Daily Press Briefing, August 27, 2015
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 27, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
IRAN
SAUDI ARABIA
AFGHANISTAN
INDIA/PAKISTAN
SYRIA/TURKEY/REGION/COUNTERTERRORISM
PAKISTAN
SYRIA/RUSSIA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
CHINA
NEPAL
TRANSCRIPT:
2:02 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody. I do not have anything to open us up with, so with that, we’ll go to you, Brad.
QUESTION: I don’t have too much, but I wanted to ask you if you had any comment on the IAEA quarterly report on Iran, what you thought of it if you’ve had a chance to review it yet.
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, Brad, as our standard practice, we don’t comment on IAEA reports that have not yet been publicly released by the agency. So we’re going to let the IAEA address any of the specifics of their reports.
QUESTION: There was just one element I wanted to ask you about. I think the report – without getting too much into the details, I mean, it confirmed broad compliance. But there was some mention of the Parchin base again and about construction or other activity that was going on there. Independent of the report, is that something the United States has noted and is also concerned about?
MR KIRBY: Well, I’d say, without getting into the specifics here – as I said, we’re not going to do that – I think it’s important to remember that when you’re talking about a site like Parchin, you’re talking about a conventional military site, not a nuclear site. So there wouldn’t be any IAEA or other restrictions on new construction at that site were they to occur.
QUESTION: Which begs the question why it would be in the report then.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I – again, I’m not going to confirm details in a report that hasn’t been publicly released, and I would refer you to the IAEA for any contents that may or may not be in there.
Samir.
QUESTION: Are you able today to confirm the reports about the Saudi capturing of the al-Khobar bombing?
MR KIRBY: No, I don’t have anything new to update you with the – from yesterday. I mean, obviously, as we said yesterday, we want to see the perpetrators of that attack brought to justice. And certainly, any detention of one or more of them would be a welcome development, but we’ve seen the reports and I would refer you to – since the reports are claiming that the Saudis have him, I would refer you to the Saudis.
QUESTION: Because there are some reports saying that this is – came as a result to the increased cooperation after the Camp David summit, like to increase security and intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and the Gulf countries.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I would refer you to the reports. The reports talk about Saudi involvement here, so I would refer you to the Saudis on this. I just don’t have anything more to add today.
QUESTION: Yesterday the Saudi foreign minister announced that the king will be visiting the White House.
MR KIRBY: And I believe the White House has spoken to that as well today.
QUESTION: They did?
MR KIRBY: They did. They put a – they put something out about that, so I would – on visits like this, obviously we would refer you to the White House to speak to it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you at least confirm that there’s been some discussion with the Saudis on the possibility of this being the main suspect?
MR KIRBY: We – what I can tell you is we certainly have been in contact with the Saudis, with Saudi officials concerning these reports, but I won’t go beyond that right now.
QUESTION: Why won’t you confirm that they actually got the person or somebody who might be him?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, if – the reports are that the Saudis have him. I would – I think it’s appropriate if – for the Saudi Government to speak to those reports, and it just wouldn’t be appropriate for us to talk about it in any more detail here. We are in contact, have been in contact with Saudi officials about these reports, but I just – I’m not going to go any further than that today.
Yes.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: There was an arrest of a Russian national in Finland at the request of U.S. authorities. His last name is Senakh, I think, but frankly I’m not sure.
MR KIRBY: An arrest of --
QUESTION: Of the Russian citizen, of the Russian national – of a Russian national --
MR KIRBY: There’s reports of an arrest of a Russian citizen in Finland?
QUESTION: -- national at the request of – in Finland at the request of U.S. authorities. A) I was wondering if you have something on that, why he was arrested, what is he charged with here. And secondly, Russian Government said that they consider this continuing practice of U.S. authorities trying to detain Russian nationals in the third countries as sort of hunt. Are you going to carry on this practice? Do you talk about – the Russians about this?
MR KIRBY: Look, I don’t – I don’t have anything on these reports that you’re speaking of, and I’m not going to speculate or comment on law enforcement matters one way or the other from this particular podium. I just don’t have anything on that.
QUESTION: Okay. And can you speak a little about this practice of yours where you – the U.S. Government --
MR KIRBY: Well, your question assumes there is such a practice, and I’m not in a position to --
QUESTION: Well, this is not the first case. There has been numerous instances like that.
MR KIRBY: I think your questions are better put to the Justice Department, but I’m certainly unaware of any practice the way you’ve described it.
Yeah, Goyal.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: You must have seen the recent reports, actually a number of reports, by the United Nations that the future of Afghanistan is not really very bright because almost 1,600 innocent civilians have been killed by the Talibans, the violence there and violence continues. And what the report is saying – or United Nations special representative – that the government is not doing enough and the military or the police and some people in the government have corrupt – or corruption is the main cause, and the people of Afghanistan, they don’t have much yet confidence or faith or trust in the government or the military forces. So what – and the Taliban of course keep saying that they are still waiting when the international community or NATO leaves so they can move in. So what – where – what’s the message for the people of Afghanistan? They thought that the U.S. and the international community was there to help them and the future will be bright and they will be free of violence and free of terrorism and Taliban.
MR KIRBY: I don’t think anybody ever said that Afghanistan was going to be free of violence. Nobody’s ever talked about a violence-free Afghanistan. Obviously, what we want to see and what we’ve been working toward for going on 15 years now, or close to it, is an Afghanistan that is secure and stable, a good neighbor in the region, and prosperous. And that remains the goal. But the way that gets done is by healthy, strong institutions inside Afghanistan, to include security forces, which is of course the focus of the Resolute Support Mission right now, is to help Afghan National Security Forces continue their leadership of the security mission inside Afghanistan.
Nobody’s under any illusion of how difficult that’s going to be, and President Ghani – back to institution-building – has been working very hard at this to try to strengthen Afghan institutions for just such an end. And as I said, militarily we are contributing to the NATO mission that’s designed to help Afghan National Security Forces continue to advance, and they are. But I think – and I’m not minimizing at all our condemnation of the continued attacks that we’ve been seeing, certainly in the last week or so. And I think it’s – we ought to be mindful that just this week, Resolute Support – two Resolute service members were killed – two more.
So it’s a work in progress. I think President Ghani would tell you that as well. But it’s work worth doing, and work that we are going to – that we’re going to stay at. It’s just going to continue to take some time.
QUESTION: Some people or experts are asking, are you relying only on between Afghanistan and Pakistan, or also relying on or getting engaged other governments? How much role do you think China will be playing, or India?
MR KIRBY: I think, as I said, we want Afghanistan to be a good neighbor in the region, and they have many neighbors, and China and India are some of them. And India has played a constructive role over the last several years inside Afghanistan, and we would look to other nations like China to do the same. I think everybody in the international community could benefit from an Afghanistan that is secure and stable and prosperous, and I – and our message to the other partners is the same as it’s always been, which is we want to make sure that we’re all pulling on the same oars here to get Afghanistan to that better future.
QUESTION: One more on the region if I may.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: India-Pakistan. Whenever the talks are planned between the two countries or leaders are ready to meet, either at the prime minister level or at the secretary level and all that, there are always tensions between the two countries and people are get scared what they talk about. Now, after the talks failed last week, and some generals in Pakistan – not first time, many times – they have been threatening that Pakistan is ready to use nuclear weapons against India and it would take only 15 minutes to destroy India because we have – we are a nuclear-weapon state. Now, also one of the first – one of the civilian – one of the officials said that it would not take much time to proliferate those weapons, that means to the Taliban and others might get it.
My question is here, that one official said – a general last week, after the talks failed – that they are ready to use now tactical nuclear weapons – tactical – if there is a war; not the nuclear which is maybe against the law or whatever, but they have now tactical nukes to use, and you know because you have come from the military. I don’t know because I’m a civilian person and not very educated on this issue. But that’s what he said, that tactical weapons will be used against India. What the U.S. you think is going to do about this? Because if they are ready to use tactical weapons against India, then that means they can probably to the – to the terrorists also.
MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen those comments, Goyal, so I’d be loath to specifically address them. Obviously, what we want to see are the tensions decrease. And speculation about the potential use of nuclear weapons certainly isn’t doing anything to help decrease tensions, if in fact those comments were made. What Secretary Kerry has said repeatedly is that he wants the two nations to continue to work together with constructive dialogue to resolve their issues. And we understand that there are issues longstanding. But that’s what really needs to happen, is sitting down, dialogue, cooperation, talking through these things, and trying to work through some meaningful solutions.
QUESTION: Still on that --
QUESTION: On Syria.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: We have a story about a British citizen who was a hacker and recruited for the Islamic State who was apparently killed in an airstrike, Junaid Hussain. I’m not going to ask you to talk about the military aspects, but have you had any discussions with your British counterparts about this occurrence?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any discussions with UK counterparts about this issue to read out or to discuss today.
QUESTION: Is it general practice to inform allies when citizens of their country are killed, be they good or bad individuals, in U.S. military operations?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we’re not in a position to confirm these reports about this individual, so I really don’t want to go much further than that.
Separate and distinct, if you’re a terrorist and if you’re threatening our interests, the interests of our allies and partners, you make yourself a target. And as I said the other day talking about ISIL, I mean, this is a career choice with a short shelf life, and you need to realize that if you’re going to take it on.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Syria? First, let me ask you about the UNHCR report last week. They listed the figures and numbers on resettlement and other forms of admission for Syria refugees; it’s in the thousands. It’s in Western society – in Western countries, sorry. But under the United States it says open-ended resettlement. There are no figures. Could you help clarify that? How many have been resettled here or how many are applying? The figures fluctuate between, like, 2,000 to 70,000 applications or something.
MR KIRBY: Well, all I can tell you is there’s about 15,000 refugee referrals in the pipeline from UNHCR. I don’t have more numbers today to provide you, but the United States continues to welcome Syrian refugees, and we have and we’ll continue to do that.
As you might imagine, Syrian refugees, because of the situation there, go through some additional forms of security screening. And again, we continue to look for further enhancements for screening them in that process. The long-term answer there is not refugee resettlement, whether it’s in the United States or elsewhere. It’s in a better Syria where they can live peacefully and prosper.
QUESTION: Now, just to follow up on the Syria issue, could you clarify to us your relationship with Ahrar Al Sham? Are you aiding them? Are you supporting them? And this is a group that is rooted in Islamic fundamentalism. They espouse Sharia law. They never speak of democracy, they never mention the word “democracy.” And the word now is that you are supporting them. Can you confirm that?
MR KIRBY: No, we’re not. I talked about this the other day.
QUESTION: Okay, so --
MR KIRBY: There’s no change to our position on this group that we’re concerned by some of their activities, and there’s no cooperation with them right now.
QUESTION: Okay. So you continue to – not to work with Ahrar Al Sham, much as you will not work with al-Nusrah and the others, correct?
MR KIRBY: We’re – I’m not going to compare apples and apples here. I’m just saying that we aren’t – we are not cooperating with, we are not working with, we are not supporting this particular group.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay, just a quick follow-up if I may. The quick follow-up is that you were aiding and helping during – through your train and equip program what you call the New Syria Force. What is the status of the New Syria Force now?
MR KIRBY: Great question for DOD. I mean, that’s a – it’s a DOD program. Obviously, we’re interested in the success of this program. We believe it is important. It’s an important component of the overall strategy, but it’s being administered by the Department of Defense, and I think that’s a better place to go for details about that.
QUESTION: Is there frustration in this building that DOD’s not enacting the program effectively? I mean, the entire anti-ISIS campaign is being headed by an official in this building who is a former DOD official, as are you. And that’s okay, I’m not trying to go anywhere with that. I’m just saying to just refer it to DOD --
MR KIRBY: Well, thanks for bringing it up.
QUESTION: -- every time we ask, to just say, “Oh, you got to go ask DOD,” and then they don’t say anything, when you’re in a position to – so my question is, is there frustration --
MR KIRBY: Because I used to be a naval officer, I should be – no, look, I mean, it is a DOD-administered program. It is an important part of the strategy. And obviously, Secretary Kerry supports it and wants to see it succeed, as does our colleagues at the Department of Defense. They have been very, I think, candid about the challenges that they’ve experienced here in implementing the program. Even at the time in my former life, we talked about this. We readily acknowledged that it was going to be hard, and it has proven to be hard. And so they’re going to continue to work at this.
I think your point about General Allen, who is, I think, you’re referring to, he’s not – his job is not to run the campaign. His job was to get a coalition formed, established, and functioning, and obviously, we’ve – he’s accomplished that. We have 62-some-odd nations in the coalition, and of course, Turkey has just come in recently, and General Allen and Ambassador McGurk were key figures in working that agreement with the Turkish Government. But the campaign itself is being run by the Defense Department – the military side of the campaign being run by the Defense Department, specifically U.S. Central Command in Tampa.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Has U.S. been in contact with Ahrar Al Sham in the past?
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Been in contact with or had talk with the Ahrar Al Sham officials?
MR KIRBY: I couldn’t tell you whether the – I don't know the whole history here. What I can tell you right now is that we are not communicating, cooperating, or working with this group.
QUESTION: And you are not planning to do in the future, for the future of Syria?
MR KIRBY: I am aware of no plans to change that posture. Their activities continue to be of concern.
QUESTION: I have other questions on Syria.
QUESTION: Still on Ahrar Al Sham.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: When you say you’re concerned about them, are you – is this department examining whether they should be a foreign terrorist organization?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any deliberations on that, Brad. They are not an FTO. But this is something we look at all the time. So I’m not going to rule anything in or out at this point, but I’m not aware --
QUESTION: You don’t know specifically --
MR KIRBY: -- of any specific deliberations on that score. But this is something that we constantly evaluate and look at, and again, I’m not ruling anything in or out.
Yeah.
QUESTION: ISIS militants seized five villages around Syria’s Marea, which is located in this so-called ISIS-free zone. Do you have any reaction to this?
MR KIRBY: We don’t call it an ISIS-free zone. That’s one reaction.
QUESTION: So-called, yeah.
MR KIRBY: And then I haven’t seen the reports that you’re talking about. And again, for assessments on the ground, I’d point you to DOD.
QUESTION: Did you reach an agreement with Turkey about which opposition group on the north – in the north will receive support yet?
MR KIRBY: When you say “yet,” it means that you’re just assuming it’s coming. I – (laughter) --
QUESTION: I assume that.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I know you do. I know you do. Look, I’m not going to get into diplomatic – the specifics of diplomatic conversations that we have and have had with the Turks. We’re grateful, again, for their cooperation and their support to the coalition. We expect them to be flying missions here soon, and we’re going to continue to work with them to get at this very common threat.
QUESTION: John, considering that the bombardment out of Incirlik began on the 5th of August --
MR KIRBY: The bombardment of Incirlik?
QUESTION: Out of, out of. The bombardment out of Incirlik.
MR KIRBY: Oh, “out of.” I thought you said “of.”
QUESTION: No, no, no, out of the Incirlik Air Base began on the 5th of August. It was hailed at the time as – it’s going to make a great deal of difference. Now three weeks since then, what is – has there been any marked difference in, let’s say, with the depletion of ISIS forces?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m really leery to get into battlefield assessments here from this particular podium. I’d point you to DOD for an update on how the campaign is going militarily. But – and I truly don’t have, like, stats and figures of how many strikes have been flown out of Incirlik. I just don’t have that nor would I have that information. But that shouldn’t diminish the importance of the agreement to use Incirlik and our gratitude for that ability, as well as other bases inside Turkey. The proximity to that border area makes the use of Incirlik from a military perspective much more efficient and potentially much more effective.
QUESTION: It gives coalition airplanes more time in Syrian airspace, correct?
MR KIRBY: Well, it gives you – it reduces the time on station, it allows you to stay on station longer. I mean, geography matters in war, absolutely.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Turkey again, still. Your deal with the Turks has come under strong criticism from one of the strong voices in this country. That’s Eric Edelman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. He just wrote this op-ed in The New York Times. He said – he’s questioning the long-term effectiveness of this deal, and he really puts out – I don’t know if you’ve seen his op-ed – a number of arguments why the U.S. should not enter a deal with Turkey over Syria, because he says it’s driven by domestic considerations in Turkey, not – it’s not because the Turks are really interested in going after ISIS.
MR KIRBY: And your question is?
QUESTION: I mean, your reaction. Aren’t you worried about what he’s putting out there, like the --
MR KIRBY: No, no.
QUESTION: The long-term, like, effectiveness of it?
MR KIRBY: No, no, look. I’ve seen Mr. Edelman’s piece, and he’s certainly entitled to his views. We’ve never shied away from the notion that particularly on an issue this important that there should be a multitude of views and opinions. And he has his and he’s obviously entitled and welcome to those.
So I’m not going to get into a rebuttal for every single person that writes an op-ed piece or gives a speech that has a view different than what the State Department does. Secretary Kerry is being clear and we’ve been clear from this podium about the importance of our relationship with Turkey, and just as critically, the importance of their contributions to this effort. And we’ve talked about this every day for the last couple of weeks.
QUESTION: Yes, but that what he says actually makes a lot of sense, to not just him – a lot of the people. For example, you have a --
MR KIRBY: I suspect there will be people that agree with him.
QUESTION: You have a looming civil war in Turkey, and you are saying nothing and you are doing nothing almost about it. You are seeing it as a proportional act of self-defense against a terrorist group, which is not the case. In southeastern Turkey you have young Kurds taking up arms fighting against the Turkish state, and the United States stays silent.
MR KIRBY: To say that we’ve stayed silent on any of this is an affront, and I take great exception to that. We have been exceedingly clear about what the goals are here and about what the coalition is formed to do. We’ve also said with respect to Turkey’s internal political evolution right now that we’re going to – as I said yesterday, we’re going to look and want to work and cooperate with whatever the new government is in Turkey. But those are decisions that the Turkish people have to make, and we’re going to respect that process.
But – and you want to talk about PKK? They have a right to defend themselves against terrorist attacks – as do we, as does any sovereign nation. But to say we’re staying silent or turning a blind eye I think reveals a little bit about where you’re coming from this journalistically. But I’ll tell you from the State Department nothing’s changed about the importance we are giving this fight and the criticality of having a coalition of the willing to go after these guys. And it is a coalition of the willing. And as I’ve said before, every member does what they can – where, when, and how much they can. And we respect that. And they can modify their involvement over time. They can do more, they can do less; and we’re seeing that in various coalition countries.
But that’s the goal. That’s the goal. The goal is about going after ISIL. And when we talk about the agreement with Turkey, whether you agree with it or not, fine. But when we talk about that, it is about helping the coalition do a better job against ISIL.
QUESTION: When I said the U.S. stays silent, just to make that clear, it wasn’t like my view. It is what I wanted to say --
MR KIRBY: It certainly came across as your view.
QUESTION: Yeah, it was – I wanted to say it’s like the view of many people for sure.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Because like --
MR KIRBY: I take it. Got it.
Yes.
QUESTION: Syria via Russia? Special Envoy Michael Ratney is supposed to be in Moscow tomorrow. Do you have any information on that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think I do, actually, have something. Let me keep looking for that because I know it’s in here somewhere, and we’ll go to somebody else.
Goyal, I already got you. I got you already, and I got you, too. How about you?
QUESTION: One on Pakistan. Today was a report has come out from two think tanks about Pakistan nuclear weapons, according to which in a decade Pakistan will have around 350 --
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Today a report came out from two think tanks based in D.C., according to which Pakistan is going to have about 350 nuclear weapons in a decade or so. What do you have to say on this? And I remember a few months ago in the – U.S. and Pakistan had talks on their nuclear weapons in which U.S. said that it is working with Pakistan to mainstream Pakistan’s nuclear ambition with the international community. How you are working with Pakistan on that?
MR KIRBY: On the --
QUESTION: How to bring Pakistan into mainstream international community on nuclear weapons?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have a specific update for you on the – I mean, obviously, these kinds of matters are matters we discuss with Pakistani leaders on a routine basis. But I don’t have specific talks to talk to you about today.
QUESTION: And your comment on the report itself, about Pakistan will be the third-largest nuclear stockpiles after U.S. and Russia in a decade?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we’ve just seen this report and we’re digesting it. I’m not going to have anything substantive to offer on the report’s findings. This is something, obviously, that we continue to focus on, I would say consistent with the President’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Obviously, we continue to urge all nuclear-capable states, including Pakistan, to exercise restraint regarding furthering their nuclear capabilities. But we’re still going through the report. I think --
QUESTION: And --
MR KIRBY: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Now I got on Ratney. I did find it. It’s about how I label this book and where I put stuff that I’m still trying to figure out. So if you could, I’m going to read to you a little bit, if that’s all right, because there’s a lot here. And I don’t like reading to you all, but it’s a fair question.
So, look, as part of the – our ongoing efforts to bring about a sustainable political solution to the Syrian conflict based on Geneva principles, U.S. Special Envoy for Syria Michael Ratney will travel from the 28th – that’s today – to September 2nd to Moscow, Riyadh, and Geneva. Following Secretary Kerry’s recent meetings with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir in Doha and in Kuala Lumpur, Special Envoy Ratney will meet today in Moscow with senior Russian officials and tomorrow in Riyadh with senior Saudi officials to continue discussions about working toward a genuine political solution – a political transition, I’m sorry – and bringing an end to the crisis in Syria. He plans to meet in Geneva with UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura to discuss his ongoing efforts to create conditions for productive negotiations.
Now, if you’re asking who he’s going to meet in Russia, he will meet with the Deputy Foreign Minister Bogdanov and other officials at the Russian foreign ministry and security council.
QUESTION: And their focus is going to be political transition, as you said. And the Russians believe in solution; they want the Syrians to decide. And is that going to be the focus, that gap? Doesn’t that seem to be the main problem, where the Russians want the Syrians to determine their own future and the U.S. sort of has this predetermined outcome, in a way, of – well, you know.
MR KIRBY: Well, we talked about this yesterday, and I’m – I don’t want to re-litigate it all. I don’t want to re-litigate all this. We understand that the Russians have a different view in Syria than we do, frankly, and we’ve said this before: Their support to the Assad regime has been manifestly unhelpful to the crisis in Syria and have only served to embolden Assad to continue the depravations in his own country against his own people. So we obviously have a different view here.
That said, there – we believe, we hope that there is room for cooperation towards a political transition in Syria. What that’s going to look like and how it’s going to manifest itself we just don’t know right now. And as I said yesterday to Lesley’s questions, I mean, these talks, these discussions are just at their beginning, which is why it’s so important that Mr. Ratney is going. And it just started today; let’s see where this goes. We understand there’s a lot of work to do. But we think there’s an opening here for us to continue to work with Russia on a political transition in Syria. And again, what that would look like we just don’t know right now.
QUESTION: Has anything happened recently or since the last time they met that you see – now you see an opening? Why do you see an opening now? What is --
MR KIRBY: I don’t mean I see – I don’t mean that the opening just started today with his trip. I mean, it’s developed over time and certainly was reinforced for the Secretary in Doha when we had this trilateral meeting which the Secretary felt was very constructive and a positive meeting. And we’re just getting started here.
QUESTION: Is he going to be in Moscow tomorrow or today – tonight?
MR KIRBY: I think it’s today.
QUESTION: You said the 28th --
MR KIRBY: He’s – the 28th is – what’s today?
QUESTION: It’s tomorrow.
MR KIRBY: Tomorrow, sorry.
QUESTION: Tomorrow, yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: So he’s not in Moscow today. You said he’s not in Moscow today?
MR KIRBY: The 28th. The 28th, I’m sorry. It’s the 28th.
QUESTION: Can you explain that opening again? The opening is to continue working with Russia on --
MR KIRBY: I mean, we believe, based on the meeting in Doha, that there’s an opening here. There’s an opportunity to begin to work with Russia and with Saudi Arabia on trying to find options for a political transition in Syria. Obviously, that would be UN-led. We’re supporting the UN process, which is why Mr. Ratney’s going to go Geneva. All this needs to be under the UN process, but we do believe that there’s a potential here. I don’t want to overstate it. We know that we’re just at the beginning, and so we’ll see how it goes. And this is something that the Secretary is committed to, and again, that’s why he asked Mr. Ratney to make this trip. And we’ll see what – where it goes from there.
QUESTION: So is there a potential for something different to emerge out of this process than what’s previously been arranged or been attempted in previous U.S.-Russian discussions? Because up to now, those have failed on every level to do anything to stop the violence from --
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, if we didn’t – if we didn’t think there was a chance for something different – that is to say, something successful – we wouldn’t be attempting it.
QUESTION: And what has led you to believe that now something different might emerge in – out of U.S.-Russian discussions on this matter that didn’t emerge out of the countless U.S.-Russian discussions since 2012?
MR KIRBY: That’s hard to – I mean, I wouldn’t try to pinpoint on any one thing. I think it’s a series of factors. Obviously, the crisis shows no signs of abatement; the violence against the Syrian people continues. The regime continues to be – to come under increasing pressure. And then, again, the meeting in Doha, which Secretary Kerry found to be constructive and positive. And so it’s been a series of things over time.
And again, I think it’s important that we focus on what we think we can get done and see where it goes.
QUESTION: Can I just follow on that really quickly? So Russia, Saudi Arabia – can you remind us again why not include the Iranian Government in this conversation, since Bashar Assad – I’m sure it was discussed here yesterday – in his interview with al-Manar, Hizballah TV, basically talked about the steadfast support that he’s confident he’ll continue to receive from both Moscow and Tehran. Why not include the Iranians in this gently growing momentum, if we can call it that?
MR KIRBY: I think where we are right now in the process, the Secretary believes that we’re approaching this from the right perspective, which is to say with Russia and with Saudi Arabia. And again, these are just starting.
QUESTION: So there’s no possibility of including the Iranians?
MR KIRBY: I think we’re focused on what we’re focused on now, which is discussions with the Russians and with the Saudis, obviously, and with the UN. And that’s where are right now, and I’m not going to get ahead of anything one way or the other at this point in time.
QUESTION: At risk of just beating it down and arguing with you here, look – but you’re not saying no. We’re – I mean, we’re open to the possibility --
MR KIRBY: I know what you’d like to do. I’d like – you’d like to pin me down on Iran here.
QUESTION: No, I just want to make sure --
MR KIRBY: There’s no discussions. There’s no – there’s --
QUESTION: -- because you’re introducing a possible gentle development, and I want to make sure that that’s – is that part of it or not?
MR KIRBY: No, I want to be clear. I’m not introducing anything long-term. What I’m saying is the focus right now is on the discussion with Russia and with the Saudis, obviously with the UN and under their auspices, to try to reach a political transition in Syria. Where it goes from now – from here, it’s hard to say.
And I don’t want to overstate things right now. There’s lots of things about Syria with which we disagree with Russia, so there’s a lot of work to be done. I’m not – and I don’t want you to read from what I’m saying that I’m “gently” suggesting there’s a role for Iran in the future. I’m telling you where we are today right now and the importance of Mr. Ratney’s trip and our – and Secretary Kerry’s focus on that. And that’s where we are, and that’s just – that’s where we are. I have to speak factually, and that – and those are the facts.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can we go to Palestine-Israel?
QUESTION: One more question on Iran?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: The Iranian Government today executed Behrouz Alkhani, who is a leading Kurdish activist. Amnesty International calls the process by which he was tried “a denigration of the international and Iranian law.” Have you seen the – that?
MR KIRBY: No, I haven’t seen that report.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Israel-Palestine for a minute? Today an ultra-nationalist settler group overtook a four-story building in the heart of Jerusalem in the Silwan neighborhood. Now, when this was done in the past they never left, so they are taking over a lot of buildings over the years in that very neighborhood, but they never seem to leave. Are you aware and would you call on the Israeli Government to do all it can to vacate the building?
MR KIRBY: Said, I haven’t seen that report. I’m not aware of that, so I just – I haven’t seen it. Is this building in the West Bank?
QUESTION: Yes, in East Jerusalem.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I mean, our --
QUESTION: In occupied East Jerusalem.
MR KIRBY: Our position on settlements hasn’t changed, but I haven’t seen that report.
QUESTION: And let me ask you another question on Congresswoman Betty McCollough – McCollum of Minnesota. She sent a letter to the State Department last week asking that all shipments of arms be stopped to Israel until an investigation is completed in the killing of two Palestinian kids back on May 15th, 2014. The father of one of the children came and met with you guys a couple weeks ago. Do you have anything to share with us on that?
MR KIRBY: No, I don’t.
QUESTION: Could you please find out?
MR KIRBY: I mean, I’ll --
QUESTION: A letter --
MR KIRBY: Well, if we’ve – if we received a letter from a member of Congress, we will, of course, reply and respond in the appropriate fashion, which is to say back to the member of Congress. And we don’t typically read those letters out publicly.
But we’ve obviously expressed our concerns about this particular incident and made very clear where we stood on that kind of violence.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I wanted to shift gears and ask – move to China. China is commemorating the ending of the Second World War on the 3rd of September and is holding a large military parade. And they invited a number of foreign dignitaries to attend those events, including President of the United States. The invitation – well, the President is obviously not going. The U.S. announced, I think, that only U.S. ambassador to Beijing will attend those events.
Are you saying publicly why the decision was made not to – for the President not to travel?
MR KIRBY: We addressed this yesterday, I think, or the day before. Ambassador Baucus is the President’s representative in Beijing, and I know he’s looking forward to attending this commemoration and he is the President’s selection to attend this commemoration. So I don’t really have anything more to add. Every nation invited gets to make a decision about whether they’re going to attend and who’s going to attend, and the United States selected the President’s representative in Beijing, which is Ambassador Baucus.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I just want to check if this – if this is in your folder about the ongoing violence in Nepal. Do you have anything to say?
MR KIRBY: Nepal.
QUESTION: Ah, Nepal. (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: No, no. I think – let me see if I’ve got something on that. This is related to the protest activity, I believe. Yeah.
We’ve seen those reports, obviously. And look, we – our position around the world on peaceful protest and assembly is well known. We obviously don’t want to see any such protest activity turn violent. So certainly concerned by the violence that has been visited on this protest activity, and I think I’d leave it at that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:43 p.m.)
DPB #147
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
