Daily Press Briefing, August 18, 2015
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 18, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SYRIA
SRI LANKA
THAILAND
SOUTH SUDAN
CUBA
SYRIA
INDIA/PAKISTAN
RUSSIA/IRAN
IRAN
TURKEY
JAPAN
ISIL
SYRIA
EGYPT
DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
2:06 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. A couple of things at the top.
First on Syria, the United States welcomes yesterday’s UN Security Council presidential statement which showed that the Security Council, in one voice, stands for the principles outlined in the Geneva communique, including the need for a genuine political transition and transitional governing body in Syria. Yesterday’s statement underscores our long-held view that the only sustainable solution to the crisis in Syria is a political one – an inclusive, Syrian-led political process that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The Security Council urged all parties to work diligently and constructively towards this goal. The United States is working diplomatically to achieve such a transition and is committed to supporting Special Envoy de Mistura’s efforts.
As you know, Secretary Kerry recently met with his Russian and Saudi counterparts to talk about a process forward for a political transition in Syria, and those discussions will continue. And as I said yesterday, he’s had a couple of conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov about this issue since that meeting in Doha.
On Sri Lanka, the United States commends the Sri Lankan people and government for yesterday’s election, which demonstrated their enduring commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The United States applauds the Sri Lankan elections commissioner, Sri Lankan civil society, and the candidates themselves for holding free and fair elections that were widely hailed as among the most peaceful in Sri Lanka’s history. The United States looks forward to working with President Sirisena, the prime minister, and the new government.
With that, Brad.
QUESTION: I don’t have anything maybe for the top, but if you have any update to your position on Thailand after today’s developments and any assistance you may be providing, as well as whether any Americans were affected.
MR KIRBY: Actually, I don’t have anything new today. We continue to monitor the situation closely. Thai authorities are investigating it. So I don’t have any new developments, and we have no indication today that there were any Americans involved in that tragic bombing. But again, Thai authorities are investigating this. We have maintained our offer for support. There’s been no request for any support.
QUESTION: Can we go to South Sudan --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- where we ended yesterday? Today the South Sudan rebels are alleging that South Sudanese Government forces have attacked their positions, and they have accused the government forces of essentially taking advantage of the 15-day consultative period that they asked for to make gains on the ground. Is that what’s going on here?
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s a very fluid situation, Arshad. I don’t have a tactical update, if you will, on events on the ground of that nature. I will hasten to add, though, that our position remains the same as it was yesterday. We certainly welcome the signing of this agreement by the opposition leader, and we continue to urge the Government of South Sudan to also sign this agreement, which has been unified by, agreed by, supported by not only the states of the Intergovernmental Agency for Development, but the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, China, the African Union, and the United Nations. So it’s time to sign this agreement and to move forward for the South Sudanese people.
QUESTION: And are you making any progress on your review of ways to increase the pressure on those who haven’t signed the agreement?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, as I said yesterday and President Obama made clear, if there was no agreement signed as of yesterday, we’re going to consider ways to raise the cost for that intransigence. I don’t have any updates for you – we – other than to tell you that we are considering ways now to raise those costs, as we said we would. And again, we want the government to sign this. We understand there’s a 15-day period that they requested for consultations, and we urge them to go ahead and sign this agreement.
QUESTION: Are you – just the last thing on this. Are you not going to do anything to raise the costs during the now 14-day period?
MR KIRBY: No, I’m not ruling anything in or not. I’m not prepared to say that at this point. What I can tell you is that we are actively reviewing options. That’s as we said we would. I don’t have any announcements with respect to that. I mean, this just happened yesterday. But as we said we would, we’re going to review the options available to us to increase the costs here for this intransigence. And again, I understand that they’ve requested this 15 days for consultation. It is in the government’s best interest to sign this agreement and to move forward for the people of South Sudan.
QUESTION: And last one for me on this. Should the government – and I realize you said that it’s a fluid situation and you don’t have an update on the technical situation. But as a general principle, does the U.S. Government believe that the Government of South Sudan should refrain from attacks on rebel positions?
MR KIRBY: I think it’s safe to say that we would obviously call on all parties to refrain from any violent means to bring about what we hope is a peaceful future for the people of South Sudan. So I can’t – again, I don’t want to confirm from this podium these press reports of this, but obviously, if it’s true, it’s deeply concerning to us and manifestly unhelpful to moving forward with the peace process. And again, we urge the government, the only agent in this process to not sign, urge them to sign, to move forward.
QUESTION: As the Obama Administration looks at what it might do in response to intransi – I can’t even say the word.
MR KIRBY: Intransigence. I had to practice it a couple times.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: I don’t think you got it right.
MR KIRBY: I did get it right. On the third try I did. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. consulting with other countries about taking actions in tandem?
MR KIRBY: Well, we’re certainly working – we’re working in coordination with the Intergovernmental Agency for Development – that one’s a mouthful too. We’re working with them to increase pressure on those parties that are not signing – the government – that are not – that are undermining this process. So yes, it’s not just unilateral. We’re working with the IGAD.
QUESTION: And is the U.S. --
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- perhaps revisiting its support, counsel, assistance to Salva Kiir in – over the time that he has become president?
MR KIRBY: Say that again?
QUESTION: Is the U.S. reconsidering the assistance it has provided to Salva Kiir, the political cover, the encouragement – given that this country isn’t even five years old --
MR KIRBY: Right. I don’t want to get ahead – again, to Arshad’s question, I don’t want to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet. There’s options that we have unilaterally. There’s options that we have through the UN. Obviously, we’re working in coordination with the IGAD on this. I mean, there’s – there are plenty of tools in the toolbox here to deal with this intransigence. That was pretty good, wasn’t it? And we’re just at the beginning of this, so I don’t want to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet. I think it’s just important to state clearly and unequivocally again that we want the government to sign this agreement. This conflict has gone on way too long and too many people in South Sudan have suffered as a result of the instability and insecurity there.
QUESTION: So would it be fair to describe the Obama Administration as exasperated with Salva Kiir and his government?
MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to throw an adverb on it here. We’ve been clear, I think, and very succinct about what needs to happen here. This peace agreement needs to be signed. The future for South Sudan and the people there depend upon – depends upon a peaceful, stable, secure South Sudan, and this agreement will help us get to that goal. And so that’s what needs to happen. I don’t know that I would put a label on it. Obviously, we’re – and as I said yesterday, we certainly regret that he hasn’t signed and again call on him to do so.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Could we move on? Do you have any comments on the reports that the Obama Administration is hoping to seal direct flights to Cuba by the end of the deal – by the end of year? Sorry.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me get to that. Okay, so on Cuba and commercial flights, I know there was a – there was some press reporting on this. I want to make one point right at the outset, and that is that – and Secretary Kerry was clear about this on Friday in Havana – that normalizing relations is going to be a long, complex process, and it’s going to require a lot of interaction and dialogue on both sides between our two governments, based on mutual respect. And that’s why he and his counterpart down there, the foreign minister, talked about this steering committee that’s being set up to sort of work through the various phases of normalization that we all recognize is going to take some time.
So with that as preamble, I think it’s also important to note that the embargo on Cuba is still in place. Legislative action alone is required to lift it. Obviously, Secretary Kerry and the President support the lifting of the embargo. But in the meantime, it’s the Treasury’s Department, their Office of Foreign Assets Control, will continue to administer the regulations that provide for general and specific licenses for the 12 categories of purposeful travel to Cuba that are now authorized for American citizens.
Under the Cuba regulatory changes published by this office, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, in January of this year, scheduled air service to Cuba by U.S.-based airlines is permissible. And then I would just add that we remain in contact with the Cuban Government regarding the establishment of scheduled air service, which U.S. airlines say they are eager to offer to authorized travelers – again, authorized travelers under those 12 categories, Brad. No decisions have yet been made, and of course, we seek to continue to have these technical discussions in the near future.
QUESTION: This isn’t, then, a congressional embargo issue. It is purely within the realm of the U.S. – the various agencies – Homeland Security, the FAA – deciding that everything that fulfills the requirements for this has been fulfilled, and then making an agreement with Cuba on all of those parameters?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, so I mean, we have to separate the two. There’s still an embargo and that’s in place and that requires the Congress to act to lift it.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And I don’t want to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet by the White House. What I can tell you is we’re staying in contact with the Cuban Government. There are 12 categories that – of purposeful travel that are permitted, and I would refer you to the Treasury Department on how exactly that’s being administered now and may be administered in the future. That’s really not a matter for the State Department. But it is separate and distinct, these 12 categories which are permissible now, from the lifting – a full lifting of the embargo, which would allow, of course, more fulsome and free – if the embargo’s lifted – more fulsome and free travel to Cuba. Does that --
QUESTION: Well, I’m not so much concerned about the individuals who could go. I think that was – that’s clear, as you said, from the January announcement – but on the rule for commercial airline carriers to establish direct links. Because right now you just have the charter flights, right?
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: And what it would take to allow U.S. Airways – or American Airlines, sorry, or Delta or whomever to establish a direct Boston-to-Havana link or Washington to Havana or New York to Havana.
MR KIRBY: Right. Yeah. So again, we’re in contact with the Cuban Government on that. I’d point you to Treasury for more details on that.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Wouldn’t – isn’t the idea of having U.S. airlines allowed to go there – doesn’t that require, one, a rewriting of the 1953 transportation agreement between the two countries? And isn’t that a process that’s carried out jointly by State and the Department of Transportation?
MR KIRBY: Ros, I’m not familiar with 1953 legislation. And I’m not going to take the question because I think I’ve answered it as best I can today, which is that there are 12 categories for purposeful travel that are permitted. There’s been no decisions made about scheduled air – commercial air traffic to and from Cuba. We’re going to continue to talk to them about it. That’s one of the reasons why that I opened the answer talking about the steering committee, but no decisions have been made yet.
And as for the travel that’s currently permitted under those 12 categories, that’s really being administered by the Treasury Department, and I think you’d have to go to them for more comment about that.
QUESTION: So are you then suggesting that the idea of expanding the ability of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba under this current Treasury rubric – are you suggesting that those reports are inaccurate?
MR KIRBY: What I’m suggesting is that no decisions have been made yet and that we’re going to remain in contact with the Cuban Government as we move forward. Normalization is going to take some time. But I think you heard Secretary Kerry talk about this when we were down in Havana on Friday. I mean, he noted a significant increase in travel to Cuba, over 35 percent increase. And he also talked about the – being able to reach an agreement to allow a resumption of scheduled air service would provide more options to facilitate authorized travel to Cuba, consistent with our policy of increasing people-to-people ties.
So it would – being able to reach an agreement on this would still, to Brad’s question, still allow for broader access through those 12 categories, because you can’t – beyond that, you’re talking about the embargo and that, again, requires congressional action.
But we’re not there yet. So what I’m saying in respect to the press reporting is that no decisions have been made, and this is an issue we continue to discuss internally and with the Cuban Government.
QUESTION: Have you heard from members of Congress who might be opposed to any more changes beyond what was already done at the beginning of the year for these person-to-person travel contacts?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any particular correspondence with congressional members on this matter to read out today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, John. Can we go back to Syria and --
QUESTION: Just another one on Cuba.
QUESTION: Can we stick with Cuba? Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one more on Cuba.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: And this is just a clarification. So as long as the 12 categories are respected, there’s nothing in the embargo that would prevent a commercial flight, as long as you can make an agreement with the Cubans. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: I’m not a lawyer, Barbara. I’m just saying that reaching an agreement – as I said, reaching an agreement to allow resumption of scheduled air service would allow – would provide more options than we currently have to facilitate that authorized travel to Cuba right now under those 12 categories.
So being able to reach an agreement with air carriers and within our government and with the Cuban Government certainly would allow for more options to – for that authorized travel. So discussions are ongoing. No decisions to read out.
QUESTION: Just two quick things.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: You said, I think, that you look forward to technical discussions with the Cubans on this issue soon. Do you have a date for those technical discussions?
MR KIRBY: We talked about this on Friday – actually, the Secretary talked about this when we were in Havana – that the – we think – we’re looking for the first meeting of this steering group committee to be sometime in early September, around the 9th or 10th of September. I don’t know that it’s been officially locked in, but that’s sort of the timeframe for this. And it’ll be here in Washington[1].
QUESTION: And would that steering group take up the issue of reaching an agreement on resumption of regularly scheduled air travel?
MR KIRBY: I don’t want to get ahead of an agenda for a meeting that hasn’t happened yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I do – but I do think we – I do want to go back to what I said before. This is going to be a long process. There are – as the Secretary said, there’s multiple phases here. One of them will include discussions about civil aviation, which would include this matter, of course. But this is going to be, we believe, a fairly lengthy process. And so I think I don’t want to – we don’t want to prejudge discussions that haven’t happened yet --
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: -- or get to speculative on timing.
QUESTION: And then – well, this is my last question on this, which goes to timing and the Journal report saying that it could be – or an agreement could be reached as early as the end of the year. I mean, is that your goal, or do you not even have a goal; you’re just going to let it take the time that it takes?
MR KIRBY: I think I’m just going to leave it where I was, Arshad. I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made. Obviously, we want to move the process of normalization forward, but we don’t want to do it faster than we can accommodate or in an unwise speedy way. So we know this is going to take some time. There’s – there are some issues where we certainly share common goals with the Cubans – narcotics and maritime security – very, very common goals. And then there are other issues which I think are going to require a little bit more time to hammer out. Transportation and civil aviation is probably one of those. So I don’t want – I just – I don’t want to speculate about when we might see an agreement to go forward on this.
QUESTION: Just to clarify --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- I think the Secretary – I thought I remembered him suggesting the first round might be in Havana. Are you saying it’s --
MR KIRBY: Let me check on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I might be mistaken on that, but I thought --
QUESTION: I’ll just check. It’s not – all right.
MR KIRBY: I thought it was here. So let me check on that, Brad. If I’m wrong, then we’ll send out a correction to that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we return to Syria and what happened yesterday at the UN?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Yes? So unless mistaken, but correct me if I’m wrong, the Security Council statement made no mention of President Bashar al-Assad’s fate. So does it mean that we should read that as a concession made by the U.S. to the Russians, or that your position on the fate on President Assad is still very far away from Moscow?
MR KIRBY: There’s no concession from the United States perspective. Our position about – on Assad has not changed. He cannot be a part of Syria’s future.
Goyal.
QUESTION: Two questions. Thank you, sir. Terrorism-related questions. Last week India and Pakistan both celebrated their independent days. And my question here is that people wants peace, of course, in both countries, and – but there is fighting going on on the border in the Kashmir region. And because some people have shopped – opened their shops in both countries, not to resolve and solve this problem – in India maybe corrupt politician, in Pakistan the corrupt military and ISI people. My question here is that in Washington also the Pakistan embassy, dozens of people – Afghanis and Americans – they held a demonstration on the 14th. What they were saying that the most of the U.S. aid is being – it’s not going to people that it’s meant to be and taxpayers’ money is being misused by those people there. My question is here: Where do we stand, where do we go, what is the U.S. position as far as number of terrorists wanted by India and U.S. and they are sitting in Pakistan?
MR KIRBY: I have no idea, Goyal, what the number might be to that. But – and I don’t mean to make light of your question, because it’s an important one. The independence celebrations, I think, offer a good opportunity for everybody, whether they’re Indian or Pakistani, to kind of reflect on the challenges, the common challenges and security situation there between those two countries and inside those two countries. And we certainly would hope that people will take advantage of this anniversary to do just that. Certainly, there – we know there continue to be tensions, and our position about that has not changed. These are matters for both India and Pakistan to work out. There’s certainly enough motivation to do that given that tension still exists.
And as for the protest activity, I mean, that’s part of democracy, that people have the right and the responsibility, the ability to speak out against the policies they don’t approve. As for our assistance, I mean, we have strong relationships with both countries. I’m not qualified to get into the details of the security assistance package that was provided to Pakistan; I would refer you to DOD on that. But we have strong bilateral relations with both countries, and we, the United States have, as Secretary Kerry has said himself, have strong interest in seeing peaceful resolution to the tensions there.
QUESTION: Second related question is that Prime Minister Modi was in UAE and in Abu Dhabi and also yesterday in Dubai, where his message was, after 35 years, any Indian prime minister visited this region was that to give them a clear message that most of the terrorists, they have homes in there, in Dubai, including Dawood Ibrahim. And what he said, that they should close this section of the going-and-coming terrorists from the neighboring countries, because those terrorists use their money, black market money, against innocent people, killing in the region, including in India and Pakistan, of course. What he said that once you do this – and there should be international pressure on Dubai especially because it has open border, open doors for those terrorists, they have homes there – what he said then, then we can put pressure other countries that they – what India is looking for, Dawood Ibrahim and others wanted. Because innocent people are being killed there.
MR KIRBY: Well, I won’t – it’s not my place to speak to the prime minister’s comments or concerns. I mean, obviously, he has every right to be concerned about the security of his country and his people. I think, stepping back a little bit, we all recognize and our partners in that region recognize that terrorism is a shared challenge, a shared responsibility, for all of us to work together to share information as best we can and to work in concert and coordination – as we are against ISIL, 62-plus nations – to get at this very real threat. I think I’d leave it at that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: John, on – move to Russia and Iran, if I could? Reports out of Moscow saying that the S-300 missile system sale was going to be finalized within the coming days given the five-year extension of the arms embargo on Iran as part of the JCPOA. Does this sale undermine the JCPOA?
MR KIRBY: Let me find my points on that. So our position on this sale has been known for some time. We continue to have concerns about the transfer of the S-300. And Secretary has spoken previously to Foreign Minister Lavrov about those concerns. We’ve been making very clearly our objections to any sale of this missile system to Iran, as I said, for quite some time, and we’ll continue to monitor it closely. The transfer of this defensive system to Iran is not prohibited under UN Security Council resolutions. Now, we need to know more about the specifics of this proposed transfer to determine whether any domestic U.S. sanction programs may be implicated should a sale or transfer proceed.
QUESTION: We’ve heard the Administration tout Russia’s role as a negotiating partner throughout the P5+1. Given this sale, given the concerns about Soleimani’s travel – reported travel – to Moscow, what does this say about Russia as an enforcement partner in the P5+1?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, this sale doesn’t – this sale, though we are – nothing’s changed about our concern, and I don’t want to make any implication that we are. This doesn’t violate UN Security Council resolutions. And so while we certainly object to it, the Secretary also has spoken clearly about Russia’s helpful role in getting us to where we got on the Iran deal. And it is important to remember that the Iran deal is not a U.S.-Iran deal, it’s a P5+1-Iran deal, and that every party to the agreement has responsibilities and obligations to keep. And it’s Secretary Kerry’s expectation that all of them will.
QUESTION: Why – why do you object to it?
MR KIRBY: Why do we object to the sale?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Well, this is a surface-to-air missile system going to a regime who we know continues to conduct nefarious activities and support to terrorism around the region. I don’t know why we wouldn’t object to it.
QUESTION: But do you view it as a defensive weapon or as an offensive weapon?
MR KIRBY: It’s defensive system, but it’s nonetheless a surface-to-air missile and it’s not an insignificant military capability.
QUESTION: You – so you don’t see that now that Iran has signed off on this nuclear agreement and has faithfully adhered to the last one, that it has a legitimate right to equip itself with defensive material that is not prohibited under the nuclear agreement or UN Security Council resolutions?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, again, the nuclear deal is separate and distinct --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- from our concern about Iran’s nefarious activities in the region. And your question presupposes that they – that the purchase of this system would be used simply for internal national defense, and I submit to you that we have legitimate concerns that those kinds of systems could end up being used for other purposes or in the hands of other people. So I think we have every right to be concerned about it and to express those concerns.
QUESTION: Since we’re still on Iran --
QUESTION: But you said that – you said that Secretary Kerry has previously raised this issue with Foreign Minister Lavrov, which he has and talked about publicly.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Did he raise it in last week’s conversation?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know, Arshad. I mean, he speaks with Foreign Minister Lavrov all the time, and usually any conversation with the foreign minister includes more than one topic.
QUESTION: Can you check that?
MR KIRBY: I couldn’t tell you when the last time --
QUESTION: Could – just in --
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: Not when the last time was, but whether they talked about it in the last conversation, which would suggest greater immediacy to the longstanding U.S. concern about this.
MR KIRBY: I’ll tell you what, I’ll check. But I am not going to promise a readout of every conversation he has with the foreign minister --
QUESTION: I get it, I get it.
MR KIRBY: -- and the details of them.
Yes.
QUESTION: Related to that, any comment on Senator Menendez announcing that he would vote against the deal?
MR KIRBY: Secretary Kerry’s been very clear that every member of Congress has to vote the way they – what they believe is proper for them and for their constituents. The Secretary has great respect for Senator Menendez and his service to our country, and he continues to believe that this deal should be supported by all members of Congress on the merits of the deal because it makes America safer, it makes our allies and partners safer – not to mention Israel – and that it is far better to deal with the nefarious activities of the Iranian regime when that regime does not possess a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: The Secretary --
QUESTION: Does he continue to lobby the members while he’s on vacation?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary’s not lobbying, Justin, but he has certainly been in constant communication with members of Congress, and I suspect that while he’s on vacation he will continue to communicate with them and address their concerns as appropriate.
QUESTION: Has he conducted any calls with any foreign officials or is he allowing Deputy Secretary Blinken to do that while he’s away?
MR KIRBY: No, he continues to communicate on the telephone with his foreign counterparts, absolutely.
QUESTION: Do you think that Senator Menendez’s – Senator Menendez, of course, former ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- do you think that his opposition endangers your ability to get the agreement through Congress?
MR KIRBY: Well, I kind of dealt with this a little bit a few days ago. The Secretary remains confident that this deal will achieve or will get the support of Congress. That said, he isn’t taking any vote for granted, and as I just said to Justin, he continues to reach out and continues to make himself available to those members of Congress who continue to have concerns.
QUESTION: You said he continues to – sorry. Can you say whether he’s had a private conversation with Senator Schumer?
MR KIRBY: Yes, of course he has.
QUESTION: Yeah, and – oh, okay. So --
MR KIRBY: Of course.
QUESTION: Have you made that public or something? I missed that.
MR KIRBY: I don’t know if we did or not, but if so, then I’m making it public now. Of course he has had conversations with Senator Schumer about this, absolutely.
QUESTION: Okay, yeah.
QUESTION: And Senator Menendez as well?
MR KIRBY: I believe so, but I’d have to check – I can tell you that he continues to make himself available to members of Congress.
QUESTION: So the President a couple weeks ago made a reference to many of the opponents of the Iran deal being the same people who dragged us into the Iraq War. Do you feel that argument is undermined given that then-Congressman Menendez voted against the Iraq War, whereas people like Secretary Kerry voted for it?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to make political judgments here from this podium. That wouldn’t be appropriate. Again, the Secretary believes this deal is in the national interest not only of the United States but of our allies and partners, and he’ll continue to communicate with and answer the questions of members of Congress right up through the time they vote. He’s comfortable that it will meet with the approval of Congress. But as I said, he’s not going to take anything for granted and he’s going to keep talking to them.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Is the building coordinating in any way with nonprofit groups that support the Iran nuclear deal? There’s been some reporting that the Administration overall is working in tandem with Plowshares and with J Street and with other organizations to try to build support on the Hill for the deal.
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything to read out from this podium about that. The Secretary of State has an obligation and a responsibility to communicate with members of Congress. He’s done that; he has – he believes in obligation to communicate with the American people about this, and he’s done that. And I think you’ll see him continue to do that. But that’s been the real central focus of his effort, is dealing with members of Congress and members of the media such as you all and, of course, the American people.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MR KIRBY: Can I – I’ve been up here a lot. Let me go back here just a little bit and then we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: It has been – the clashes in Turkey, especially in the southeast of Turkey, has been increasing lately. And today, as the casualties also are increasing, do you have any new comments regarding the latest in Turkey?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any specifics with respect to recent attacks. Again, we call on terrorist activity to stop; we – particularly the PKK to return to the peace process. Violence, terrorist violence like that’s not going to get anybody anywhere and it’s not going to decrease the tensions there in the region.
QUESTION: Just yesterday, PKK, one of the leaders also ask or wanted U.S. to work with two parties, Turkey and the PKK, to bring about some ceasefire or kind of a peace talks. What is your position on that? Is U.S. willing to --
MR KIRBY: We’ve long said – we’ve long urged the PKK to renounce violence and return to a peace process.
QUESTION: No, would you be willing to take the position for a ceasefire between the parties if there is --
MR KIRBY: What do you mean “take a position?”
QUESTION: Mediate.
QUESTION: Mediate the parties.
MR KIRBY: We’ve long said this is for Turkey and the PKK to work out. We want the PKK to renounce violence and return to the peace process.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I think on Sunday UN Special Rapporteur Victoria Tauli Corpuz spoke in Okinawa. And she mentioned that forcing the Futenma relocation facility onto Okinawa would be a violation of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Do you have a comment on that?
MR KIRBY: Nothing’s changed about our position about the relocation of the Futenma facility.
QUESTION: Do you accept the UN’s decision or recognition of the Okinawan people, the Ryukyuan people of Okinawa as an indigenous people?
MR KIRBY: I’m just going to return to what I said: Nothing’s changed about our position about the benefits of the relocation of the Futenma facility. We continue to work with the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: But – so you don’t have a position on whether or not they’re indigenous?
MR KIRBY: On whether or not who’s indigenous?
QUESTION: The Ryukyuan people in Okinawa.
MR KIRBY: Look, I’m not going to – I haven’t seen those comments, so I’m not going to address them specifically. I just want to keep returning to what I said before that we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Japan on the relocation of the Futenma facility, which we believe is in the best interest of our alliance.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one question. There were media reports that the United States was investigating the alleged use of chemical gas by ISIS against the Kurds in Iraq. Has that committee or that investigating team come to a conclusive result about the use of gas against --
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of a U.S. investigation into this. I’d refer you to --
QUESTION: CNN and other media outlets, they all reported it.
MR KIRBY: Oh, well, if CNN reported it, then – (laughter). I mean, look, I don’t – I don’t have anything to report on that.
QUESTION: So you didn’t investigate it?
MR KIRBY: No, I’m telling you I don’t have anything to report on this news report you’re giving me about an investigation. The press reporting itself is deeply concerning to us. I’ve seen no indication and we have no confirmation that ISIL used a chemical agent, whether it’s mustard or anything else. Obviously, if it’s true, it’s certainly very deeply concerning given the brutality that this group is capable of.
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any investigation to read out to you today --
QUESTION: But did the U.S. --
MR KIRBY: -- and I’d point you to DOD.
QUESTION: So you don’t know if the U.S. had investigated at all?
MR KIRBY: I don’t.
QUESTION: Can I do ISIS?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Just one question. Yesterday Ambassador Brett McGurk tweeted and he said that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a mass murdering rapist now in hiding with days numbered. Is this the view of the U.S. Administration now that Baghdadi’s days are numbered?
MR KIRBY: Baghdadi?
QUESTION: Al-Baghdadi, so-called caliphate of the ISIS.
MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen Mr. McGurk’s tweet, but obviously, the way I would put this is any leader of ISIL is certainly putting themselves in harm’s way by assuming a leadership position. As we’ve said repeatedly, we’re going to continue to go after them wherever they are and continue to put pressure on them. And as a career choice, I would say it’s one with a very short shelf life.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes, please. Regarding Syria – and you mentioned the political transition or political solution – are you in touch or in contact with the authorities in Syria nowadays? I mean --
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. Can you repeat that again? I missed you.
QUESTION: You talk about political transition or political solution --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- for the case of Syria.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you in touch or in contact with the Assad regime or anybody representing it in – or are you planning to do that?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: So there are some talks that – or reports, press reports – maybe you can have a chance to see it or not. There are some talks are going on between Americans and Syrian officials in Muscat. Do you have any confirmation or denying for that report?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: My second question is regarding Egypt.
MR KIRBY: No, that was your second question.
QUESTION: Huh?
MR KIRBY: That was your second question already.
QUESTION: Okay. The third question.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: It’s good you have kept counting.
MR KIRBY: I do a lot of that up here. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Regarding this ratification of a new anti-terrorism law in Egypt, do you have anything to say about that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, actually, I do. So we are concerned that some measures in Egypt’s new anti-terrorism law could have a significant detrimental impact on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including due process safeguards, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. We stand with Egypt in its fight against terrorism. And as Secretary Kerry said himself during the Strategic Dialogue in Cairo a few weeks ago, “defeating terrorism requires a long-term comprehensive strategy that builds trust between the authorities and the public, including by enabling those who disagree with the government’s policies to express those views peacefully and through participation in the political process.”
QUESTION: So my fifth question is about Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It’s not fifth; it’s fourth. So it’s about that there are reports from Los Angeles Times that United States has doubled the number of support staff advising the Saudi intervention in Yemen. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR KIRBY: I don’t. I don’t have anything on that. We’ve doubled the number of support staff?
QUESTION: Doubled the staff number, which is the advisor – what is called advisors to 45 people.
MR KIRBY: In Saudi Arabia for --
QUESTION: Helping Saudi Arabia in --
MR KIRBY: Oh, this is the support to Saudi Arabia and their --
QUESTION: Their --
MR KIRBY: -- and their air missions.
QUESTION: -- operations, operations.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. That – I’d have to refer you to DOD on that. I don’t have anything on that. No, that’s not a question for us.
QUESTION: John, I wanted to ask you – sorry.
QUESTION: Go ahead.
QUESTION: A real quick one about question number four. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: 4b of subset c. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: The concerns about possible human rights violations he asked.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Has anyone from this building expressed those concerns to Egypt?
MR KIRBY: We are in constant dialogue with Egypt through our post there. So yes, we’ve expressed those concerns. Yes.
Yes.
QUESTION: How about Saudi Arabia? I mean, they began registration for municipal election. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I don’t. I’m afraid I’m not familiar with that, so I don’t have anything to add to that.
Yes.
QUESTION: John, if I can change quickly. Just a clarification I wanted to get from the State Department on Secretary Clinton’s emails. Is it still the position of the State Department that no emails that came through the server were classified at their origination on the server, as opposed to being retroactively classified?
MR KIRBY: It is still our view that we have no indication that any of the emails that have been upgraded --
QUESTION: That’s not what he’s asking. So he’s talking about the ones that were --
MR KIRBY: But I don’t have to answer the question you ask. I just have to respond the way I want to. (Laughter.) So let me finish, and then if I don’t get at it – I wasn’t even through my first sentence and you challenged me.
QUESTION: No, I know. You already screwed it up.
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no. You just didn’t like where I was going with it. (Laughter.) So you still have no indication that any of the emails were classified at the time they were sent or necessarily should have been known to have been classified when they were sent – of the ones that we have scrutinized, reviewed, and upgraded.
QUESTION: I ask because the inspector general’s report from the IC – there was a letter to members of Congress saying that two of those emails were classified from their origination, which would have meant once they hit that server --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- that they were classified at the time. So that’s why I was looking for clarification.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, again, so two points. One, we’ve seen no indication – and I’ve said this before – that any classification markings were stripped. So that we see no indications that upon entry into the system people would have readily seen and known that they were classified in nature.
And as we’ve said before, of the four emails in question, two of them were deemed to not have intelligence community equities. Doesn’t mean that they – portions of them may not have been classified; it just means they don’t have any intel community equities.
And the other two, we’ve asked for clarification from the Director of National Intelligence to go look at it to determine the degree which they are, in fact, classified. So that decision hasn’t been rendered yet, and so we’re still working with them on that.
QUESTION: And the last one on that is if there was a sort of a lifting, a copying and pasting, if you will, off of a classified document and just portions of that were then placed into an email and then put on the server, does that sort of undermine the argument that no one saw anything that had markings on it? There wouldn’t have been markings --
MR KIRBY: Well, that’s a – it’s a great hypothetical that I’m simply not in a position to answer, and I don’t want to get into specific content here from the podium about this.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a couple of clarifications on this. Of the four emails in question, you said you have concluded that two of them had no intel community equities.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: You then said that is not to say they might not have contained classified information; they just didn’t contain any information that the intelligence community believes should be classified, right?
MR KIRBY: That was in the intelligence community’s realm or sphere, yes.
QUESTION: So was there any information in those two emails, where there was no IC equities, was there any information that was classified?
MR KIRBY: We’ve – it’s – we don’t have a determination right now about those two, whether they contained any classified information or not.
QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, on the other two, you said that you have asked for clarification from the DNI?
MR KIRBY: These are the two that the intelligence community inspector general deemed possessed or contained at least some top-secret material.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: We’ve asked for a further review by --
QUESTION: DNI.
MR KIRBY: -- by DNI, and that review’s ongoing.
QUESTION: And you said in your answer – sorry, you said that you’ve asked for further review on the extent to which --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- those two --
MR KIRBY: May or may not be --
QUESTION: May or may not, that was the --
MR KIRBY: -- be classified.
QUESTION: All right, I get it. Okay. And then I got one last one on this if I may.
MR KIRBY: You should not go on a honeymoon, because we dealt with all of this while you were gone.
QUESTION: You don’t seem to want to answer the – first of all, I was not on my honeymoon, okay? So get your facts straight, okay? (Laughter.) Though I had a really good time.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: And second, yesterday, I asked you if you would take a question and you said you would do what you could to help me. And I’m asking if you have an answer to that question, which was: Were the IT people and the people at the State Department responsible for ensuring that the Secretary’s communications are secure aware that Secretary Clinton was using a private email address on a private server?
MR KIRBY: So as we’ve said before, her email address and use of this server was known to those that she worked with here at the State Department, and I think you can see evidence of that in the 3,000-plus emails that have already been publicly released. And I think it’s important to remember – and I said this yesterday as a reminder – there was not then nor is there currently now a prohibition against using a personal email account for work.
The critical piece is here – is that you’re retaining the records. And again, that’s why we went back to even former secretaries to request any records that they had. And the second critical piece, which we talked about yesterday, which was that if you are in receipt of, possession of, transmission of, sensitive information or classified information, there are procedures and policies that you must use to go through it. So I don’t have any more detailed information to answer your question than that.
QUESTION: Now, could I – let me make clear: My question is not whether her email address or the private server were known to the people that she worked with, because the people that the Secretary worked with, in a sense, is a relatively small group of people.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: And obviously, anybody who’s emailing her knows what her email address is. My question is whether the people in the State Department’s IT department and any other people at the State Department responsible for ensuring the security of her communications – not that they contain or don’t contain classified information – just that her communications are not subject to being wire-tapped or copied or intercepted by somebody else, because there’s got to be somebody here who is responsible for making sure that her communications or --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- any secretary’s communications are secure – whether those two categories of people, IT and whoever’s responsible for the security of the communications, were aware that she was using a private email address that operated from a private server.
MR KIRBY: As I said, there were people here that worked that knew of the arrangement. The arrangement was not prohibited. I don’t have any more details with respect to the IT people and what they did or didn’t know at the time and what they did or didn’t do at the time.
QUESTION: There’s a reason that I’m asking it.
MR KIRBY: It’s a fair question. I just can’t go beyond the detail I’ve given you.
QUESTION: Can you ask? I mean, the reason I’m asking --
MR KIRBY: I have.
QUESTION: And they – and nobody knows?
MR KIRBY: I can tell you that people here at the State Department, people she worked with, knew about this arrangement. There was nothing that prohibited it. And I don’t have any more detail in terms of what IT --
QUESTION: There was no reason for IT to get involved --
QUESTION: No, no. I get it. Can I keep going?
QUESTION: -- at the State Department. I mean, that’s what I think I’m getting from what you’re saying. There was no reason for the State Department IT department to get involved in her email, so they didn’t, right?
MR KIRBY: There’s – none that I’m aware of, no. No reason for them to.
QUESTION: So nobody from the IT department that you’re aware of knew that she was using a private email on a private server?
MR KIRBY: I know that people here knew about this arrangement, Arshad. I can’t go into --
QUESTION: I know that people here knew about the arrangement too, but --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any more detail for you.
QUESTION: -- what I don’t know is whether the people who were responsible for making sure that her communications didn’t get hacked into knew. That’s the question. And if they didn’t know --
MR KIRBY: I understand the question.
QUESTION: -- then the question is: Why didn’t they know?
MR KIRBY: I understand the question.
QUESTION: But you can’t address it.
MR KIRBY: I answered it as best I can. I’ve answered it as best I can. And I’m sorry I messed up your honeymoon vacation. I just heard it was so great a vacation that --
QUESTION: Yes, well, that it was.
MR KIRBY: -- it might have been or could have been. Anyway.
QUESTION: The two emails that were referred back to the State Department to look at its own equities, not the two that the IC inspector general or that the CIA then classified but you say is still under discussion. So the two that were sent back to the State Department – why has there been no determination on the classification level yet? It’s been several days now, right? At least a week.
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speak for how long those matters take. I mean, the – that’s a matter for the reviewers to look at, and we’ve asked DNI to take a look at it and I’m sure they’ll do it as expeditiously as possible. But it’s more important to be right than it is to be fast.
QUESTION: But it’s – these are just – I mean, these aren’t emails of Tolstoyan length here, are they? They’re just --
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know what the content is.
QUESTION: Well --
QUESTION: Proustian?
QUESTION: Proustian length, even better.
MR KIRBY: I don’t know what the content is or if Tolstoy wrote any of them. I can just tell you that we’re not going to rush DNI to a judgment here; we don’t want to rush judgment.
QUESTION: No, no, no, not on the DNI ones – on the ones that were referred back to the State Department that are --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: So those are here in the building. You’ve had several days to look at them and you haven’t made a determination. I find that strange, but maybe that --
MR KIRBY: I don’t.
QUESTION: No?
MR KIRBY: No, I don’t.
QUESTION: Is that why it takes five years sometimes to get a FOIA review cleared in this building? I mean --
MR KIRBY: Wow, somebody’s got an issue here. Look, I’m – we’re looking at these as carefully and methodically as we can, and we’re not going to rush to judgment on any one document.
QUESTION: But are you looking at these in any different way than you would at any other emails that go through a FOIA review? Is this special scrutiny because it was a secretary?
MR KIRBY: No. No. As a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, we’re doing this in a measured, deliberate, methodical way in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act process, which can be lengthy at times because it’s supposed to be. We have to – there’s a balance you have to strike between providing public information and yet – and protecting sensitive information. And that’s a difficult balance to strike. And I think Mark Toner talked about this a week or so ago that this is not a binary decision process and it requires some care. So we’re not going to rush to judgment on this thing.
QUESTION: No, I understand, but you have 30,000 emails and here it’s taking several days to discuss – to figure out the fate of two.
QUESTION: Yeah. And until you’re --
QUESTION: I mean, if that’s the process on every email in question --
MR KIRBY: I don’t know exactly where we are in the process of examining these two. I don’t know what the content is of them, so I don’t know how tricky a determination this might be. But rest assured we’re going to do it in a careful, methodical way. It’s simply – we talked about this yesterday. When you’re talking about sensitive information, it’s important to get it right, and there’s no reason for us to rush here.
Yeah, I’ll take one more.
QUESTION: Can I follow up a little bit on the FOIA issue itself? Because Judge Sullivan, who is the judge in one of the many FOIA lawsuits related to Secretary – former Secretary Clinton’s emails and her aides’ emails, has put forward the idea that maybe some of these lawsuits should be consolidated into a single FOIA lawsuit. Is that something that the department thinks would be helpful in terms of being more responsive with these ongoing legal actions?
MR KIRBY: I have not seen that assessment by the judge, and so I’m not at a point where I can offer a view by the State Department on that.
QUESTION: Can you take the question?
MR KIRBY: I’ll take it, sure.
Okay. Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)
DPB # 141
[1] Correction: The technical talks will be held in Havana, Cuba.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
