• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing, August 17, 2015

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 17, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

THAILAND
PAKISTAN
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
THAILAND
CHINA
TURKEY/SYRIA/REGION
RUSSIA/UKRAINE/IRAN/SYRIA
TURKEY
IRAQ
DEPARTMENT
SOUTH KOREA
AFGHANISTAN
ISRAEL
SYRIA/RUSSIA
LIBYA
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN
SOUTH SUDAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:10 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. A couple of things at the top, and we’ll get right to you. I’ve got a full house here today.

Secretary Kerry and the State Department expresses our deep sympathy to all those affected by the explosion in central Bangkok Monday night their time, this morning our time. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families and with the Thai emergency personnel who are working to help those injured. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok has issued an emergency message for U.S. citizens advising them to avoid the area and to monitor local media for updates.

We are closely monitoring the situation and are liaising closely with local authorities to gather information to determine whether any U.S. citizens were affected by the explosion. We cannot say at this point that we know that to be the case.

Turning to Pakistan, I want to reiterate the statement put out by our mission in Pakistan. The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack on Punjab Home Minister Colonel Shuja Khanzada’s offices in Attock, which killed 20 including the home minister himself. We extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families of the victims of Sunday’s violence. Such blatant disregard for human life is unacceptable and contrary to the aspirations of the Pakistani people for a secure, stable, and prosperous nation.

The United States remains committed to the people of Pakistan and to the Pakistani Government’s efforts to fight terrorism. We support Pakistan’s determination to bring justice to those behind this attack and are prepared to provide assistance, if requested, to government authorities investigating this reprehensible act.

And then finally on Ukraine. As Secretary Kerry indicated to Foreign Minister Lavrov last week when they spoke, we are gravely concerned by the sharp increase in attacks by combined Russian-separatist forces across the ceasefire line in eastern Ukraine. These attacks continued this weekend, including to the east and north of Mariupol, apparently in an attempt to threaten that city.

There can be no mistake about who is responsible: Russia and the separatists are launching these attacks, just as they escalated the conflict last August. OSCE reports show that the majority of ceasefire violations are committed by combined Russian separatist forces in direct violation of the Minsk agreements. We continue to urge an immediate ceasefire and full implementation of the Minsk obligations, and we further remind that efforts by Russia and the separatists to grab more territory will be met with further costs.

With that, Brad.

QUESTION: Just following up on Thailand, is the U.S. providing any assistance at this point --

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: -- to Thai investigators?

MR KIRBY: There’s – no, there’s been no request.

QUESTION: Okay. And then I’ll cede. Yeah.

QUESTION: A follow-up on Thailand. So you said you express your sympathy for the Bangkok explosion. So so far you don’t see that as a terror attack?

MR KIRBY: I think it’s too soon to tell, honestly, and Thai authorities are investigating this. We don’t have any information right now that would lead us to be able to describe the cause here, or if – and if an entity is responsible and who that entity might be. We’re just not there yet.

QUESTION: Could we go to China?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Times story regarding the Obama Administration having warned Beijing about covert agents operating in the United States?

MR KIRBY: First of all, welcome back, Arshad.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Good to see you again. Look, I’m not going to comment and we don’t comment on specific cases. And so while I’m not going to do that, generally speaking foreign law enforcement agents are not permitted to operate within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General. And it’s a criminal offense, actually, under U.S. law for an individual other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attache to act in the United States as a law enforcement agent of a foreign power without that notification.

But I think broadly in – with regard to China, we do – the United States does regularly engage on law enforcement matters of mutual concern, including fugitives and anti-corruption through what we call the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation. We also continue to emphasize to PRC officials that it is incumbent upon them to provide U.S. officials with significant, clear, and convincing evidence to allow our law enforcement agencies to proceed with investigations, removals, and prosecutions of fugitives.

Yes.

QUESTION: Yes, I’m just trying to have a comment about the withdrawal of United States, like, Patriot missiles from Turkey.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What – like, what does this decision mean? What is the reason behind those – this decision? What does it mean in regard to U.S. and NATO commitment to support Turkey and protect it? And also, does Assad forces has no more capability, like, to attack Turkey with ballistic missiles?

MR KIRBY: Okay, there’s a lot there, and for much of this I’m going to refer you to DOD. This was a U.S. military decision --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- and so it’s really appropriate that they speak to the details here.

But the main reason that the Patriots – the U.S. Patriots batteries – there’s two – are being removed is for force modernization needs. Military equipment often needs to be upgraded and improved, and that’s the case here. It was also done in coordination with a global review that we implemented on ballistic missile defense around the world. So we believe that this was a sound decision for the U.S. military to make, but it’s their decision to make.

As for our commitments to Turkey’s security, nothing’s changed about that. Turkey is a NATO ally and a strong partner, particularly in this effort against ISIL. You just saw over the last couple of weeks the Turks allowing us to use three of their bases to conduct strikes against ISIL in Syria. And again, I’d point you to DOD, but it’s my understanding that they are flying manned strikes out of those bases, Incirlik principally, today. So nothing’s changed about our commitment to Turkey’s security or the commitments that we have through NATO under the alliance and Article 5.

QUESTION: Do you still have, like, ships down there, like, to protect Turkey? That’s what I understood, like?

MR KIRBY: Well, right. And I didn’t get to your third question. I mean, there are ample ballistic missile defense capabilities in the region, to include from Navy ships at sea. And again, I’d let you – I’d let the Pentagon speak to this with more detail, but there are in the Eastern Med and has been for quite a few years permanently stationed ballistic missile defense-capable ships – cruisers and destroyers. And again, the Navy would have the latest on that. But nothing’s changed about our commitments to security in the region. Nothing’s changed about our focus on ballistic missile defense. This was a decision the Pentagon made for force modernization reasons. And we are comfortable here at the State Department that the military, our military, retains the kinds of capabilities in the region to deal with whatever ballistic missile threats would arise.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: One follow-up?

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Does this mean that you think that the Syrian regime’s capacities have changed?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to get in --

QUESTION: Does this mean you no longer think that they can --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into intelligence assessments one way or the other about the ballistic missile threat there or anywhere else in the region. I would just point you back again to what I said before, which is that we’re comfortable that we retain the necessary BMD, ballistic missile defense capabilities, in the region, and we’ll focus on that. And I would remind you that this mission in Turkey was not just a U.S. mission; it was a NATO mission, and so other nations also participate in it.

QUESTION: But you haven’t heard anything from the Syrians that says that – that say – where they say they’re not going to attack?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into intelligence assessments. And again, I’d point you to the Pentagon for more detail.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Does Turkey support this maneuver?

MR KIRBY: Well, you saw that there was a joint statement put out by the Turkish Government and the United States together. So yes, they were informed about this and we put out a – they – our governments put out a joint statement. So yes, they’re supportive.

QUESTION: I have another Pentagon question.

MR KIRBY: So – okay. (Laugher.) So you’re going to ask me anyway.

QUESTION: Do you want to go around Turkey?

MR KIRBY: No, go ahead, go ahead.

QUESTION: So the Pentagon is expanding drone flights over a number of countries, including Ukraine. Do you what is driving this? And are you concerned because that’s expanding lethal power as well that the U.S. can get drug into this more on a – militarily?

MR KIRBY: Drug into Ukraine? I’m not – again, I’d refer you to the Pentagon to speak to what they do from a manned and unmanned air system perspective. That’s not my place. But nothing’s changed about our approach to what’s going on in Ukraine. You just saw – you just heard my statement there about the increasing attacks we saw over the weekend and our concern about that, and that right now our assistance to Ukraine still is on the nonlethal side but we continue to look at --

QUESTION: But does it include drone surveillance right now?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into the specifics. Again, that’s a military prerogative. I think I’m not going to speak to it.

QUESTION: Then there’s going to be violations submitted by the eastern rebels as well about Ukraine violations. Do you condemn those as well related to heavy equipment?

MR KIRBY: I think I said this pretty clearly in my opening statement. And it’s not just coming – it’s not just coming from me. The OSCE has determined that the vast majority of these attacks are coming from the Russian-separatist areas onto Ukrainian areas. Now, if the Ukrainians fire back they’re doing it in self-defense and they have the right to do that.

QUESTION: But there are – there are – Ukraine is violating – you conceded a majority, which is – the other side questions, but what about Ukraine’s violations?

MR KIRBY: We have talked about this ad nauseum. The vast majority of the action – the attacks – are coming from the Russian separatist side. Ukraine has a right to defend itself. Obviously, what we want from all parties here is to abide by Minsk, which means you withdraw and the violence stops, and you start sitting down and talking about a settlement going forward. But make no mistake of where the vast majority of these attacks are coming from.

Michael.

QUESTION: John, can I – since we shifted a little bit to Russia, can I ask you a Russia-related question?

MR KIRBY: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Thursday, a senior State Department official said that Secretary Kerry had raised his concerns about the travel to Moscow by IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, and the previous day the deputy State Department spokesman had indicated in this briefing here that it was the U.S. belief that this travel indeed had occurred. On Friday, the Russians denied that Qasem Soleimani had ever gone to Moscow. Have the Russians said anything to the United States that in any way eases your concern or reduces your concern about this travel? And do you still feel that it’s necessary for the Security Council to press ahead with a full investigation of this episode?

MR KIRBY: No – to your first question, no, I’ve seen no indication that we have any additional information that would ease our concern. As I said Thursday, we’re still not in a position to confirm – independently confirm reports of his travel, but it certainly is of concern enough to us that again, as I said, the Secretary raised it with Foreign Minister Lavrov last week. And as we’ve also said, any such travel, should it have occurred, would be a violation of UN Security Council – of a UN Security Council resolution. And we’d let the UN speak to what they would do about that, but we certainly would be supportive of them looking into that.

QUESTION: Supportive of them or you’re – on Wednesday, we were told something a little stronger than that. We were told that the U.S. was asking or wanted the UN Security Council --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. No, nothing’s changed about that.

QUESTION: -- to pursue this, not that --

MR KIRBY: Nothing has changed.

QUESTION: -- you would be supportive of it if some – if they looked into it.

MR KIRBY: Don’t read too much into my language, Michael. Nothing’s changed about the fact that we would like it looked into, yes. And – but again, nothing – we’ve seen nothing that would mitigate our concern over the reports of his travel.

QUESTION: And one other quick thing on Russia. Have the number of Russian forces inside Ukraine increased?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an estimate to give you today. I don’t, and I’d point you to the Pentagon for that kind of level of detail. I don’t have any information that would suggest what the numbers are. What’s more important to us than the numbers, whatever they are, is the activity. And as I said in my opening statement, we’ve seen an increase of this offensive activity over the weekend.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can we stay with Russia?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, we’ll do Pam, Russia. And then you want to change topics?

QUESTION: Can we – I want to go back to Turkey --

MR KIRBY: Okay. So one more on Russia. Is that going to be good for everybody and then we can go to Turkey, or do you want to keep on Russia for a while?

QUESTION: I don’t – yeah, Ukraine, Russia.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Pam, we’ll go to you, and then we’ll come back to you. All right, go ahead.

QUESTION: Foreign Ministers Lavrov and Zarif in their talks today talked about expanded cooperation, possibly in the military sector, if the sanctions are eased through the Iran nuclear deal. And they also talked about a shared support for Assad and having a role in ending his country’s crisis. Does the United States see this stepped-up cooperation as destabilizing, considering it’s coming at a time when the U.S. is at odds with Russia over Ukraine and also the U.S. and Iran also have differences on a number of issues?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m going to let the Russians speak for the dialogue they’ve had with Foreign Minister Zarif and what that means for them. I’ll just go back to what we’ve said before. I mean, Russia has been a constructive partner on the Iran deal – Secretary Kerry has talked about that – and there are other areas where we think we can cooperate with Russia, including potentially Syria.

When we were in Doha, Secretary Kerry met with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Foreign Minister al-Jubeir of Saudi Arabia, the first time the three of them got together to talk about a process forward for a political transition in Syria. Those talks were just the very beginning. And it doesn’t come as a surprise to us here that in discussions with Foreign Minister Zarif that Foreign Minister Lavrov would raise that issue. There’s a long way to go with – on that topic and a lot more to work through.

On Iran, we’ve said all along – again, I can only speak for the United States – that we approach this deal from one perspective and one perspective only, and that was to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons capability. And there are other issues with Iran – deep issues – with which we disagree, particularly their destabilizing activities in the region. And nothing’s going to change about the fact that we’re going to still – we still will and will retain the tools necessary, whether they’re diplomatic, economic, or military, to deal with those activities.

QUESTION: But specifically, is a stepped-up Russia-Iranian engagement destabilizing to some of these other efforts that the U.S. has been pushing for?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s hard to say when we weren’t in the room when they met. And I’d let them – those two gentlemen speak for what they talked about. So I can’t at this point characterize it as destabilizing at – I don’t – because we don’t – we can’t speak for a conversation we weren’t a party to. Again, I’d let them speak to it.

What we’ve said all along is that there needs to be a political transition in Syria, that Assad has lost legitimacy to govern, and that we’re willing to explore a process forward for that transition with Russia and with Saudi Arabia. And that’s where it sits right now.

QUESTION: And if I can do one more on Russia, slightly different topic. Last week we had the reports that Russia had blocked access to parts of the Reddit social media site. Today there are Russian news reports that the government has banned batches of wine from several U.S. wineries because of concerns about what they say is excessive amounts of insecticides. What’s your response? And does this appear to be a trend to ban anything American?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to officials in Moscow, Pam. I can’t speak for decisions they’re making about – with respect to imports into their country and why they’re making that. That’s really not a question for us.

QUESTION: Is there concern that there may be a broader effort behind these actions?

MR KIRBY: Again, these are – if they’re, in fact, true, they’re economic decisions that the government in Moscow’s making, and I would let them speak to the reasons behind that. More broadly, there are areas with Russia, obviously, where we disagree. And I just talked about at the opening Ukraine is certainly one of them. There are areas where we can and have cooperated with Russia, like on the Iran deal, and potentially maybe on Syria. So it’s a complex relationship. But as for their reasons for doing this, I would let them speak to that.

Yeah, back here.

QUESTION: With ARD German Television. Concerning support to Ukraine, the Ukrainian press, citing Ukrainian parliament committee on foreign affairs, reports that the United States will allocate $500 million for training of Ukrainian national guard and armed forces. What’s your response to that, and can you clarify the total amount of funding the U.S. has provided to the Ukrainian armed forces?

MR KIRBY: That’s a great question for the Pentagon. I mean, seriously, it is. We’ve talked about this national guard training before, but it’s really a DOD equity to speak to. And it is just national guard training for internal security.

QUESTION: The document they’re citing is a letter from President Biden to one of the Ukrainian parliament members. Is that --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I have not – I’m not familiar with the letter. I mean, I would – rather than me take the question, I would refer you to the Pentagon to speak to that. Yeah.

Let me go to Brad; he’s been patient. Go ahead.

QUESTION: If we’re done with Russia.

MR KIRBY: Are we done with Russia? It looks like – no? Is your question about Russia? No, it’s not about Russia. So he tried to sneak in there. No, I promised Brad I’d go back to him.

QUESTION: All right. Just returning to Turkey. You said – can you say when Turkey was first informed that the batteries would be taken out of the country?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have the exact date, Brad.

QUESTION: And then some of the reports seem to suggest that the Turks were livid with this decision. Is that something that people in this building have registered?

MR KIRBY: That is – we would not characterize their reaction that way.

QUESTION: And have you had any – have you noticed any effects on the Incirlik operation or the joint mission as a result of this decision to take the batteries out of Turkey?

MR KIRBY: None whatsoever.

QUESTION: How would you characterize their reaction if they weren’t livid?

MR KIRBY: Well, I wasn’t in the room. I’m told that the conversation was very candid and forthright, and that at the end of it they understood the reasons behind it. But I would let them speak to more detail than that. But characterizations of them being livid or being heated or them being angry, that’s not how it’s been described to me.

QUESTION: Would it be fair to say that they were unhappy, even if they understood your reasoning?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’m going to leave my comments where they were. I wasn’t in the room so I want to be careful that I don’t over-colorize this when I wasn’t there. As I’ve – what I’ve been – the way it’s been described to me was that certainly they had concerns; those concerns were addressed in the discussions. You saw them – we put a joint statement out. So clearly they’re in support of this decision, and we’re moving forward.

And I’d remind you that, I mean, we continue to cooperate with them against ISIL in the region. First of all, our NATO commitments to them are ironclad. Secondly, their membership in the coalition also is ironclad in terms of the kind of support that they’re giving the coalition to continue to fly strikes against ISIL. And as I said, again, I’d point you to the Pentagon, but as my understanding is that manned flights are – manned strikes are being flown out of Incirlik even as recently as today.

QUESTION: Without saying when they were first informed, can you give a sense of how long this decision has been in the process? I mean, have you been having discussions for weeks or months about this? Has this come up at NATO as well as bilaterally? Can you give just some sense that this – was this a surprise or had this been a long time in cooking?

MR KIRBY: I – what I know is that this decision has been long planned. I mean, you don’t make force modernization decisions in a vacuum and you don’t do it at the spur of the moment. How long, Brad – I’d have to point you to the Pentagon. Again, this was a U.S. military decision. We communicated it for the U.S. military to the Turkish Government, as is our responsibility at the State Department, but this was a military decision and I’d let them speak to the parameters around which it was made.

QUESTION: Quick follow-up on Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Is there any way you can confirm that you have informed the Turkish side after the Incirlik agreement?

MR KIRBY: When – was it done after?

QUESTION: Yes, after --

MR KIRBY: My understanding is the notification to them was done after that agreement to use Incirlik, yes.

QUESTION: Another topic, again on Turkey. One of the leaders of the PKK stated to British press that they have been in contact in direct talks with the U.S. Can you confirm on that?

MR KIRBY: I can tell you that we are not in direct talks with the PKK – absolutely not. This is a foreign terrorist organization. We don’t sit down and have talks with the PKK. Nothing’s changed about our position on the PKK – that they need to renounce the violence, they need to resume a peace process, and stop attacking the Turks inside Turkey.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So do you have indirect? I mean, you said particularly we don’t have direct --

MR KIRBY: It never ceases to amaze me here at the State Department how you guys hang on adjectives and adverbs. (Laughter.) And I’m just not that clever. I mean, there’s no talks with the PKK. So no direct, no indirect. There’s no talks with the PKK.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Does that help?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: All right, thanks for flagging that for me.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Still on the Kurds. I’d like to ask a question about Iraqi Kurdistan, where the tensions are really mounting over the future of President Barzani, whose term is coming to an end this Thursday.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Brett McGurk tweeted this: “In Kurdistan region to urge unity in face of serious ISIL threat and in honor of 1,200 Peshmerga martyrs. The terrorists feed on division.” This statement by Brett McGurk, this tweet, has been read by many people in Kurdistan as an indirect support for President Barzani to extend his term, to stay in power.

MR KIRBY: To extend his term?

QUESTION: Yeah, to stay on – to stay on in power.

MR KIRBY: I think that would be a mistake to read it that way.

QUESTION: So --

MR KIRBY: In fact, I don’t think it’s a mistake; it’s a mistake to read it that way. The Iraqi Kurdistan Region’s presidential – that presidential issue is an internal political matter, and this is a decision for the people and parties of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region to make together.

QUESTION: But are you calling for a peaceful transition – peaceful and democratic transition of power as his term is coming to an end – his last term – by Thursday?

MR KIRBY: We aren’t taking a position – this is a – this presidential issue is for the people of the region to work together and to decide and to determine. We’re not taking a position on that.

QUESTION: You’re not calling – you’re not willing to call for a peaceful transition of power, which you often do in regard to other countries when somebody’s term is coming to an end.

MR KIRBY: It’s not a country. It’s not a country.

QUESTION: A region.

MR KIRBY: It’s a region of Iraq. We’re not going to get involved in internal Iraqi politics. Obviously, separate and distinct from that, wherever there are elections and transitions of power, whether it’s from one individual to another or one party to another, we obviously want to see that be done peacefully and securely, fairly, openly, transparently, and credibly, obviously, but we’re not taking a position on this. And Brett McGurk was certainly not inserting himself into that process in any way whatsoever.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR KIRBY: You guys always go together.

QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.) So what is your level of involvement in this issue? Because there are two things that you always – well, one, which is the democracy – you just said it – you always support the free and fair election, but this is not about election. This is about somebody --

MR KIRBY: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- his term came to an end.

MR KIRBY: That’s why I made the distinction.

QUESTION: Yeah, this is – his term came to an end and according to the laws that he has to step down, but it seems he will not. But this is one part. The other part is that this region is one of the effective partners. They are – they’re part of the international coalitions to fight ISIS, so this situation will have an impact on that. So what is your level of involvement in this? I know Ambassador McGurk and his delegation will be there for a few days and talking to Kurdish officials, and he tweeted several times on this specific issues, the crisis. So there should be a level of involvement. Like, you did it in Baghdad – that there was not government when ISIS came, was close to Baghdad, then you kind of helped the Iraqi parties to form the new government. This is kind of the same situation.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, while there, Brett McGurk met with President Barzani and the leaders of all the major Kurdish political parties. Not atypical when he goes to that part of Iraq. What he went for and what he did was reaffirm the U.S. commitment to continue cooperation with Iraqi Kurdish forces to fight – in the fight against ISIL, and he commended the regional government and their officials there for their coordination with the Government of Iraq – their coordination – and coalition members in that same fight. And of course, he praised the contribution of Peshmerga forces, which have been very capable in the field. That’s it. He did not go to insert himself into an internal political matter, and he’s not doing that.

QUESTION: So last one on that: Does that mean that you are not concerned about any way of political transition will happen, maybe will cause instability in the region? That means --

MR KIRBY: We’re not – I mean, I love your attempts to continue to get at the same issue. I think I’ve answered the question. We’re not inserting ourselves into this internal political matter. Separate and apart from that, we always want to see – whenever there’s a transition in government, we want to see that responsive to the people; free, fair, credible, transparent. We’re not inserting ourselves in this, okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, if I can move to Secretary Clinton’s email server, some new things that we’ve learned since we were in this room last – the existence of an additional server, now the State Department saying that 305 of the emails are being scrutinized by the intelligence community to see what may be classified, 63 confirmed to include classified material. Can the scope of this still be called limited, and if so, how?

MR KIRBY: All right, let’s unpack that before I get to your yes-or-no question. Let’s keep in mind that so far, of the 15 percent or so of the email traffic that we’ve made public – and that’s a small amount – but even that 15 percent or so consists of more than 3,000 emails, so 63 of them have been upgraded in some form.

Now when we say “classified,” everybody thinks – you think about spy thrillers, “classified.” Sometimes classified can be high, sometimes it can be low, and most of these are at a very low level, what we call confidential. So 63 of 3,000 – more than 3,000 so far – so that’s a pretty small percentage. I have no doubt that as we continue to release these emails over time, you’ll see additional upgraded correspondence. It’s just – mathematically, it’s a fact. It’s going to happen. How many, I don't know.

These 300 that you talked about, this is a result of the care and the scrutiny with which we are scrutinizing this email traffic. We’ve got intelligence community reviewers sitting with our reviewers as we go through that traffic. So what you’re seeing here is exactly what we want to see, which is the proper care and scrutiny being applied to this. That 305, I think is the number, have been recommended to other intelligence community agencies to look at from their equity perspective. It’s a healthy thing. It’s a good thing. It doesn’t mean that all 300 are going to end up at some level of upgrade. I suspect some will and I suspect some won’t. We just have to let the process work its way out.

But this is a healthy thing and it’s, again, part of the seriousness with which the State Department wants to take the proper scrutiny in looking at these emails, particularly with respect to potentially sensitive information. Does that get at --

QUESTION: But is there some threshold at which this goes from being what has in the past been referred to as something that’s limited to something that’s major? It just seems like the numbers continue to go up. We’re learning and hearing of sort of more items each day. At what point does it go into something that’s – the State Department will consider more broad?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t – there’s not a number out there that I can tell you, when we reach this percentage of upgrades or this number, that all of a sudden we’ve gone from limited to major, okay? As we’re at 15 percent – a little less, I think – there’s a lot of work left to do. And I can assure you that there will be additional upgrades over time. It’s just a mathematical fact. Where that’s going to end up when all 33,000 emails are reviewed, I couldn’t begin to predict.

What I think is important, though – our responsibility here at the State Department is to review these and to make them public through the Freedom of Information Act. That’s where Secretary Kerry’s focus is on, and that’s what we’re focused on. And what I think you’re seeing here is testament to the fact that we’re taking this very seriously, and we’re doing it deliberately and in a measured way, and we’re not going to shy away of making an upgrade recommendation if that’s, in fact, what has to happen. So I think we’re just going to have to see where we are at the end of this. I couldn’t possibly begin to anticipate what the level’s going to be and how one would characterize that --

QUESTION: I have two quick follows-on --

MR KIRBY: -- as much as I know you guys love adjectives.

QUESTION: Two quick follows-on it. Have all of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates’ devices that were tied to the email server been certified as secured by the State Department?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such certification on that and I would refer you to former Secretary Clinton and her staff.

QUESTION: And then lastly, has the FBI reached out to the State Department seeking any of those devices?

MR KIRBY: I have to – let me take that question. I’m not aware of that, but I’ll take that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: John, can I follow up on that?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You noted that most of the 63 emails whose classification were upgraded were upgraded to the status of confidential --

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: -- which is the low level, or the lowest level?

MR KIRBY: The lowest level of classification, yeah.

QUESTION: Shouldn’t information that is confidential, even if it is the lowest level of classification, be treated with appropriate safeguards so as to prevent its dissemination outside of the U.S. Government?

MR KIRBY: Yes. Of course.

QUESTION: So why does the fact that it was low-level classified somehow change the fact that it is information that should be kept inside the circle of the government?

MR KIRBY: It doesn’t.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And I didn’t imply that.

QUESTION: Okay. And if it’s the case, as you suggest, that mathematically there are going to be more emails that are upgraded to confidential or some higher level of classification, why shouldn’t the State Department’s policies be such so as to prevent classified information of any sort from being transmitted on non-secured, non-government devices?

MR KIRBY: We do have such policies in place.

QUESTION: But you didn’t, I think, at the time, correct?

MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no, no. There was no prohibition at the time for former Secretary Clinton to use a personal email account at the time. Now, that policy has changed. But there has always been in the federal service very strict regulations and policies about the handling of sensitive and/or classified information, and that hasn’t changed at all.

QUESTION: But what I don’t understand, though, is that there is this big gap or big potential loophole in that at the time, Secretary Clinton was permitted to transmit information on a non-government, non-secured system. That information could subsequently be – even if it was not classified in the first place, could subsequently be upgraded to some level of classification, and therefore you leave a large loophole for the possibility that classified information gets transmitted on non-secure, non-government systems, and you only realize after the fact when you go through the scrutiny that you’re doing now that, in fact, classified information has been transmitted in a non-secure – non-secured, non-governmental fashion. Do you agree that that is a loophole?

MR KIRBY: No, I don’t, actually, Arshad. I mean --

QUESTION: Why isn’t it a loophole?

MR KIRBY: Well, let me explain. There was no prohibition at the time of using a personal email account. Whether it’s a personal email account or it’s your state.gov email account on the unclassified network, the rules are the same – you’re not supposed to transmit sensitive or classified information on it. It’s just – that’s the rule. You’re just not supposed to do that. They have regulations and policies in place about that, and it doesn’t matter whether I’m emailing you from my Yahoo account or from my state.gov. The rules are pretty clear about what I can and can’t transmit on an unclassified – so that doesn’t – there’s no loophole there; there’s no change. There was no prohibition against the use of that personal email. But there always is an umbrella of prohibitions against the use – or, I’m sorry, the transmission of sensitive and classified information over those accounts.

We’ve said before that as we’ve done this review, certain of that correspondence has been now retroactively upgraded because we have intelligence community reviewers looking at it and making those decisions. It’s not – and those decisions are tough to get at because sometimes information changes over time. Most of the time, information declassifies over time. There are occasions – rare, but – when you might want to retroactively say, “Well, that’s now sensitive,” or maybe it was sensitive at the time but it wasn’t marked so, and so that the receiver or sender didn’t realize at the time. That’s also possible. There’s lots that go into this.

What I want to stress is that we’re taking this very, very seriously and we’re very moving forward very deliberately about this. And I think it’s just – it stands to reason that over time, as we get through 30,000 more – we’ve released 3,000, so there’s a large amount left to go – that it’s certainly feasible to expect that there’ll be future upgrades. It also doesn’t mean – at least not at this point in the review, we haven’t seen any indication that anybody did it willfully or negligently, that people knew at the time that they were transmitting. And that it was – that it was sent to former Secretary Clinton or anybody else on her staff doesn’t mean that they solicited that sensitive information or that the sender meant to put sensitive information out there at the time. So it’s just not as cut and dry as I think everybody would like it to be at this point. We’ve still got a long way to go.

The other thing that I think is important to keep in mind, and as I say this I’m making no excuses whatsoever for any transmission of sensitive information, but this State Department is an outward-facing institution of the United States Government. Perhaps more than any other federal agency, we are America’s face to the world, which means we have to communicate with the world. And that can be email, it could be phone, text, social media, we’ve got a website. We have to – in order to do our job to represent America’s interests around the world, we have to be out there, we have to have dialogue, we have to communicate; we have to ask for information, we have to send information on various platforms.

So it’s inevitable at some point as you’re trying to do your job as a diplomat in sometimes sensitive situations or restrictive environments that information may come to you whether you wanted it or not that ends up being sensitive. When you know that’s the case, when you feel that’s the case, when you believe that’s the case, you have obligations – all of us do – to properly protect it.

But we’re going through this very methodically. We’re going to continue to do that. We’ve seen no indication of negligence or wrongdoing at this point, so we’re just going to have to keep working through it.

QUESTION: I understand that you’re going through this in a rigorous manner, and the fact that you’re going through 33,000 emails shows that you’re taking this seriously. I’m interested more in the institutional question of whether there are, whether there were, and indeed now are proper policies in place so as to prevent the transmission of – you used the word sensitive or classified, I think.

MR KIRBY: And/or.

QUESTION: And/or, yeah. And I don’t know if “sensitive” is a term of art or if it just means something that maybe isn’t classified.

MR KIRBY: Sometimes there’s unclassified correspondence which we would consider sensitive.

QUESTION: Sensitive.

MR KIRBY: It doesn’t mean that it can’t be transmitted on an unclassified network. It just means that you want to maybe limit the number of people that are copied on it or see it or you don’t forward it outside the institution.

QUESTION: From an institutional point of view, what seems to me to potentially be a concern, and it would be a concern not so much for me because it’s not my institution, but for you, is that regardless of how you are transmitting information, whether it’s on a state.gov unclassified system or whether it’s on the internal classified system or whether it’s on a private unsecured or non-government system, is that it is perfectly possible, as I understand it, under the current rules for people to transmit information that, were it to be scrutinized carefully, would indeed be found to be classified even if it’s the lowest level of classification, and that therefore you have a fairly significant loophole under which your employees may discuss and transmit information that, if somebody actually looked at it carefully as you’re doing now, would be deemed to be classified. Does that not seem to you to be a concern?

MR KIRBY: Well, yes and no. Yes, we’re always concerned about the proper security and safeguarding of sensitive and classified information. But I – but essentially, back to your loophole question, no, there’s no – the responsibilities of a federal employee – and I come from 30 years in the Navy and, I mean, this is something that’s drummed into you from the moment you raise your right hand. The responsibilities of a federal employee to protect sensitive information, whether it’s classified or not, is absolute. And if – you may not have – you may not be the sender, you may not be the originator, but if you’re a recipient of it and you know you are – and sometimes it’s hard to know. In the very fast-paced, dynamic world that we’re living in, whether it’s from a military security perspective or diplomacy, sometimes it’s hard to know at the moment you’re in. But if you do know or you have a reason to suspect, “Boy, I just got an email that’s got some sensitive information in here,” there are steps in place, there’s procedures – we’re all trained on them – on how to deal with that. You alert the IT folks, you alert the security folks, you do what you have to do. Sometimes it’s easy and sometimes it’s not so easy to know where that line is. But there are procedures in place regardless of where on the unclassified side that information resides and/or was transmitted, whether it’s a private Gmail account or my State.gov. There’s procedures and rules and they have not changed. Like I said, I’ve been at this now for three decades and I can tell you they’re the same. It’s the one thing that’s absolutely certain as you take on a job in the federal government.

QUESTION: The point here, though, is that there are at least 63 instances in which information that was not just sensitive but retroactively judged to be classified was transmitted on a non-secured, nongovernment system. And I don’t understand why that would not be troubling.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say that it’s not troubling. What I said was that we have not seen any indications at this point that anybody committed willful wrongdoing in it. But obviously, we’re always concerned when there’s any indication that for whatever reason potentially sensitive information was not properly safeguarded at the time. Obviously, that’s a concern. I mean, it’s such a concern that Secretary Kerry back in, I think it was December – I can check that; I think it was in December – asked the State Department inspector general to do exactly that, Arshad, to go look at our communications practices here, particularly on email, and to determine what, if anything, we need to be doing better on a spate of issues.

But one of them was the protection of sensitive information. And in fact, he asked to meet with the IG just a few weeks ago to get an update on how that process is going. I mean, he’s very closely monitoring that.

QUESTION: So just to ask it very simply: Is it troubling?

MR KIRBY: Is what troubling?

QUESTION: Is it troubling to you that in 63 cases, information that was subsequently judged to be classified was disseminated on a non-secured and nongovernment system?

MR KIRBY: What I would say is we take that very seriously, as we should.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I just ask a couple factual questions? Sixty-three, 305, were these all passively received by Secretary Clinton and none sent by her?

MR KIRBY: I do not have the details on that, Brad. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Do you know if any were sent by her?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: And then if something is received and not sent on --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- how would you know – how do you know if that’s – if proper procedures were taken by the recipient?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, there’s --

QUESTION: Because how do you know if they read it, for example, or read that sentence, or – I mean, can you?

MR KIRBY: It’s hard to know, Brad. I mean, every individual has responsibilities on their own to deal with sensitive information when they’re in receipt of it. And as I said, there’s procedures for how you handle that, if you – and certainly if it’s self-evident that the information that you’re getting is of a classified nature or sensitive nature. I mean, the employees – they’re trained. We have procedures in place for how to deal with that, but how am I going to know or how is any manager going to know at any given time that one of his employees or subordinates is doing it right? It’s up to the individual and their level of knowledge of the procedures, their conscience, and their individual efforts.

QUESTION: Right. But the procedures are in place if you receive that under your unclassified State.gov email account, correct?

MR KIRBY: Right. It’s even incumbent upon you on your classified networks. Not all your classified networks are cleared for the same level of information. So for instance, if you’re working on a secret-level network, and you believe you’re getting information on that that is higher than that level, you still have the same obligations.

QUESTION: But if you have your own private email account on your own private email server, you – it must be harder, then, to contact IT folks about a server, the existence of which they don’t even know, let alone the details of which they don’t even know, in order to somehow properly protect. So that – do you understand the question? If you – if the IT folks and the people in the building responsible for that don’t even know about your server, let alone how to deal with your server, how could they possibly be expected to protect classified information off of it?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I can’t speak to knowledge of the server, and that wouldn’t be my place to do that. I would refer you, again, to former Secretary Clinton and her staff on that. What I would tell you is that – to my answer to Arshad, the obligations that are set upon a federal employee about the protection of sensitive and classified information are the same no matter where you are, and they are the same no matter on what network you receive information that you don’t believe is properly being transmitted or properly being safeguarded. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a – your private account or your work account. And again, we now have procedures here at the State Department that require all work being – to be done on the state.gov.

QUESTION: But I think what he was getting at, and it’s what I’m trying to get at too, is that you don’t control the server if it’s not a government server.

MR KIRBY: No, we don’t.

QUESTION: So you may have procedures, but you can’t eliminate or secure that information to the same degree you can when you can hide it. I mean --

MR KIRBY: But the responsibilities of the employee don’t change. So for instance, if I were to get or receive sensitive information on my private email account that’s related to – well, it doesn’t matter what it’s related to, but let’s assume it’s related to work – I have a responsibility to report that and to take the proper steps to the degree that I can.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: It’s difficult to do in the cyber environment to completely erase something, but at least you need to alert somebody to it and take the proper steps. I mean, everybody has those shared responsibilities.

QUESTION: Change the topic?

QUESTION: Could I ask one quick follow-up on this?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I’ve had 20 minutes’ wait. You said you (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: I know, but we got on the email thing and I – I will get – I promise I’ll get to you.

Is this related to emails?

QUESTION: Yeah, I’ll be brief. Given that the secretary – former Secretary Clinton’s – the tenor of her public statements on this issue have been to sort of suggest that it’s hyped out of proportion or not exactly a matter of grave public interest, are you – does it concern you that there’s – that she doesn’t take it as seriously as you just suggested the State Department does?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to characterize or speak for former Secretary Clinton or her views of this. Our interactions with her staff to date have indicated to us that they are taking the matter seriously and are trying to be cooperative. But beyond that, I won’t – I’m not going to talk about --

QUESTION: But --

MR KIRBY: I know. I’m not going to get into characterizing what or how she’s talking about it. What I can tell you is our interactions with her staff have been professional, and I have every reason to believe that they will continue to be.

QUESTION: Sure. I mean – but I wasn’t asking you to characterize her position. I was asking you to say whether you are concerned by the public statements she’s made which suggest that she thinks that this has been blown out of proportion.

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into a discussion or a debate about rhetoric, particularly in a campaign season. Our focus, Secretary Kerry’s focus, is on making sure that we meet the court-ordered public – you know what I mean, the court order – I’m losing my words here. But we have a court-ordered process to make public these documents through the Freedom of Information Act. His focus is on making sure that we meet those goals and that we do it properly in a methodical, measured way, and that’s what we’re focused on. And the interactions that we’ve had with former Secretary Clinton’s staff in that regard has – have been professional. I’d leave it at that.

QUESTION: John, can you take the following question? Can you take the question: Was – were the IT people and the people at the State Department, and the other people at the State Department responsible for ensuring that the Secretary’s communications are secure, aware of the fact that she was using a private email address on a private server?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’ll have to – look, I don’t know what the technical arrangements were at the time, Arshad. So I’ll do what I can and see if I can – to help you with that.

QUESTION: John, one quick follow on your point about the difficulty in determining what is – is, maybe, may not be classified. Is it an accurate statement to say that a cabinet secretary, the Secretary of State, would be in as good of a position or a better position than any State employee to make that determination and have the information with which to make that determination?

MR KIRBY: I think I know where you’re trying to get at here. Look, every federal employee has the same responsibilities, and it doesn’t matter – if you are entrusted a position in the federal government and the means to communicate – and this is a outwardly focused agency, as I said – we all have the same responsibilities. And it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are in the organization. All those rules, they’re written down; they’ve – they have been implemented over time. They have been proven right over time, and we all have the same obligations.

Last – anything more on emails? Okay. Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you Mr. Kirby. (Laughter.) I just fall asleep 30 minutes. As you know, the – I have a little bit of military issues; I think you can answer this.

MR KIRBY: You have what?

QUESTION: Military issue.

MR KIRBY: That you think I’m going to answer?

QUESTION: Yes. You always say to ask the DOD – as you already know that U.S. and South Korea conduct Ulchi Freedom Guardians.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: UFG military exercises begin today. In this regard, today North Korean foreign ministry warns of second Korean War. Can you comment on this?

MR KIRBY: These exercises have been long planned and they’re exercises we routinely do with our allies in South Korea. You’re right, they have started. They’re proceeding normally and apace, and we look forward to completing the exercise with them as we always do. This is about improving alliance capabilities and meeting our security commitments there in the region and on the peninsula, and nothing more than that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Two small questions, one with regard to – how does the U.S. view the Saudi and Russian nuclear deal? They are supposedly having some sort of a nuclear deal.

And secondly, when is the next dialogue process which was expected to be taken somewhere in the middle of this month between the new Taliban leadership and the Government of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the U.S., Chinese – what, observers over there. There’s any future --

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any update for you on the latter. We are – we’re observers and only observers. This is – as we’ve said before, this reconciliation needs to be an Afghan-led process, so I’d point you to the Afghan Government for more details about what the next step is, what it looks like, and when it’s going to happen.

And I’m not aware of – I don’t have any details for you today on your other question about Russia and Saudi Arabia. I’d point you to both those countries to speak to that. I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Can I ask on the Israeli-Palestinian topic? I – specifically on U.S. citizens being denied entry to Israel and that this has been happening increasingly recently. Also, one of the new elements to this is U.S. passports – their U.S. passports being confiscated until these individuals had reached their destination outside of Israel. So what I wanted to ask was: Have you guys raised this issue recently? When was the most recent time you’ve raised this issue? And have you heard from any U.S. citizens who’ve had this problem in the – increasingly recently?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to have to take that question. I honestly don’t have anything for you on that today.

Pam, I already got you. Go ahead. Go ahead back in the back.

QUESTION: Syria.

MR KIRBY: I’ll get back to you. I’ll get back to you.

QUESTION: Syria.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: I believe yesterday there was another strike or strikes by the Assad Government in Douma --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and near Damascus. And the U.S. condemned in the strongest term. Do you think this condemnation is going to prevent Assad causing future massacres with the airstrikes?

MR KIRBY: I think the way I’d put that is we’ve seen – sadly, we’ve seen no indication that he is willing to stop killing and maiming his own people through various means, whether it’s airstrikes or barrel bombs. In this case, many of the killed were teenagers who were working to support their families. So it’s just another example of deplorable brutality on his own people, which only further stands as testament to why we believe he’s lost legitimacy to govern in Syria and there needs to be a political transition to a government that is responsive to the hopes and dreams and futures of the Syrian people.

But that doesn’t mean that we’re going to turn a blind eye when he does this stuff. So yeah, we condemned it, and we’re going to continue to do that. But it doesn’t change the fact that he’s lost legitimacy to govern.

QUESTION: When we ask about the condemnation, it is mostly – I’ve been following on social media – it is mostly on sarcastic terms, that U.S. condemnation really doesn’t do much to stop it for years.

MR KIRBY: So should we just not – so we just – should we just say nothing? Should we just ignore it? I understand that people may – do I expect every word we utter out here to change his behavior? No, of course not. But nor are we going to just ignore it and turn away and not say anything and not speak out against the utter brutality of this man and his regime. So we’re going to continue to say things and to speak out. And we’re not the only one in the international community that’s repulsed by this. We have an obligation to continue to highlight for people who aren’t necessarily paying attention perhaps as much as they should to what Assad’s doing to his own people.

And that is why, in addition to speaking out – we’re not just – it’s not just about issuing statements. That’s why Secretary Kerry is taking this so seriously about trying to help reach a political transition. That’s why he met with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Foreign Minister al-Jubeir in Doha and then met again with Foreign Minister Lavrov when we were in Kuala Lumpur – about many issues, this being one of them. So we’re going to continue to say what needs to be said, but Secretary Kerry’s going to continue to do what needs to be done to try to reach a political transition there.

QUESTION: So while you have been consulting with the Russians for a long time, there are reports over the weekend that Russia just delivered six fighter jets to Damascus.

MR KIRBY: Well, Russia can speak to the arms transfers they’re conducting. What we’ve said is their continued support for the Assad regime has done nothing to help ease the tensions and stop the violence inside Syria. We’ve been very public about that too.

QUESTION: So you don’t have any issue with the Russians delivering fighter jets?

MR KIRBY: No, I just said – I just said – I mean, as for what they’re delivering and in what contract, that’s for them to speak to. But we have made it clear that their continued support, whether it’s moral or material – in this case, material – we continue to say, we continue to make the point that that does nothing to reduce the tensions, it does nothing to stop the violence, and does nothing to encourage what we really want, which is a political transition in Syria to a government that’s responsive to the Syrian people. So if you’re asking me, do we have a problem with it, yes, we do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Last question: Have you known this transfer of fighter jets beforehand? Have you been noticed or warned about that?

MR KIRBY: There’s no responsibility for the Russian Government to notify us of arms transfers.

Pam.

QUESTION: Stay in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Huh?

QUESTION: Syria?

MR KIRBY: Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Have you seen the reports also of the statements from the YPG commanders that they have had three – I think three or four fighters were injured in Syria and they have sent them to Turkey for the hospitals, then they have been found under al-Nusrah fighters in Syria. So have you seen any of these reports or any confirmation?

MR KIRBY: No, no.

QUESTION: No?

MR KIRBY: Can’t help you, sorry.

Pam.

QUESTION: Libya. The --

QUESTION: Syria, Syria? Syria?

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Are there any procedures United States can help to stop the barrel bomb or the bombing of civilian? I mean, there is no United Nation Security Council or anything United States can do?

MR KIRBY: Well, we continue to work with the international community to try to find solutions to stop this violence. Again, what really needs to happen is a political transition because Assad has lost legitimacy to govern, obviously. I won’t speak for other nations, but our commander-in-chief has made it clear that there’s not going to be a military solution to the conflict in Syria. It has to be done politically. And that is what Secretary Kerry’s very much focused on.

Pam.

QUESTION: On Libya, the State Department late yesterday had the joint statement condemning the violence by Islamic State affiliates in Sirte and urging support for dialogue. Since then, Libya has asked Arab countries to launch airstrikes against the Islamic State in Sirte. Is there U.S. concern that it’s time to broaden the international response to Libya’s crisis beyond the UN-led political effort to counter some of the impact of the violence from the Islamic State affiliate groups there?

MR KIRBY: Well, we’re aware of the Libyan Government’s call for Arab militaries to conduct strikes against ISIL-affiliated positions in and around Sirte. As we’ve stated previously, we believe the best way to counter terrorism in Libya and create a safe environment for all Libyans is in partnership with a committed and unified Libyan Government, and as we have said before, we continue to support the UN-led process to get to that end.

QUESTION: One more?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, time for just a couple more. Tejinder.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can we go back to Taliban question?

MR KIRBY: Taliban?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: In view of the terrorist attack last week in Kabul, do you still believe, are you confident that – or do you think that the peace talks with the Taliban has a bleak future?

MR KIRBY: We continue to hope that an Afghan-led reconciliation process will lead to a political way forward in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But why you are so hopeful? You have – you must have seen strong statements from the Afghanistan Government.

MR KIRBY: Look, we’re obviously concerned about the violence in Afghanistan and in and around Kabul, certainly, lately. That’s of deep concern to us. We note that the Afghan National Security Forces are doing a good job responding to that violence. It’s not unexpected that, particularly in the warmer months, the Taliban tries to exert themselves inside Afghanistan. But we support President Ghani, his efforts to get at this security challenge in his country. That’s why we have nearly 10,000 American troops in there as well as from international partners to help the Afghan National Security Forces as they continue to take the lead for security inside their country. We’ve long said that the long-term answer here is a reconciliation process that is Afghan-led. And we welcomed the first set of talks that occurred, and I would point you again to President Ghani for what the next step looks like, but we certainly have every expectation and every hope that those kinds of talks can continue.

QUESTION: But do you believe that given the tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan right now after President Ghani issued such strong statements against Islamabad, Pakistan can still can bring these Taliban leaders for talks?

MR KIRBY: I would let the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan answer that question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Obviously, we want to see the reconciliation process move forward. Nothing’s changed about that. And Pakistan has a shared interest in this. I mean, this is a common cause, common challenge, common enemy both sides face, and we welcome the dialogue and the cooperation that has happened of late. We understand there’s tensions. There have been and there will continue to be tensions across that border because it’s such a safe haven for extremists.

Pakistan has suffered deeply from Taliban attacks inside their country, and their soldiers have bled just like Afghan soldiers have bled. That’s why we continue to think it’s important for the two sides to look for ways to cooperate and to communicate and to work towards a better solution here, which, again, we believe is through the reconciliation process.

QUESTION: I have one quick one on Thailand. Have you seen those terrorist attack in Bangkok in religious place? Do you have anything to say on that?

MR KIRBY: I mentioned that at my opening. And I would point to Thai authorities who are investigating this.

Yeah, last question.

QUESTION: I don’t know if you actually have the information yet to answer this, and if you don’t, if you could just get it to us later. As you’ll have seen, South Sudan President Kiir has failed to sign the peace deal by today’s deadline, and the IGAD mediator has said that his – that Kiir’s government wants another two weeks to make up its mind about this. Any comment on this and --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Actually, I appreciate the question. We welcome the signing of the peace agreement by the opposition leader Riek Machar and other parties and stakeholders. The United States deeply regrets that the Government of South Sudan chose not to sign an agreement that was supported by all of the states in the IGAD, plus the troika – the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway – China, the African Union, and the United Nations today. We call on the government to sign the agreement within the 15-day period it requested for consultations.

And as the President has stated, if there was no agreement signed today, we consider – we would consider ways to raise the cost for intransigence. We’re going to work with our regional and international partners on next steps and on ways to increase pressure, especially against those that are undermining the peace process or opposing this agreement.

QUESTION: Are you going to – just one quick follow-up on that. On raising the cost for intransigence, are you only going to begin that process – are you essentially giving them the extra two weeks or the extra 15 days, and the you’re going to look at raising the cost?

MR KIRBY: I don’t want to get into hypotheticals at this point. I’m going to let the statement stand for itself. And IGAD stands for Intergovernmental Agency on Development, right? I think that’s right. I didn’t have that written down.

Thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:18 p.m.)

DPB # 140