Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 11, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
YEMEN
BURUNDI
VENEZUELA
DEPARTMENT-9/11
SAUDI ARABIA
COUNTERTERRORISM
RUSSIA/SYRIA
SYRIA/IRAQ
INDIA/IRAN
IRAQ
VENEZUELA
COUNTERTERRORISM
CHAD
TURKEY
RUSSIA/SYRIA
SYRIA
VENEZUELA
DEPARTMENT/USUN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:06 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Happy Friday.
MR KIRBY: And to you as well. A couple things at the top, starting with Yemen. The United States welcomes the announcement by the United Nations special envoy for Yemen that the Yemeni Government, the Houthis, and General People&rsINDIA/IRANquo;s Congress will participate in peace talks next week. Yemen's crisis must be solved through peaceful political means. All parties must return to the negotiating table to end the fighting as soon as possible and agree on a path forward that will end the suffering of the Yemeni people. We remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Yemen. We continue to urge all parties to allow for the unimpeded entry and delivery of critically needed relief items to the civilian population nationwide, including food, medicine and fuel.
We also continue to urge all sides to exercise restraint, comply with international humanitarian law, and to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians. We note that King Salman conveyed to President Obama during his visit last week Saudi Arabia's commitment to work with coalition and international partners to allow for unfettered access to assistance, including fuel, to the impacted people of Yemen and to work toward opening Red Sea ports.
On Burundi: The United States condemns the violent attack on Burundian Chief of Defense General Prime Niyongabo on Friday. While the apparent assassination attempt failed, we note that several people were killed. As we've said many times before, Burundi must step back from the path of violence. The only credible route to stability is a regionally mediated and inclusive dialogue that leads to consensus on a peaceful way forward according to the Arusha Agreement.
To Venezuela: I think you may have seen the statement that Secretary Kerry issued just a little bit ago. I want to reiterate that the United States remains deeply troubled by the conviction and sentencing of opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez. The decision by the court raises great concern about the political nature of the judicial process and verdict, and the use of the Venezuelan judicial system to suppress and punish government critics.
I know you've also seen the Secretary's comments and statement about today's anniversary of September 11th, both noting the attacks in 2001 as well as the attacks in Libya three years ago, which was – which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. I'll let you read the Secretary's full statement, but obviously it's a significant day here for our country and for additional reasons, very significant here at the State Department. It's a reminder of how much work remains to be done against terrorist networks, how far we've come, how important it is to continue strong interagency efforts to get at that pervasive threat and challenge around the world.
Lastly, I would like to just – we offer our thoughts and condolences to Saudi Arabia. We've seen the press reports in just the last hour or so about the crane accident in Mecca. And we know it's a fluid situation. We've taken note that upwards of 50 potential casualties here, and we know Saudi authorities are on the scene quickly and efficiently trying to deal with this situation. But again, our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who were injured and their loved ones.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: I am going to defer to Elise, who has to leave.
MR KIRBY: Oh.
QUESTION: Thank you, Matt. Yes.
MR KIRBY: There she is.
QUESTION: I'd like to ask about Warren Weinstein and reports that a drone strike – a drone surveillance found an apparent hostage but kind of dropped their surveillance, didn't make efforts to identify or rescue him.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I've seen the press report, Elise. The first thing I'd say is that our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the Weinstein family as well as the La Porto family for the tragic loss of their loved ones. They're never far from our minds and that is why the President ordered an investigation into this particular strike to try to get at what happened, and if there's any lessons that we can learn going forward to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. That inquiry, as you know, is ongoing so I'm really not at liberty to speak to anything that investigators are finding, and I'm certainly not at liberty to speak to intelligence that led to the strike itself. So I – again, our thoughts and prayers go out and the investigation --
QUESTION: Okay, but what do you say to critics, lawmakers, the family in particular, that say that the U.S. and its surveillance kind of prioritizes finding terrorists and doesn't put a priority on finding hostages. I mean, there was surveillance in an area, someone looked kind of suspicious, and – but there was eventually a drone strike. So why, according to these critics, is the finding of U.S. hostages, identifying them, continued surveillance on the area not a priority?
MR KIRBY: Sure. Well, without speaking to this case, obviously, because it's under investigation, I'll tell you that nobody puts a higher premium on the safety and security of American citizens abroad more than we do, obviously, and – or our citizens abroad than the United States of America does. And that includes those that have been taken hostage by terrorist groups.
Now, it's a difficult thing to gain and to be able to sustain information about their whereabouts, their condition, over any kind of period of time. It's hard. Their captors are often very adept at keeping them hidden, moving them around. They know that we're constantly on the look, and we are, and they often make every effort to try to conceal the whereabouts from us. So it's a difficult thing to get at. Again, I won't speak for this particular case, but I can tell you we never lose sight of them – these hostages. We never stop trying to acquire and sustain information about them and reacquire if we've lost it.
I wouldn't go through many, many examples, but I mean, just look at Bowe Bergdahl, and I understand there's – that was a different situation, an American soldier, but nobody ever lost sight of where he was. And it just changes over time.
That said, we also have a significant responsibility to the American people and to our allies and partners to protect them from a terrorist attack, from terrorist activities. And whenever we conduct a strike from whatever type of platform or whatever – using whatever capabilities against terrorists, it is done carefully and methodically with the best possible intelligence that we can muster. It is not always perfect. Intelligence is never perfect. It's a mosaic and it does change over time, and it can change rapidly over time.
But we do the best we can to not only make sure that we know exactly who we're going after, where and when and how, but that we're going to minimize any civilian casualties or collateral damage, not to mention any harm that could befall American hostages on the site.
QUESTION: Right, but the suggestion here is that you're not following every possible lead to find U.S. hostages as opposed to a particular drone strike, that there was surveillance in an area and you did not follow every possible lead to try and identify who it was. I'm not saying that it was clear that it was him, but --
MR KIRBY: Right. So again, this particular case is under investigation, and we need to let investigators do their job. And if – when they come back with what they found, if they found that there were gaps, if they found that there were mistakes, then we'll deal with that, and we'll learn from that moving forward.
I'd also say that nobody's better at self-assessment and self-correction than the United States Government, and we're pretty open about it and pretty candid about it. When we make mistakes, we admit it, and we move on. So let's let the investigators do their job and then we'll see where that goes.
But I can tell you that every effort is made over time, as best we can, to locate these individuals, to try to know where they are and in what conditions they're being kept, and then if and when appropriate, to take action to try to recover them. And we have done that to some success in other cases. So it's not perfect, we're not perfect – we want to be, and that's why it's so important for this investigation to complete so we can learn from it, so that we can improve our capabilities in that regard.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I go to – are you done?
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Russia and Syria. And I'm wondering if you've seen the comments by Foreign Minister Lavrov, who has spoken twice this week or since the weekend – at least twice, I guess – with Secretary Kerry and his comments today that suggest that Russia would like other countries to join it in sending assistance – military assistance and help – to the Assad regime.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. No, go ahead.
QUESTION: You're familiar with the comments?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the comments. Matt, our position on this hasn't changed from what we talked about yesterday. We continue to believe that there needs to be a political solution to the conflict in Syria, and that support for the Assad regime, particularly in a military way, is unhelpful to achieving that goal, that supports the Assad regime only increases the chances for instability and insecurity inside Syria.
QUESTION: But does Foreign Minister Lavrov – do the comments that he made this morning contradict what your understanding of what the Russian position had been or was, in fact?
MR KIRBY: The understanding that we had about --
QUESTION: If we go back to – well, I mean, we could go back all the way to well before your tenure, the first term of the Administration. In Geneva and the Geneva communique, when the U.S. and Russia came out of there with diametrically opposed understandings of what happened, of what the communique said, and it appeared as of a month or so ago that there was finally – or that you guys thought that there was some common ground evolving --
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm, yes.
QUESTION: The meeting in Doha with the foreign minister and the Saudi foreign minister, and then the Saudi foreign minister's visit to Moscow.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Does this – do comments like the ones that he reported – he was reported to have made this morning change your understanding of what the Russian – what you thought the Russian position was?
MR KIRBY: Well, if the comments are – I mean, I've seen them. If they are taken in the proper context and true, again, that we – they are not consistent with what we believe to be the best path forward to a political transition in Syria, which we've long maintained. That said, Matt, as I said yesterday, we still believe that there is an opportunity here with Russia to pursue a path or multiple paths forward to this political transition. And the dialogue with the Russians will continue about this.
QUESTION: Okay, I understand that you think that if the – if his reported comments are correct that you don't think that that's the best way to get to a political transition. I get that. But do you feel like you have been faced – given these comments today, do you think that you have been or the Secretary was misled or misunderstood the Russian position?
MR KIRBY: I think through multiple conversations that the Secretary has had with Foreign Minister Lavrov – look, they're nothing if not candid with one another. And I'm confident that though there still remains issues we don't agree with the Russians on with respect to Syria, that our view of where we are with them in this discussion and these possibilities remains the same.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: The quote that we've gotten is that Russia called on – to – on Washington to restart direct military-to-military cooperation to avert unintended incidents with Syria. Do you have any idea what that might mean?
MR KIRBY: Not --
QUESTION: In your mind, is that a threat of a sort?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov about what he meant in that regard. Again, support to the Assad regime we still don't find to be the path forward here to a political transition and a solution that's good for all the Syrian people. We've said that. Nothing's changed about our concerns about the support that Russia and Iran continue to provide to Assad. The – as I said yesterday, while in general we would certainly welcome constructive Russian contributions to counter ISIL efforts, we oppose and continue to oppose any actions in Syria that empowers the regime to escalate the conflict. So as for exactly what he meant by that, I think I'd refer you to him and to his spokesman.
QUESTION: If the Russians say that their efforts in Syria is against ISIS and so is the United States-led group that efforts in parts of Syria – if those are the same, can you see any sort of cooperation with the Russians against ISIL?
MR KIRBY: I just said we'd welcome constructive anti-ISIL efforts by Russia, but it can't start with and it can't be a function of continued support to the Assad regime. I said the other day the most productive thing that they can do is to stop aiding the Assad regime.
Yes.
QUESTION: Is it possible there's a misunderstanding between you about whether they're preventing the immediate collapse of the Assad regime rather – and therefore a mismanaged transition, rather than trying to avoid a transition? I've seen comments today from Mr. Brennan that an immediate implosion of the regime would not necessarily assist the transitional process.
MR KIRBY: Well, I would refer you to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Russian authorities about what they think and what they believe the ultimate outcome is of what they're doing there and whether they're concerned about that.
QUESTION: What's the U.S. point of view? Would you welcome – you obviously want to see Assad go as part of a transition. But if he was to fly to Minsk tonight and then his forces collapse in the field, would that be a good outcome?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into hypothetics about the what-ifs. Again, our position is the same: We need a political transition in Syria, a political solution to this conflict; it cannot include Bashar al-Assad going forward. And that's why we continue to engage and will continue to engage with the Russians and the Saudis about this going forward. And the Secretary looks forward to discussions coming up at the UN General Assembly at the end of the month on this exact topic.
QUESTION: Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: There have been several reports that the war with ISIL in Syria is not going well as reported earlier. And the latest ones, the General Chief of Staff Dempsey, he apparently stated that there's a stalemate; ISIL is not losing. Is this the view of the State Department on the current situation on the ground?
MR KIRBY: As you know, I desperately try to avoid, with sometimes minimal success, getting into operational assessments about what's going on on the ground. That said, we believe that there continues to be progress made in this strategy against ISIL in both Iraq and in Syria. We've talked about this many times. They don't have as much overall territory as they had. Cities that they controlled early on a year ago when we started this in Iraq, they no longer control. They've lost leaders and they will continue to lose leaders. They've lost tons, thousands of pieces of equipment, and they will continue to lose equipment and material. And yes, they can – they're able to recruit adherents to their ideology, some of them coming from foreign nations; we know that. And as they enter the battlefield, they become fair targets. And it's a career field, as I said, that has a short shelf life.
We're convinced that the strategy is the right one. We're convinced that over time it will succeed. We've also said very openly and candidly that it's a campaign that's going to have ups and downs. There's going to be tactical victories; there's going to be tactical setbacks. And that's going to be the case in what will be a years-long effort to defeat them.
Two other points that need to be reminded, I think. One, the way to sustain a defeat against them from a military perspective is with indigenous forces, which is why it's so important that as part of our strategy it's to help improve the battlefield capability of Iraqi Security Forces as well as a train and equip program, which we talked about yesterday. Number two, the real long-term answer here is good governance in Syria and in Iraq, and both of those have challenges. Although Prime Minister Abadi has made important reforms, he is moving forward on creating an inclusive, representative government in Iraq. He's reforming the military. Positives steps are being taken. In Syria, obviously – and we've talked about the challenges inside there.
And I know that's not easy to comprehend. You can't put that on a bumper sticker; you can't tweet that out. But that's really the long-term answer here, and that's why it's going to take a while. So this is a determined enemy, but we are equally determined – in fact, I'd say we are more determined – not just the United States, but the 60 members of the coalition – into eventually defeating this group. And we will.
Yes, Goyal.
QUESTION: India. Thank you, sir. My question is that now Iran deal is there and because of the Iran sanctions, a number of countries and including India obliged the United States to cut down the oil and also to put sanctions against Iran. What message you think Secretary has now for – especially now for India? Where is India stands as far as those sanctions, and which because of the cutting down the Iranian oil the Indian economy and the Indians are suffering? And how long this will continue?
MR KIRBY: Well, let's back up a little bit. The sanctions that we're talking about as part of the Iran deal are UN sanctions that were always meant to drive Iran to the negotiating table. So they worked in that regard. There's no new sanctions relief under the JCPOA until Iran has completed the necessary steps that it needs to complete with the IAEA to verify the status of their nuclear program and that it's peaceful. Each nation has, obviously, sovereign rights to impose sanctions on their own. The unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran's nefarious activities will remain in place, and we'll continually review those as we go forward.
So I don't have – it would – wouldn't be appropriate for us to tell India how to work their way through this, but we do believe that the architecture of the Iran deal is truly an international architecture. This was many countries coming together to try to make sure that Iran never possess a nuclear weapon, and the deal does that. And we're grateful for what's happened this week in Congress and the fact that the deal's going to be – it looks like it's going to be moving forward, and pretty soon we're going to have to be – we'll have to turn our task to implementation.
QUESTION: My question was really that because of the pressure on India, I believe, that India was asked to cut down the oil import from Iran because of the --
MR KIRBY: Asked by who?
QUESTION: I believe by the United States. And India obliged and they cut down at least 15 percent of the import Iranian oil to India.
MR KIRBY: I don't know of any request that was made by the United States to ask India to cut its oil from Iran. I'll have to check on that.
QUESTION: Yeah, well, it's part of the sanctions. Numerous countries had to reduce or their – they would face sanctions, et cetera.
MR KIRBY: That's different than saying though that the U.S. specifically asked them to do it though, I think.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: But I take the point. Let me look into it, Goyal. You got me on that one. I don't know.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Samir.
QUESTION: On Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The Government of Iraq is seeking the issuance of international bonds to help its financial difficulties, and a delegation from the government is visiting Europe now to build support for these bonds. Is – what's the U.S. position on this?
MR KIRBY: The U.S. welcomes Iraq's efforts to address fiscal sustainability and broaden its funding resources, including accessing international capital markets.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Pam.
QUESTION: Venezuela. Going back to your opening statement about the conviction of Lopez, I have a follow-up question. The word of this conviction is coming shortly after Secretary Kerry, of course, met with Venezuela's foreign minister on talks that focused on improving ties. What --
MR KIRBY: It was a telephone call. Yeah.
QUESTION: By phone.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What do convictions of human rights activists such as Lopez do to – how do they affect these types of efforts? Do they perhaps muddy the waters between the U.S. and Venezuela?
MR KIRBY: Communication with other countries is fundamental to diplomacy all around the world, Pam. We're not always going to agree on every issue. Diplomatic engagement allows us to discuss those differences directly with governments. We continue to call for the release of those imprisoned because of their political beliefs, and we're going to continue to underscore our commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. As you know, that's not going to stop, and we're pretty open and honest and candid about that. Having the ability to – having diplomatic relations allows you to do that in, perhaps, a more forthright, direct manner.
So obviously, we don't agree with this sentence, and we've stated so. The Secretary himself stated so today. But we're going to – and we're going to continue to make that call. That said, this is a relationship that we are sort of at the beginning of trying to improve, and I think you're going to see those efforts persist as well.
QUESTION: Still on Venezuela.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What would you like to see from this dialogue in the future? I mean, things have not gotten better. There's a conflict, a crisis in the border with Colombia, now this Lopez sentence. What would you like to see going forward in Venezuela?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think we've – we obviously want to see the imprisonment of political prisoners cease. We've talked about that. We've – when he spoke with – when Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister Rodriguez earlier this week, they discussed the situation on Venezuela's border with Colombia and the need for a quick resolution of the dispute there in view of the humanitarian situation.
So there's obviously some issues that we would like to see Venezuela take to lessen tensions, but we also want to see the relationship that we have with Venezuela improve. Just because you disagree on some things doesn't mean that there aren't areas where you can work together on them. And the – and narcotrafficking and transnational crime, and then there's lots of issues that I think we'd share with Venezuela going forward, and we want to sort of focus on those issues as much as possible. But at the same time we're not going to shy away if we have issues and concerns. I mean, we have an obligation to speak up and we'll continue to do that. But again, this is a relationship that matters and one that we want to improve and we're going to keep working at it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Venezuela?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: He says the condemnation – the written condemnation. What else can the U.S. do? I mean, there is some feelings among the opposition that the U.S. really doesn't care that much of what is going on right now in Venezuela.
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't want to get into hypothesizing about tools and options. As you know, we have various across the world – with many different relationships, we have various diplomatic, economic tools at our disposal, but I'm not going to get into hypotheticals here. We're going to continue to work at this relationship which is complicated and it's not always going to be easy. And as I said, there's going to be times when we disagree.
I think the most important thing you can do, particularly when you disagree with a nation that you are trying to improve relations with, is to talk about it openly and freely.
QUESTION: But the foreign minister today, the Venezuelan foreign minister was today in New York talking to Secretary-General of the UN, and she said this is something that relates to the country and is a process, is a – it was done through the legal process and it should be something that is related and only matters to Venezuela.
MR KIRBY: I didn't see those comments. I think the Secretary's statement speaks loud and clear for what we believe about this particular sentence.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, do you think the upcoming – the trial will affect the elections or the way – one of the things U.S. officials have said about Lopez and other political prisoners is that their release is important in this – in these discussions, in this new dialogue that the two countries have begun. So – but you're suggesting that that's not going to really affect, that you'd prefer to continue to talk to resolve those differences. But do you think this will affect at all the election?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, for the mere act of preventing the inclusion of opposition candidates weakens the electoral process and it undermines the principles of pluralism and participatory democracy. So obviously, if you're not allowing opposition parties or members to voice their concerns and to be participants in the process, sure it's going to affect or potentially affect elections.
Yes.
QUESTION: I have a more general question about Islamic extremism. As we commemorate the 14th anniversary of 9/11, what is the U.S. assessment of the state of radical Islam or Islamic extremism? Do you believe it has been weakened as a result of 14 years of U.S. counterterrorism policies?
MR KIRBY: I believe that terrorist networks around the world, while they continue to metastasize and fester and remain a lethal threat, are themselves under threat, increasing threat and pressure, by the international community. I'm not going to give you a scorecard on this, but I think if you look back at 14 years now that we've been at this as aggressively as we have been, there's no question that groups like al-Qaida are weaker than they were at the outset. Their top leadership is pretty much all but gone.
Now, there are splinter groups – ISIL, AQIM, AQAP – I get it; we're focused on them too. But this is an ideology that's a loser and it's going to lose. But as I said earlier, we recognize that it's going to take time and effort and resources and probably result in more bloodshed before it ends. But that doesn't mean that the effort's not worth pursuing and that this isn't – that it's not an enemy worth fighting; it is.
We recognize – and today's a great day to do that – to recognize how far we've come against these groups and yet how far we still have to go, and why it' s important for all of us – the interagency here in the United States as well as the international community – to keep the efforts up. I mean, we talk about ISIL and how determined and resilient they are – and they are – and I get that – and they're adaptive. But so too are we, and you have more than 60 countries involved in these coalition efforts against this one group essentially in two countries, Iraq and Syria. That's not insignificant. I mean, in fact, it's very significant that we've been able to sustain this effort now with more than 60 countries for about a year now with just as much energy. And the contributions of certain members of those – of the coalition continues to improve and increase.
So long-term effort, going to require more diligence and energy and effort, but we believe it's an effort worth pursuing.
QUESTION: On that general theme, are you aware of any embassies – U.S. embassies that are normally open on Friday that are closed today other than, perhaps, the one in Chad, which I see has been closed all week, due to anniversary-related threats?
MR KIRBY: No. And --
QUESTION: So Chad is the only one that's been --
MR KIRBY: Chad is – Chad – the embassy in Chad was closed the latter half of the week, since – for the 9th, 10th, and 11th.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: But not related specifically to a September 11th threat.
QUESTION: But it was also closed on Monday, because that was Labor Day.
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: And I believe it was closed on Tuesday as well, but are you saying no?
MR KIRBY: I'll check the facts here, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I was told 9th, 10th, and 11th, and they've issued --
QUESTION: And the 7th.
MR KIRBY: Well, yeah, but that was a federal holiday.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: But if it didn't reopen, I mean, it's an – if it reopened on Tuesday --
MR KIRBY: I think they issued – Tuesday they issued the notice that they would be closing Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, but I want to remind it wasn't as a result of a 9/11 issue. It was a result of security concerns that they had writ large there in Chad.
QUESTION: So it was not a threat?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that. Security concerns obviously prompted them to close the embassy for the last half of this week, but it wasn't – I can tell – while I can't get into the specifics, I can tell you it was not related to specific September 11th threats.
QUESTION: Okay. Is the embassy in Chad usually open on a Friday, do you know?
MR KIRBY: I don't. I don't.
QUESTION: Or is that part of their weekend?
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: All right. And there are no others? So everyone else that's usually open, that's normally open for business on Fridays, is open?
MR KIRBY: I know of no other embassies around the world that are closed because of terrorist threats or security concerns today.
Yes.
QUESTION: John, I'm not sure if you have this information, but on the travel warnings that you issued last week on Turkey, can you tell us how many families have submitted for their relocation after the travel warning?
MR KIRBY: No, actually, I'm not at liberty to talk about that. We don't discuss the numbers of families that either reside in or take advantage of an authorized departure.
QUESTION: That's not exactly true, because when it was announced last week your colleague at the Pentagon talked about it being about roughly 900 families – on the record, on camera talked about it. And then your colleague here talked about it being about a hundred – on the record, on camera. I had a question, a taken question the other day, asking if any of the State Department community that was eligible for this authorized departure – not even asking for a number or close to a specific number, just if anyone had decided to avail themselves of the authorized departure, and the response came back: "We don't talk about the specifics of authorized departure." Well --
MR KIRBY: But that's what I just said.
QUESTION: -- my question is about – is least – is about as unspecific as possible. Can you --
QUESTION: But that's --
QUESTION: Is it more than zero?
QUESTION: Exactly. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: So wait a second --
QUESTION: I mean, if you don't talk about authorized departures --
MR KIRBY: -- I think my colleague said about a hundred. He didn't say with specificity.
QUESTION: No, he didn't give any exact --
MR KIRBY: So well, my answer is we're not going to get into specific numbers, and my colleague didn't do that any more than I'm willing to do that. And I'm still not going to be at liberty to talk about how many, even roughly, families may or may not have taken avail – advantage of the authorized departure.
QUESTION: I'm not asking for how many. I'm asking if any.
MR KIRBY: Right. My answer is the same. We're not going to talk about --
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I guess we can talk about this later.
QUESTION: And also another question on this issue, on Turkey. One of the cities that included to the warning is Gaziantep, which is a city which is used as a center for the nonlethal assistance provided to the Syrians. I'm wondering if you'll still keep open this office or not.
MR KIRBY: I don't know. You're saying we have an office in --
QUESTION: Can you take this question?
MR KIRBY: What's the name of the town?
QUESTION: Gaziantep.
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: Can you take the question?
MR KIRBY: I'll take the question, Tolga. I just don't know.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, can I follow on on Russia and Syria? Has the coalition, as led from this agency, has it asked Russia to join the coalition formally?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Sorry?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: No. So you've said you'd welcome their cooperation, but you haven't asked them to join the coalition?
MR KIRBY: We would welcome – what I said was we would welcome constructive counter-ISIL activities. I did not – it wasn't an implied invitation to the coalition. But what I also said was support to the Assad regime can't be a factor in those contributions.
QUESTION: Did – you noted Secretary Kerry's relationship with Lavrov. Did Russia forecast or notify the U.S. in any way that they'd be taking these steps to move military assets into Syria? And the Defense Department, Colonel Pat Ryder just a few hours ago actually directed me here when I asked what the details of the communication between the U.S. and Russia are right now in order to prevent – or in order to do de-confliction, in order to prevent the kind of incidents that Lavrov suggested this morning. So not a hypothetical. I'm wondering what the details of communication are between the U.S. and Russia right now in terms of de-confliction.
MR KIRBY: I know of no prior notice that was given to the United States with respect to these additional activities that Russia has taken.
QUESTION: So it was a surprise.
MR KIRBY: I know of no prior notice. And I'm not going to detail diplomatic conversations. I don't ever do that and I'm not going to start today. That said, I think it speaks for itself that Secretary Kerry personally placed calls to Foreign Minister Lavrov twice in the last week, and we'll continue to keep the lines of communication open, as we feel we need to, to gain better clarity. It's – while the intent isn't perfectly clear, our concerns remain valid, and we're going to continue to have these discussions with Russian leaders going forward.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, just to clarify, not to get into the details of the diplomatic conversations, but just in terms of trying to understand the process, the Defense Department said there is no military-military – military-to-military contact between the U.S. and Russian forces and directed me here. So I'm just trying to understand what the process is in terms of communication when there is no military-to-military conflict in order to ensure de-confliction.
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't – again, I don't – I'm not going to speak for DOD. I think – what I think they're referring to is no military-to-military communication with Russian forces or troops in Syria --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- as they conduct counter-ISIL operations in Syria. But obviously, we have routine military-to-military exchanges and dialogue with the – with Russia, just as a matter of course. But I think that's what they were referring to. I – there are many vehicles through which we communicate with Russian leaders about their activities and their intentions, and one of them is direct communication between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov. We also have an embassy there that routinely talks to Russian leaders and officials about all manner of issues, particularly those that are of concern to us.
So we have many vehicles, but I'm – I simply am not able to list for you today every call that's made, every email that is sent, every document that is passed back and forth between our two governments. There is a healthy – not always in concert – but there's a healthy dialogue between our two countries, and that's what you would expect.
QUESTION: Sorry --
QUESTION: Does your response to her first question that you would welcome Russian help against ISIL but not its support for the Assad regime – does that response mean that you would welcome Russian troops parachuting into Raqqa and starting – on their own and just starting to kill ISIS?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speculate about specifics there, Matt, and that's a better question put to DOD and to military members of the coalition.
QUESTION: Well, no, just --
MR KIRBY: What I would say, just broadly speaking – broadly speaking, we would welcome a constructive role by Russia against ISIL. I can't – I couldn't detail for you what that would be because it's not happening, and I wouldn't speculate about what it might look like. As I said, we'd welcome a constructive role here, but it can't start with, it can't be a function of continued support to the Assad regime.
QUESTION: Can you just – sorry, last one, I promise. I just want to clarify one thing you had said earlier in response to Matt that I was trying to understand. It seemed after the Iran agreement was reached that there was sort of a glimmer of hope. The White House seemed to speak to this, that Russia and Iran could be partners and it might be more of an opportunity for a political resolution in Syria. Does the military – the confirmed Russian military presence in Syria to back Assad, in their words, against the – to help in the fight against the Islamic State, does that complicate, does that make it less likely that a political resolution to remove Assad can be reached?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think I've answered this. We still believe there's an opportunity to work with Russia towards a political transition in Syria.
QUESTION: Still an opportunity, but does this complicate that?
MR KIRBY: The – what we said before is the support to the Assad regime – the most productive thing that they – that the Russians can do, if they're serious about assisting in the effort – the international effort against ISIL, the most productive thing they can do right now is to stop aiding and abetting the Assad regime. We've said that before.
So is it helpful? No, it's not helpful. But that doesn't mean that we still don't believe there is an opportunity here to continue a dialogue towards a political transition, and Secretary Kerry has every intention of doing that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: You're welcome.
QUESTION: General --
MR KIRBY: Oh, no, no, I got you before. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Your colleagues over at the White House said today that the international community and other countries need to step up their efforts to support the Syrian refugee crisis. And would you agree with that? Would you be encouraging other countries to step up their --
MR KIRBY: I've said here this week that we want all nations involved and even those who aren't directly involved in the European refugee crisis right now to do what they can.
QUESTION: But my question yesterday was about the Japanese effort and that they're actually backtracking, making it more difficult for Syrian refugees to enter. Would you --
MR KIRBY: My answer will be the exact same as it was yesterday.
QUESTION: Okay. But – so you wouldn't be encouraging Japan at all to --
MR KIRBY: We want every nation, as I said yesterday – we want every nation to do what they can. But these are sovereign decisions they have to make. And as I said before, we're proud of our track record on this issue and the fact that we're going to continue to explore options here in the United States to do more.
Yes.
QUESTION: Still one more question on that.
QUESTION: The BBC – the BBC reported and cited an unnamed official that Washington believes the Islamic State is not only using chemical weapons, but they started producing it. Have you seen this report? And any comment on it?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the report. As you can imagine, I'm not going to try to get into tit for tat with every anonymous official who speaks – clearly isn't speaking for the U.S. Government. So I honestly – as you know, I'm not going to get into intelligence matters. But what I will say is any report of the potential use of or possession of chemical weapons by a group like ISIL is obviously deeply concerning to us. It's the last thing you'd want to see these murderers get their hands on. So we take it all very seriously. I know DOD is looking into some specific claims, but I can't couch any veracity here.
QUESTION: Does it surprise you that they're producing, or is that --
MR KIRBY: Look, I mean --
QUESTION: If they were --
MR KIRBY: -- any allegation that these guys could or would or might get their hands on this material, whether it's manufactured or purchased or theft, is a concern. I'm not going to speak to the veracity of these specific claims by an anonymous official. But just rest assured that the concern remains there, because again, I think we can all agree that this group having the ability to get their hands on that material would obviously be a very bad, very dangerous thing.
Yeah.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). I got a breakdown for the statistics from one of your colleagues here that for the Fiscal Year 2015 about the refugees you settled in the United States. It seems that it's actually – this is the case – Burma and Iraq had more than 10,000 refugees settled in the United States in Fiscal Year 2015. So my question is, this decision by the President to settle at least 10,000 Syrians doesn't seem to be so exceptional. You did that for Iraqis last year, 11 – more than 11,000.
MR KIRBY: What's your question?
QUESTION: My question is, like, why does the President announce this as a – some sort of big news while it was something normal for Iraqis last year, settling 11,000 here?
MR KIRBY: You're asking me why we announced that we're increasing the number. We announced it because we have an obligation to be transparent and open about major policy decisions that we're making in this country, and the President made this decision, and therefore announced it. And it certainly comes in light of the crisis that we're seeing in Europe. I think it would be fair for you to criticize if we made a decision like that and we didn't tell you about it. And look, I'm just – and I'll go back right at this, this idea that it's some sort of paltry decision or it's not enough is just – it's just not conducive with the facts.
This country, the United States, resettles more refugees from around the world by a factor of 40,000 than any other country in the world. And that – we did 70 – we took in 70,000 in 2014. We're on track to hit 70,000 by the end of this month for Fiscal Year '15, and the number will grow next year in '16. I don't know what that is, but it will get bigger, and we will once again lead the world in the resettlement of refugees in this country.
No other country – wait a second, Matt – no other country donates more money to this effort than us; no other country puts as much energy or effort into it than the United States. And I'm not trying to brag here, but this idea that we don't do enough and that we don't care enough is frankly false. And so while you can parse out the numbers, at least 10,000 – and I say at least; the President didn't put a cap on it; he said at least 10,000 – I don't think that's going to be insignificant. And I don't think it's going to be insignificant for the at least 10,000 Syrians that get to come to this country.
So we're going to keep working at this. And there may be more decisions coming down the road. As I said, Secretary Kerry's got a working group stood up here. They met this week. They'll continue to meet to explore other options and things that we can do to try to alleviate the suffering of these people. But we're going to keep at it. And we welcome the efforts by other nations to do as much as they can as well, particularly those that are being affected by it directly.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Are you concerned at all that people are confusing the idea of resettlement with the temporary housing of huge numbers – I mean, people are talking about Germany – 800,000. But those people aren't being resettled in Germany proper. They're just being housed there temporarily --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and will – may be referred to other countries eventually for resettlement.
MR KIRBY: Possibly.
QUESTION: There seems to be a big disconnect going on between what it is you guys announced yesterday and what is happening in Greece and Hungary and that kind of thing right now, which is not resettlement.
MR KIRBY: That's correct. I mean, I can't speak for each nation. Some nations might be considering resettlement as part of their function, so I don't want to impugn any of their intentions or efforts. But largely, what you're seeing Europe with this massive influx is an issue of temporary housing and care while they sort through the issue. And again, most of these people want to go back home, so that's why what's going on in Syria is so important and why we have to work so hard to try to get to a political transition to a government that is responsive and responsible for the safety and security of the Syrian people, and that's going to take some time.
I also want to correct something. Yesterday, I think I said that Germany had agreed to 800,000 over 10 years. I was wrong about that; it is not 800,000 over 10 years. It is 800,000 that they're working – that they've agreed to admit. So I stand corrected on that and I want to make sure that it got that out there.
Sure, yeah. Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: I want to move to another subject.
MR KIRBY: Another subject? Are we going to be still on this?
QUESTION: On Syria. I had a follow-up on Syria issue.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Because in terms of the de-confliction. At the beginning of the airstrikes that you are conducting in Syria, you were notifying the Syrian regime to the representative at UN. Is this the – still the case? Are you still notifying the Syrian regime in terms of the U.S. airstrikes in Syria?
MR KIRBY: You need to talk to DOD about that. There's no – as far as I know, there's no coordination with the air campaign and the Syrian regime, but yes, they have been notified in the past about air activity and advised to stay clear of it.
QUESTION: Is --
MR KIRBY: But I don't know what level of communication continues to take place. You'd have to talk to DOD.
QUESTION: Yeah, you were doing this, actually, notifying – notification issue --
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to DOD.
QUESTION: You are not involved anymore?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to DOD about air coordination over the skies of Syria. That is not a State Department function. That's something you need to talk to the Pentagon about.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I wanted to go back to Venezuela because the foreign minister of Venezuela in Leopoldo Lopez case. She mentioned that – she rejected the press release by Secretary Kerry, said that they don't – they rejected the aggressions and offenses contained in that press release today, and --
MR KIRBY: Did this just happen on your smartphone while we were talking?
QUESTION: Yeah, and I'm looking at her tweeting and she basically says that they believe this and it's intrusion by the United States.
MR KIRBY: I think I'm going to let the Secretary's statement speak for itself. It – it's – I don't think it's insignificant that the Secretary of State himself put this statement out, and I'm going to let the statement speak for itself and our concern.
QUESTION: Still on Venezuela. But I mean, it was short of a condemnation of this trial and its result. Was that an attempt to keep the talks going?
MR KIRBY: No. It was an attempt to state our position about what we believed to be an injustice against Mr. Lopez.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I change it to Cuba one minute?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Sorry. This is on the release of the announcement of the release of 3,000 – over 3,000 prisoners in Cuba ahead of the Pope's visit. Do you have something on that?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that report, so you're going to have to let me get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Abbie.
QUESTION: I know that this has been spoken about generally in this room, but your colleague over at the White House confirmed that the President as well as others in this Administration will no longer be staying at the Waldorf Astoria. Is there a reason why Samantha Power would continue to maintain her residence there? Is there any concern about security with her (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Well, security's always a concern, Abbie, as you know. I don't have anything to announce with respect to Ambassador Power's residence. For the time being, she's at the Waldorf. We constantly review accommodations, especially for our diplomats, and that will continue in this case. I don't have anything to specifically to announce one way or the other with respect to her residence, but I think you can safely assume that we'll continue to look at the suitability of the Waldorf for her, so I think I'd leave it there.
QUESTION: But why was there a decision made not to send a delegation there?
MR KIRBY: You're talking about for the General Assembly? We don't discuss – I never would and not going to start – discuss the factors that go into contractual arrangements that we make with lodging and hotels around the world. I'm not going to start today.
We look forward to the General Assembly. The Secretary's excited about it. We went over the agenda with him today. He's got a very full plate of meetings and conferences and discussions that he's looking forward to getting at. That's the focus, much more than where we're going to be laying our head at night. But again, this is – it's not uncommon for us to constantly review our contractual obligations, particularly when it comes to lodging, and we did that in this case when we made a decision to go with the Palace.
QUESTION: So were you able to find out whether or not this decision to go to the Palace means that U.S. officials are barred from going to the Waldorf at all --
MR KIRBY: No, I don't --
QUESTION: -- or at least for official meetings with other delegations who might be staying there?
MR KIRBY: I don't have an answer for you on that.
QUESTION: But does that --
MR KIRBY: But I'll look into it.
QUESTION: Okay, but --
MR KIRBY: But I'll look.
QUESTION: So I want to make – can I make it two parts? I want to know, one, (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: You can make it three parts, if you'd like.
QUESTION: Okay. And the other one I want to know if it's just like an event at the Waldorf or --
MR KIRBY: Are we writing this down?
QUESTION: -- which is not, I don't know, a dance or something in one of the ballrooms, or a drink in the Bull and Bear, whatever. Is it okay?
MR KIRBY: I'm totally shocked that you know the name of the bar in the Waldorf. (Laughter.) I --
QUESTION: It's a famous bar. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: And yet somehow I think that if it wasn't famous you'd still know.
QUESTION: Probably.
MR KIRBY: I'll – we'll look at it, Matt. We'll look and get --
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I was not able to get you an answer to that --
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MR KIRBY: -- before I came out here today. Okay, everybody. Look, it's three o'clock. Have a great weekend and thanks again. Bye-bye.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:02 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
