those measures. And I would also say that former Secretary Clinton does have counsel with clearance.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, so then the – so then that's not an issue.
MR TONER: Yes. Yeah.
QUESTION: That's what you're saying?
MR TONER: Yeah, exactly.
QUESTION: And who is this security expert that assessed --
MR TONER: I don't have – I'm sorry, I don't have – I just don't have that.
QUESTION: Would you open to the FBI taking a look at this thumb drive and making sure it's secured or have access to this material?
MR TONER: Again, we're getting – what we did is we received these emails – well, documents from Secretary Clinton. Our obligation here is to go through those documents, determine what portions of them can be publicly releasable according to the FOIA request. Those portions that need to be redacted for classification upgrades, we're doing that and we're going through this process. We've made sure that the documents at her lawyers' are in a secure setting, but I'm not going to speak to what the FBI should or shouldn't do. For our part, we're going through these emails, we're – again, with our commitment to publicly release all the portions that we can do so, that we can do, that we can release via FOIA regulations, and that's our ultimate goal here with the deadline of January 29th.
QUESTION: Do you think it's fair that General Petraeus had his home raided by the FBI over classified information, but the same thing has not happened to Secretary Clinton?
MR TONER: I'm just not going to speak to --
QUESTION: Because some people see a double standard.
MR TONER: I'm just not going to speak, Lucas, to General Petraeus's case. It's just – it's apples and oranges.
Please. Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. Okay. Can I change topics?
MR TONER: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And begin at the top, where you began?
MR TONER: Sure, yeah. I can't remember where I began.
QUESTION: On the statement that you issued --
MR TONER: Oh, yeah. Of course, yes.
QUESTION: You called it a vicious terrorist attack, and in fact, in recent years you've included settler attacks as part of your report on terrorism – annual report on terrorism. My question: Seeing how there is an uptick now in these settler attacks against Palestinians and their property and so on and with a price tag and all that, I wonder if the Department is looking into any steps it can take to apply U.S. anti-terror laws under its purview to combat these sorts of things. Are you?
MR TONER: Well, look, as the statement said, we've obviously condemned this attack. We welcome the fact that Prime Minister Netanyahu did order Israel's security forces to use all means at their disposal to apprehend the murderers of what he called an act of terrorism and to bring them to justice, and we obviously urge all sides in this moment to maintain calm and avoid escalating tensions.
But Israel is – the Government of Israel is investigating the incident and has expressed its firm commitment to pursuing the perpetrators of this attack, so we'll let this process play out.
QUESTION: Do you have confidence in the Israeli Government doing that?
MR TONER: Certainly.
QUESTION: Do you have evidence that they have done that in the past? For instance, in the case of Muhammad Abu Khdeir, who was burned alive last year, there have been no convictions up to now --
MR TONER: And we've spoken about this before. We have confidence – Israel is a vibrant, strong democracy with strong institutions and a very strong legal system, so yes, we have confidence in it.
QUESTION: If you were to be asked on evidence where actually the Israelis held these terrorists accountable and put them in prison, can you cite any?
MR TONER: Not off the top of my head, but we have faith in the system.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. But seeing that the violence is really escalating – today they just killed a 17-year-old boy in the Qalandia refugee camp, 17-year-old Hani al-Kasbah. I mean, this is – obviously all these things are a byproduct of continued settlement activity, byproduct of the continued occupation and so on. When are you going to put some U.S. credibility behind your statements? I mean, your concern, your condemnation, these statements that we are seeing stronger and stronger and really put an end to, let's say, at least to aiding this process?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, we've been pretty vocal in the last days about our – regarding settlements. We put out a statement the other day. We continue to believe strongly that achieving a two-state solution remains in the best – remains the best path forward for Israel's long-term security, and frankly, we make that point all the time to the Israeli Government both publicly and privately. We continue to look to both the new Israeli Government as well as the Palestinians to demonstrate through policies and actions a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Our policy on settlements is very clear and we continue to convey those concerns both publicly and privately.
QUESTION: I understand. But when the Palestinians do unilateral actions, for instance, you can cut off aid and you have done so in the past. When the Israelis do unilateral action, what action do you actually – physical action – do you take against the Israelis?
MR TONER: Well, again, we speak to the Israelis on a constant basis. Obviously, it's a very strong and deep bilateral relationship, but where we disagree we convey our disagreement to them and we're very adamant about the fact that, as I said, we want to see a genuine commitment to a two-state solution and we want to see actions and, frankly, policies that reflect that commitment on the side both of the Israel – Israel and the Palestinians.
QUESTION: And I promise this is my final question on this.
MR TONER: It's okay, no worries.
QUESTION: So they are going to – the Palestinians said they will go before the ICC on this issue. Would you oppose their efforts in that regard?
MR TONER: I'm not going to speak it. You know our policy regarding the ICC.
Please. Yeah, go ahead. It's okay, Matt.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) about this. Earlier today I asked you in another setting if it was correct – still correct that the last time the Secretary had spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu was the 16th. Is that correct?
MR TONER: I think that's correct. I wanted to double-check on that. I didn't get a chance, Matt. If – we'll put something out if that's not – incorrect.
QUESTION: Back to the attack on Jerusalem yesterday --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- has the U.S. Government been in touch with Israel, with the Netanyahu administration or anybody else in Israel – the mayor of Jerusalem, for example – about yesterday's attack? And if so, any thoughts about what was conveyed during that? And then the second part of that: Would you categorize yesterday's attack as an act of terrorism?
MR TONER: I'm not going to make that call from this podium at this point, but we condemn it as a terrible crime against the LGBT community. Prime Minister Netanyahu's come out and condemned the attack. I know our embassy there has issued a statement already condemning the attack. The Government of Israel has committed itself to a full investigation and ensuring that the perpetrators are held accountable, so we'll let that process play out. But we've obviously conveyed our strong condemnation of the attack publicly and I assume privately as well.
QUESTION: One additional LGBT --
MR TONER: But again, this is – sorry, just to finish, I mean, this is an individual acting, or individuals acting, and we want to let the investigation play out.
QUESTION: One additional LGBT question, aside --
MR TONER: Please, yeah.
QUESTION: -- from Israel. There was a report that came out this morning that three Gambian men who were arrested for, quote, "aggravated homosexuality" last November, they were actually released from prison. Are you aware of that report? And then on top of that, can you give an update on any final decision about visa travel bans against Gambian officials responsible for human rights abuses against LGBT folks and other groups in the country?
MR TONER: Sure. Just to – just so I understand the first part of your question --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: -- you're talking about Gambians who were --
QUESTION: There were three Gambian men who were arrested for, quote, "aggravated homosexuality" last November --
MR TONER: In – okay.
QUESTION: -- in Gambia --
MR TONER: In Gambia, obviously.
QUESTION: -- and they were released apparently yesterday. And then the second part: Any update on possible visa travel bans against Gambian officials responsible for human rights abuses?
MR TONER: I don't have any update on the possibility of visa bans. I'll have to take that question and check on it. As to the release and the arrest of these individuals, first of all, the arrest – you know where we stand on gay rights. They're human rights, so we take them very seriously. And we would welcome their release.
QUESTION: Wait, on that subject --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- more broadly, you were asked a while – or maybe Kirby was a while ago about people – a letter, I think, from the Hill or from others talking about – asking you to consider or to do – not – to do more than consider --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- denying visas to the spouses of diplomats from countries that have anti-gay laws.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Administration has taken a position on this? Does it – would it, in fact, be allowed to do this, or would it violate some kind of Vienna Convention rule on diplomatic protocol?
MR TONER: Right. Not sure about the Vienna Convention, but – and I obviously – the Secretary's obviously received this letter and I can't speak to his response. Clearly, as a senator, he obviously cares deeply about these issues. But to speak pragmatically about what the INA, the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows us to do legally – so the INA defines the qualifications for the A and G official visa categories, official under – and under what circumstances these visas can be refused. And it provides no legal mechanism for denial of spouses on the basis of a country's failure to reciprocate.
So under the INA, and sorry if – this is like legal terminology, I apologize for it – so the A and G nonimmigrant visa classifications include members of the principal alien's immediate family. So by regulation, spouses, to include same-sex spouses, are considered immediate family. Other individuals such as same-sex domestic partners may also qualify as immediate family.
Now, the Department has more discretion in implementing policies for partners who are not married, and our current policy is to deny diplomatic A or G-status visas for same-sex domestic partners of representatives from countries that do not provide reciprocal treatment to our same-sex partners. And I would just note that in cases where we would deny an official visa to a same-sex partner, we would still issue a visitor visa, as would most countries.
QUESTION: And that doesn't bring you afoul – it doesn't run afoul of any kind of diplomatic protocol, the denial of --
MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no.
QUESTION: Do you know how often that's been – that has actually been used?
MR TONER: I don't. I don't have the stats on it for you.
QUESTION: Can I change topics?
MR TONER: Please. Sorry, I'll get to you. Yeah.
QUESTION: On Japan, the WikiLeaks cache of documents that were released alleging spying on not only Japanese officials but Japanese companies, do you have anything to say about that?
MR TONER: No. I mean, we've been very clear we're not going to respond to releases of allegedly classified documents, so I'm not going to go there.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, I have --
MR TONER: Finish, yeah.
QUESTION: -- a few more on that.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: The Japanese side – regardless of your position, the Japanese side has said that they will be protesting this if it is true. Have you received anything, any kind of communication? Does the Secretary – has the Secretary made any calls? Are there any calls planned?
MR TONER: Not aware that we've received any informal or formal protests from the Japanese Government, and I'm not aware that there's been any calls about it.
QUESTION: And then specifically, the documents allege spying on Japanese companies. Previously, Administration spokespeople have been very, very careful in drawing a line between espionage for national security purposes and commercial espionage. This would appear to be an instance of commercial espionage if these documents are indeed verified. I mean, given that that's been such a strong Administration talking point, would you care to deny in this case that that took place?
MR TONER: No, because I don't want to give any credence to these allegedly classified documents that have been released by WikiLeaks. Just to say, obviously, our former statements stand.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR TONER: Yeah, in the back. Yeah, sure. I'm sorry. Stay on the topic. Please.
QUESTION: Is there any concern that this will influence any way the ongoing TPP negotiations?
MR TONER: Look, we've – our teams – team, rather, remains hard at work in Hawaii on this. I don't have anything – I mean, we are obviously – these are – final end stages of any negotiation of this scope and significance, there's always contentious issues. But we remain very optimistic that we'll get a deal done.
QUESTION: Can I just point out this massive contradiction in terms: "Hard at work in Hawaii." (Laughter.) Really?
MR TONER: Next question. No, they are working hard there, I can assure you, even in a beautiful location like Hawaii.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: Thank you. Beside TPP, do you – what kind of impact do you think this allegation revelation will have on the bilateral relations, for example, the Japan-U.S. security cooperation? Do you expect this case has any impact on that kind – impact here?
MR TONER: Look, I mean, Japan and the U.S. – Japan is a stalwart U.S. ally and partner – an ally, rather, and the U.S.-Japan relationship remains really the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region. That hasn't changed. We want to seek to deepen that relationship. It's based on shared values. It's based on a history of cooperation. Our relationship, I would say, has never been stronger. Are we going to have challenges along the way? Sure, but we'll work through those.
Sorry, he's waiting. Sorry, go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: Yes. You mentioned in the remarks that NATO allies are going to help Iraq in the fight against ISIS. So matter of fact that one of the NATO allies is bombing Iraq, and the Iraqi Government condemned the attack, which is Turkey. So is that something that you are going to play a role between Iraq and Turkey to both sides on – Turkey is bombing PKK, but they are in Iraq, so Iraqi wants them to stop. Is there any talks going on between United States and Ankara and also Baghdad to – to de-escalate the tensions between Baghdad and Ankara?
MR TONER: I wouldn't go beyond what I said yesterday, which is it's incumbent on the PKK to stop these attacks. We've said many times from this podium and elsewhere that Turkey is justified in self-defense. It has carried out, as you mentioned, airstrikes against PKK forces, mostly in northern Iraq. We want to see an end to the violence and we want to see the PKK recommit itself to a peace process.
But that's – and I tried to make this clear yesterday – that's a separate piece altogether from Turkey joining in the anti-ISIL coalition efforts and supporting airstrikes against ISIL, I-S-I-L, in northern Syria. So they're two separate pieces. Obviously, we're consulting closely and working out operational details of how that cooperation's going to look in northern Syria going forward with Turkey.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. One more on that.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: But beside bombing PKK, which is also categorized as a terrorist organization by United States – but there are also other victims, the civilians in the northern Iraq in the Qandil Mountains, which they are Iraqis. They've been displaced from their homes, like hundreds of them. And actually, some of them, they got some of the pieces of the bombs created by United States and, I know, used by Turkey. They going to go to your consulate and ask them, "This is the same strategy? We've been bombed in the past and still again we get these bombs from your ally."
Also, another thing: Turkey arrested hundreds of civilians – alleged PKK members of HDP members, so I just wanted to remind you one of the statements Secretary Kerry made while he presented the Human Rights Reports. He said that terrorism should not be used as an excuse to oppress people and also violate human rights. So – but you haven't made any other statements other than supporting Turkey for defending themselves, but Turkey is also allegedly violating human rights in Iraq and also in Turkey.
MR TONER: So I'm not sure where to begin. That was a long question. You're talking specifically about the broader ramifications or consequences of Turkey's airstrikes against the PKK. Again, broaden the lens here. PKK has carried out strikes against Turkey – Turkish troops, police. Turkey has a right to self-defense. What we want to see now is the PKK to cease its attacks so that they can recommit themselves to the peace process, and frankly, that Turkey can also act proportionately. We don't want to – we want to see them return to the peace process.
You mentioned – I think you talked about – you're talking about the government's – the rounding up or the comments about the HDP. Is that what you were referring to?
QUESTION: They are arresting members of the HDP members in Turkey, and also there are civilians who have been displaced in Iraq also as a result of this bombardment, and two were injured.
MR TONER: Just – sure. In terms of the HDP, Turkey obviously has well-established democratic procedures in place to determine who has immunity and what circumstances it can be lifted and how it's lifted. We'd expect that Turkey will obviously follow its own democratic procedures in that regard.
And finally, your response about civilians --
QUESTION: In Iraq.
MR TONER: We're obviously always concerned about civilian casualties. We never want to see civilian casualties as a result of airstrikes. And we would encourage any organization, any government, to – if it is acting or carrying out airstrikes, to do so with regard for sparing civilian casualties – or sparing civilians, rather.
QUESTION: On ISIS and Syria.
MR TONER: Or sparing civilians, rather. Please.
QUESTION: Could I ask a question on ISIS and Syria? There's a report that persists, Mark, that al-Nusrah captured or holds hostage the head of the group that you have trained to fight ISIS. Could you confirm or deny that, Mark?
MR TONER: I'm sorry. You're asking me to confirm whether --
QUESTION: I'm asking you – what is the – what is the credence of these reports that they do hold the head of the group that you have trained or a number of them?
MR TONER: Well, just a very quick update, not specifically on that. But we did learn that early this morning members of the New Syrian Forces along with the members of the 30th Division of the Free Syrian Army were attacked by an unknown force of about 50 personnel. We know that – I can't speculate on the reason for this attack. We do know that the NSF, the Free Syrian Army – or the New Syrian Forces, rather, did – and the 30th Division have defended themselves and repelled that attack.
As to what you're talking about in terms of this abduction, I can't – I think I spoke to it yesterday. We've seen those reports. I can't confirm it.
QUESTION: So now we have – instead of the Free Syrian Army we have the New Syrian Forces? Is that the same or is that replacing?
MR TONER: It's both. It's the – well, so New Syrian Forces and then members of the 30th Division of the Free Syrian Army. But these are all moderate Syrian forces.
QUESTION: Is that – the New Syrian Forces, is that referring to rebels that the Americans have trained, or what is --
MR TONER: I believe it is, but I'm not sure. I'd have to confirm that. I think that's correct.
QUESTION: Mark, just --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Just to follow up very quickly --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Said.
QUESTION: -- on the issue of Syria. Yesterday Mr. de Mistura had a lengthy – or not a lengthy, but had an interview on NPR in which he says that Iran must be part of any political process to have these working groups working basically, the four working groups. Do you oppose to having Iran involved in --
MR TONER: I just – we've been very clear on this. Iran has not – we want to see a political process take place that leads to a democratic political solution in Syria. We don't – we want to see a political process take place. We don't believe at this point that Iran has that same goal in mind. They continue to support the Syrian army, the Syrian military, and Bashar al-Assad. So until that calculus changes, we don't see them as part of any peace process.
QUESTION: Besides that, on this point, on changing the calculus, he's saying that the Daesh element or the ISIL element in this case is really changing the calculation on the ground. And in fact, now ISIL is an enemy that is common to all, so to speak. You have the same allies on the other side. So in fact, there is a role for Iran, especially that it has shown that it has fought effectively in Iraq against ISIS.
MR TONER: Iran is – as you say, it's a very complex situation, a very complex situation without a doubt. And ISIL is adding to the complexity and adding to the terror and adding to the killing and the brutality of what's happening in Syria. Obviously, Iran is not a member of the coalition – anti-ISIL coalition, but they've also – and I'd refer you to the Iranians, but they're also fighting against ISIL as well.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran?
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you have any response or reaction to this complaint the Iranians have filed with the IAEA, complaining that the U.S. is in material breach of the nuclear deal because of the threat or the reminder that the military option still exists?
MR TONER: Well, just to say that we – all the parties to the negotiation, including Iran, know that we remain committed to resolving the international community's concerns about Iran's nuclear program through a diplomatic approach. And if Iran meets its commitments to the – under the JCPOA, we'll be able to do that. But we've also said all options remain on the table.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you don't think – you don't think that saying that all options including the military option remain on the table is a material breach of the agreement?
MR TONER: No. I mean, we've said ---
QUESTION: You don't, okay.
MR TONER: -- we're committed to a diplomatic solution.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Just follow up on this. Also they complained about – oh, sorry.
MR TONER: It's okay. Don't worry. It's fine.
QUESTION: They also complained about your counterpart at the White House.
QUESTION: That's exactly what I just asked about.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: No, but they said that he was saying that along the way Iran will be weaker and, in fact, it will be more exposed in an event of a military attack. They sort of take offense to that that you – are you – will you be using – you will be using this deal, in fact, to access more information and to have more effective strikes against Iran.
MR TONER: And to that I would just say we're using this deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and shutting down the four pathways to it achieving that. There's – we're always going to remain – or other options always remain on the table if for some reason that deal falls apart or that agreement falls apart. That's a fact, but we're committed to a diplomatic approach. We believe this agreement is in the best interest of the world, of the region, certainly of Iran and of the U.S, the P5+1. And so that's where we're focused on.
Please, yeah. Yeah, please, yeah.
QUESTION: We were talking about the attack that you learned about this morning or it took place this morning.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Was it --
MR TONER: In Syria.
QUESTION: -- in effect that forces trained by the United States were attacked by unknown forces and they repelled this attack? Is that accurate?
MR TONER: So yeah, members of the new Syrian forces along with members of the 30th Division of the Free Syrian Army. But let me – they were under attack. So I'm not sure how many, frankly, but they were attacked by an unknown --
QUESTION: And that was this morning, this attack?
MR TONER: That was early this morning, yes.
Let me get the – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Two questions. One on Iran and thanks very much, Mark.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Mr. Tariq Fatemi, he was addressing the Heritage Foundation as special advisor to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. What he said as far as Iran nuclear deal is concerned that his country supports the deal because it will open the doors for between Pakistan and Iran for various issues, including the gas pipeline that they wanted to have between the two countries and other issues. My question is that originally it was Mr. A.Q. Khan of Pakistan who provided material support to the Iranian nuclear plant. My question is: What is the future of now that relationship since Pakistan is now saying that they do support the deal and it will open the wide doors? Does that include maybe going in the past having relations with Iran because Iran has much to offer?
MR TONER: Look, I would just say – and we've been very clear on this – we don't consider Iran open for business yet, and there's no new sanctions relief beyond the very limited relief under the JPOA that's been in place since January 2014. So when Iran meets its key nuclear steps and we get to implementation day, then there will be commensurate relief of nuclear-related sanctions. So I don't have specific opinion on various possible future economic relations or economic deals or whatever, business deals. Other than that, should those conversations progress to any transactions or other activities that are still sanctionable prior to implementation day, then we'll continue to fully implement and enforce our sanctions.
QUESTION: Mark, one question on India, please.
MR TONER: Yeah, please go ahead.
QUESTION: As you know, that Indians were waiting for justice for the victims, actually, for the Mumbai attack. And day before yesterday they feel that they have somewhat little justice they have been given, the victims. India put to death or they hanged Mr. Yakub, who was involved in the Mumbai attacks.
My question is that are you – State Department also has now worldwide caution as far as terrorism is concerned, and among those who died were six Americans. My question is here that: Do you support that as far as India has put to death these – this terrorist related to the Mumbai attacks? And also now India is seeking U.S. help. There are a number of terrorists sitting in Pakistan, including Ibrahim Dawood and Mr. Tiger and also Hafiz Saeed, who is also wanted by the U.S. Will U.S., India have any kind of relations, and will U.S. help India to bring those from Pakistan wanted by India?
MR TONER: Well, we do have close counterterrorism cooperation with India, and obviously, as you mentioned, the Mumbai attack, our hearts go out to the victims of that attack and we want to see justice served, obviously, and we want to see the perpetrators brought to justice. Beyond that, I don't have any specifics to your second question. There's no – I'm not aware of any update on that.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR TONER: Please. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah, and then I'll go around. I apologize; you were waiting, but go ahead.
QUESTION: If I can just digress to Cecil the lion briefly, have you received any communications from the Zimbabwean Government at all about this case? I mean, an extradition request or anything else?
MR TONER: So I can't – just being completely candid up front, I'm not able to talk about extradition requests that we may or may not have received from Zimbabwe, or frankly, any government. We're not able to talk about private or individual extradition requests. I can more broadly talk about extradition and how that process works, if it's helpful.
They are received through – or by the Department of State through diplomatic channels, and State works closely with the Department of Justice to determine whether an incoming extradition request meets the requirements of the applicable treaty. The Department of Justice then presents the request to a U.S. court that determines whether the individual is extraditable, and then after those judicial proceedings have been completed, it's the Secretary of State who makes the final decision on whether to extradite an individual to another country. And obviously, humanitarian concerns and the ability of an individual to receive a fair trial may be considered at that stage of the process.
QUESTION: I think you said yesterday that there had never been an extradition from the U.S. to Zimbabwe. Is that correct?
MR TONER: I believe that's correct. We were going to check on that. I can get back to you. I don't know if we've gotten a --
QUESTION: Have you received any other kind of communication from the Zimbabwean Government, anything at all?
MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: You said that humanitarian concerns as well as people's right to a – or people's – the fairness of the judicial system --
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: -- is a factor in that. The latest Human Rights Report for Zimbabwe does not paint a good or even a poor picture of the judicial system in Zimbabwe. It paints a pretty bad one. Can you say that definitely that in a – in the case of a hypothetical but specific to Zimbabwe request for extradition that what is outlined in the Human Rights Reports that you released last month would be a consideration?
MR TONER: Given the sensitivity of this particular example that you gave, I'm not going to address it beyond what I said, is that at the final stage – at the final stage --
QUESTION: I just want you to say what you said before with the word "Zimbabwe" in it.
MR TONER: So at the final stage – I know you do. But I would just say humanitarian concerns and the ability of an individual to receive a fair trial may be considered --
QUESTION: May?
MR TONER: -- at the point where the Secretary of State makes a decision on – final decision on whether to extradite an individual to another country.
QUESTION: So not – so it might not be?
MR TONER: Again, it's – we look at the case – again, I'm speaking generally here – and those considerations do come into play.
QUESTION: So – but they do or they may come into play?
MR TONER: It may be considered, but that's – but I think that's something that would be part of the overall calculus.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Please, sir.
QUESTION: Thanks, Mark.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Regarding Egypt, yesterday I raised a question about – and I hope that you have the answer for it – it's about the readout --
MR TONER: I hope I do too.
QUESTION: -- the readout of the meeting of the Secretary and the assistant secretary with the Egyptian representative or with members of civil society. It would be prior to his visit to Egypt. Do you have any readout for that?
MR TONER: I don't. I mean, I know the meeting took place, and I apologize. That's our bad because we wanted to get something out. He did meet with them yesterday. I believe Assistant Secretary Malinowski was also part of that meeting. I don't have a lot of details to share for you other than that it took place yesterday.
QUESTION: So yesterday, you released a statement regarding the people who are accompanying the Secretary to the – in the – in his visit to Egypt. And it seems that it's more focusing on economics and, of course, its strategical partnership.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: And you know as a group of senators – bipartisan group of senators, they sent a letter to the Secretary regarding the need to raise the issues of political rights and political atmosphere and human rights and similar freedom of expression, all these things. Is it going to be part of this dialogue or not --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- or you can't talk about it?
MR TONER: Well, obviously, Egypt is a key regional player, and we have a very long history of cooperation in a variety of bilateral and regional issues, and this is an important bilateral dialogue. As you mentioned, it does hit on strategic issues – economic, security, commercial – but among those is human rights, so that will be part of the discussion.
QUESTION: So how you describe nowadays the Egyptian-American or American-Egyptian relations? Tense, troubling, or what – how you can describe it? Or if you don't have any description of it, say, "I don't have it." (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Look, I mean, it's – I think I just said we have a long history of cooperation with Egypt. They're a key player in the region. Their security matters to us, and they're also a positive force for security in the region, so that's important. We want to see Egypt regain its economic growth, we want to see the situation there stabilize, and we want to see the political situation there also grow and stabilize. But beyond that, we do have a lot of issues to discuss, as I said – economic, commercial, strategic, security – but we do – part of that equation is human rights. We don't ignore that.
QUESTION: Just another question --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but it's not related to Egypt.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: It's related to the issue of Yemen and the humanitarian aid you raised at the beginning of the briefing.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: And you said 180 million altogether, that it's a group – I mean, the sum of the money that you are pledging or you're already sending to Yemen for humanitarian aid.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And it seems that according to a UN study or something done in the – recently, it is said it's almost – the pledge was – for all the nations, it's $1.6 billion, which is what is paid till now from U.S. and others, not more than 15 percent, maybe, or 20 percent. So how you – you think that this going to help anything, especially that – when you said World Food Program, World Food Program in the last – recently, they said they are out of funding for Syria to help Syrian refugees. So how it comes that they can be not having enough funds to do something which is already done, and now you are trying to help them to do something else which is already deteriorating worse and worse?
MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, I'm not trying to --
QUESTION: I hope I'm --
MR TONER: No, that's okay. I'm not – I'm just – I'm not going to parse words. I mean, we're deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen, including growing concerns about food security and the availability of food to many vulnerable citizens of Yemen. And it's one of the reasons why we wanted to see a pause in the fighting that we believe is critically necessary to create the conditions so that this food assistance can be delivered to all parts of the country.
More broadly than that, of course we're concerned about, as you mentioned, Syria and just the overall burden placed on the UN's World Food Program in order to deliver these necessary humanitarian assistance to these vulnerable populations. Ultimately it speaks to the fact that we need to see resolution to the conflict in the region, certainly in Yemen and as well in Syria. That's the ultimate solution here. But there's an urgent need right now, certainly in Syria and Yemen, and we're – we, the United States, are continuing to provide and one of the leading countries in providing that humanitarian assistance.
Please.
QUESTION: Mark, could I just quickly follow up on Egypt?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. On Egypt? I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah. There's an American woman, Aya Hijazi, she's been in prison for a year – she runs an NGO called Belad looking after children – under apparently trumped up charges of child abuse and so on. Do you know anything about the case? Are you doing anything about it?
MR TONER: I – yeah. I'm – we're aware of the case. I hate to say this, but we don't have a Privacy Act waiver so I can't say much to it, or speak to it specifically, beyond the fact that we obviously take our obligation to assist U.S. citizens abroad very seriously, and are willing to provide any consular assistance that we can. But I can't – I just can't speak further to it than that. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Two questions about Russia.
MR TONER: About Russia?
QUESTION: Russia, yes.
MR TONER: Sorry, just am I hearing – I apologize.
QUESTION: That's all right.
MR TONER: But with my sight and my hearing --
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, Russian foreign ministry today responded to U.S. sanctions, saying that United States have demonstrated they make a choice in favor of further confrontation. First of all, how can you comment on that? And also, I would like to clarify one thing – whether these sanctions are related to Crimea as Secretary – Department of Treasury said, or whether they are with respect to eastern Ukraine conflict, as you – yesterday you mentioned Minsk agreements – agreement?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, I think I explained a little bit yesterday, and of course defer to the folks at Treasury who have a much keener understanding of this than I do, but what we did yesterday was to – we call it sanctions maintenance, but in a sense it was an effort to maintain the current sanctions by going after sanctions evaders, by identifying subsidiaries of already sanctioned Russian companies, and by going after some of the formal – former officials of the former Yanukovych regime, and also by going after some targets as well in Ukraine – in Crimea, rather.
This is a common practice in order to maintain the efficacy of sanctions in place. And in response to – I'm sorry, whose comments? You said at the top. I apologize. The deputy foreign minister?
QUESTION: Oh, foreign ministry.
MR TONER: Foreign minister.
QUESTION: Yes, foreign --
MR TONER: Foreign ministry.
QUESTION: -- ministry. Yes.
MR TONER: Okay, sorry, I didn't – that's okay.
QUESTION: Not Lavrov statement.
MR TONER: But I would just say that the path to sanctions relief is clear, and that's implementation of the Minsk agreement, and that remains the best and surest path to sanctions relief. We've been very clear about that. So what we want to see is Russia and the separatists it backs fully implement Minsk, and then we can talk about relief at least on some of the sanctions. There are others, as you mention, that pertain to Crimea that remain in place as well.
Oh, sorry. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mark, the backend of Secretary Kerry's upcoming trip of course includes stops in countries involved in TPP talks. Is this an indication that one of the goals of these visits is to perhaps look at launching some U.S. partnerships with these companies – countries or initiatives with these countries if the TPP agreement is finalized?
MR TONER: I don't want to get too far out in front of the process here. We're obviously hoping that TPP is finalized, is agreed to. We think it's great for the region, great for our trade relations, and will, as we've said before, add a layer of regulation and other structures in place that will, frankly, improve the playing field for everybody. I'm not going to speak to what he may or may not discuss during his trip to Asia, except that we're looking at it as an opportunity to deepen and further strengthen our relations with the Asia Pacific region.
Yeah, in the back, and then I'll --
QUESTION: On Beijing.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: So Beijing's selection for the upcoming '22 Olympics --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- does the U.S. have any concern about the environmental implications given that China does not have much snow in that region? (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Wow, was not expecting the question to come at me that way. No, look, we obviously congratulate Beijing on winning the bid for the Winter Olympics. They've hosted the Summer Olympics in 2000 and – nobody knows? – 2000 and --
QUESTION: 2008.
MR TONER: Eight, thank you, thank you – 2008 and did so successfully. We believe they're capable of doing so in the winter as well.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Sorry, on the environmental implications?
MR TONER: Oh, okay. We – I'm sorry, what precisely do you mean in terms of environmental concerns? That they're somehow --
QUESTION: Well, as --
MR TONER: -- that they have a lack of snow? I'm not --
QUESTION: Yes, because China does not have any snow in that region, they're saying that they're going to propose to create the snow for – specifically for the Winter Olympics, raising some obvious concerns.
MR TONER: Look, there's a lot of East Coast ski resorts that rely on manmade snow, so I'm not going to criticize that practice.
QUESTION: And Sochi --
MR TONER: And Sochi as well, so – (laughter) – anyway, no – no comment.
Please, in the back, and then I'll get to you.
QUESTION: I'd just like to go back to Japan for a moment if I may. The United States has given public assurance to some other heads of state that whatever may or may not have happened in the past, the United States will not monitor their communications going forward. Given the importance of the U.S.-Japan relationship, is that a courtesy that the United States might consider extending to Japan?
MR TONER: Again, I just – I don't want to speak to the broader question because I don't want to in any way passively or – confirm that these documents are – that are allegedly classified have any credibility, so I'm going to pass on that.
Please.
QUESTION: Mark, even though you can't confirm at the moment whether the documents are true or not --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I mean, there's got to be some sort of fallout that you're concerned about, no?
MR TONER: I mean, of course if Japan raises this – and I'm not aware that they have – we'll talk it through. We have a close cooperative relationship, and that includes intelligence sharing as well, but we expect that to continue. We have a very strong relationship with Japan that can overcome most challenges.
Please. Go ahead, Lucas.
QUESTION: A little off-topic, but is Secretary Kerry giving any consideration to running for president in 2016?
MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: Is he considering it at all? Can you rule it out?
MR TONER: No, no. I think he's quite happy to be Secretary of State and he's doing – working very hard at that job.
QUESTION: Can you rule out a run (inaudible)?
MR TONER: (Laughter.) Not for me to rule it out.
Please, go ahead. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Latvia – they announced that they're going to buy Stinger missiles.
MR TONER: I don't have anything --
QUESTION: Do you know the --
MR TONER: No, I'd have to look into it.
QUESTION: How about the Global Magnitsky Act?
MR TONER: Yeah, you did ask me about that. I think it's still in the Senate.
QUESTION: It's still --
MR TONER: We don't have any comment on it.
QUESTION: No comment now? Okay.
MR TONER: No. Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Have a nice weekend.
MR TONER: Yeah, you too.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:36 p.m.)
DPB #131
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
