Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 14, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
EGYPT
CHINA
RUSSIA/SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION/ISIL
JAPAN
DEPARTMENT
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
UGANDA
DEPARTMENT
NORTH KOREA
UNITED KINGDOM
AUSTRALIA
CHINA
RUSSIA/SYRIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TRANSCRIPT:
2:08 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Just a real quick one at the top here. The United States is deeply concerned by the recent violence and escalating tensions surrounding the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount. We strongly condemn all acts of violence. It is absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve unchanged the historic status quo on the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount in word and in practice.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: I'm sure we'll probably get back to that, but I just want to start real quick in Egypt with this accidental attack – military attack on this picnic – picnickers. I understand there was at least one, maybe two Americans who were wounded in this. Do you --
MR KIRBY: We've seen reports and are – seen reports that potentially a U.S. citizen was injured. Our Embassy in Cairo is making the appropriate inquiries with local police, and of course they're monitoring it. I'm afraid I don't have any more detail than that right now.
QUESTION: So you can't – you cannot confirm that there was an American citizen in --
MR KIRBY: I cannot, no. But we've seen those reports. Obviously, those – we're concerned about that and the embassy's looking into it.
QUESTION: Still on that attack. I understand that Apache helicopters were used – and obviously the U.S. supplied. Do they come with any restrictions on what the Egyptians can use them for?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, the Egyptians have said they're going to investigate this – this tragic accident. And so we need to let the investigation proceed before we jump to any conclusions about exactly what happened and what the circumstance were or what hardware was involved.
Separate and distinct from that, it is commonplace for – in foreign military sales programs to have end-user agreements on the types of equipment that the U.S. military sells or provides to allies and partners. But again, I don't want to get into speculation right now about what happened here, what they used, and exactly what the causes were. We need to let the investigation go.
QUESTION: The Egyptians were suggesting that they were going after ISIL fighters in that part of the western desert. Would the use of Apache helicopters be an acceptable use under the U.S.'s sale of these helicopters to the Egyptian military?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, without getting into the specific circumstances of this incident, the short answer to your question is yes. Apache helicopters are a platform that can be used, could be used, have been used for counterterrorism missions, to include by the United States military. I mean, one of the reasons why the provision of those helicopters went forward was under counterterrorism – for counterterrorism purposes.
QUESTION: Are you able to say whether as the embassy carries out its own investigation into who may have been injured or killed in this incident, whether it has already had any conversations with the Egyptian interior ministry?
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't want to characterize it as an embassy investigation. The Egyptian authorities are investigating what happened. Our embassy staff is reaching out to authorities and inquiring about these reports of a potential U.S. citizen involved. I would not call that an investigation. So just a point of rhetoric there.
And I don't know exactly who they are communicating with in terms of local authorities. I suspect, as is typically the case in something like this, they're reaching out to many levels of the Egyptian Government, but I don't know exactly who.
QUESTION: Are the Egyptians using excessive force? Are they basically using more aggressive force that can spawn more violence than it can stem?
MR KIRBY: Well, Said, I mean, this is under investigation right now. So we need to let the investigation go forward --
QUESTION: They have a track record over the past few weeks that they are using more and more aggressive tactics in the Sinai. Or do you approve that?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to characterize the use of force in every instance here. Again, this is under investigation. We need to let the investigators do their jobs. And then what we've – obviously expect is that when the investigation is complete that the Egyptians will be able to make the results of that, the findings of it, publicly available and speak to what they've learned and what, if anything, needs to be done to prevent something like this from happening again.
So let that process play out. And then I'm not going to – I think it would be premature and speculative now to try to make some connection between this incident and the use of force against terrorists in other places in Egypt there on the Sinai.
QUESTION: If you get word later on today that there was an American or person with dual U.S. citizenship affected by this attack, could we get a readout on that?
MR KIRBY: I don't know, Pam. I mean, as you know, the Privacy Act prohibits in many cases our ability to speak to things like this. So all I can tell you is we've seen the reports; we're looking into them. And I'm not going to – I can't stand here and promise you that I'm going to be able to provide much of a readout.
QUESTION: Well, the Privacy Act doesn't prevent you from confirming that an American citizen was wounded. I'm sorry, it just doesn't. And if the person is dead, if that is the unfortunate case, then the Privacy Act does not apply.
MR KIRBY: Why don't we see where it goes? But I am not going to promise a readout of what we learn.
Yes.
QUESTION: We know Ms. Susan Rice had a frank and open discussion with her counterpart from China last week.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is there any agreement or consensus reached in those meetings, and what are the details in the meetings?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think I'd point you to the readout that the White House put out about the conversation for – I mean, that's, I thought, pretty clear about what was discussed. And again, cyber issues are issues that we don't always agree with the Chinese on. And we know that there's a lot more work to do in that realm. I don't have any specific agreements to discuss today or to read out to you. It was a frank and candid exchange, as they tend to be, on issues related to cyber security. One thing is clear – I think clear coming out of that meeting and clear coming out of every meeting that we have with the Chinese on cyber is that there is a lot more work to be done between both our governments.
Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Change of topics. I just want to go back to this Russian buildup or military assistance to Syria that we have been talking about it over the last few days. The Russian foreign minister said that they will continue this military aid to Syria, and I'm just wondering if the intention as you kept calling them has been clear by today. Do you know what the Russians are doing in Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly have seen the comments by the Russian officials, to include Foreign Minister Lavrov, over the weekend. We have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he's saying in terms of the acknowledgment that they are continuing to provide military support and equipment. So that – I think we're taking on face value their claims about what they're doing. The ultimate intent and goal I think still is a little uncertain. You heard the President talk about this on Friday. It – in his view, that it appears as if the regime has asked for Russian support. And – but nothing has changed about where we are on this. That while we would welcome – and I said this last week – a constructive Russian role in countering ISIL, it can't include direct support to the Assad regime and to supporting the regime's ability to continue to visit violence on their own people, which we continue to maintain as a big factor in why ISIL has been able to grow and fester inside Syria.
So our position hasn't changed on this.
QUESTION: But the Pentagon – sorry, just a few questions. When the Pentagon were confirming that actually they have seen Russian transport planes, I think they confirmed the number – I think seven or nine that were there. So, I mean, the intention is to build some kind of a military base there. So do you believe that this is to fight ISIS and it's not really directly to aid the Russian regime – the Syrian regime? And isn't this a kind of defiance to your warning? Because the President has been talking about it, you have been talking about it, and yet they continue to do it.
MR KIRBY: Look, I would point you to the Pentagon to speak for what assessments they've made or not. As you know, I don't get into operational assessments.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Now hang on just a second, just let me finish.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: So as for their intent, these are questions that should be posed to Moscow, exactly what their goal here is in the long run. It certainly appears as though they are continuing to support, and perhaps even with additional assets, the Assad regime. And again, you heard the President speak about this on Friday. In fact, the President went so far as to say that if that's true, it's a mistake and it's a strategy doomed to fail. What we would like to see is movement towards a political transition in Syria, and as I said last week, we still believe there's an opportunity to pursue that kind of transition in concert with Russian authorities.
What will make it incredibly difficult to get there is continued support for the Assad regime from a military perspective. So should there be some opportunity for Russia to be constructive against ISIL in the country – against ISIL in the country, which is what the coalition is doing – then we'd be open to having that conversation, but it can't start with open and continued aiding and abetting of the Assad regime.
QUESTION: But – okay.
QUESTION: All right. What – sorry, one last thing on that as well. Both Bulgaria and Greece, as you know, they have banned their airspace from being used by the Russian planes, but now you have Iraq and Iran openly saying they will do that. I guess an official spoke today, Iraqi Government, on the 5th of September. Can you update us on any response from Baghdad whether they would be able to monitor these planes, to stop them, to make sure they're carrying only humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, or what exactly they doing with that?
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, we don't detail the diplomatic conversations that we have. I'm not going to start doing that today. What I'd go back to is that – what I said before, that we continue to ask our friends in the region to pose tough questions of the Russians about what they're doing. We obviously don't want to see continued support for the Assad regime, but beyond that I just won't get into details.
QUESTION: But if you assign the top urgency or the top priority to fighting ISIS, and in fact that is the top priority of the Syrian regime, why not coalesce for the time being in the fight against one enemy?
MR KIRBY: Said --
QUESTION: I mean, I'm trying to make logic out of this.
MR KIRBY: Said, we've talked about this a lot.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: The Assad regime cannot be a part of the solution against ISIL.
QUESTION: What is the logic – yeah. Uh-huh.
MR KIRBY: The Assad regime is a big factor why ISIL is even in their country and has been given the opportunities that they've been given. This is a man who barrel bombs his own people, for crying out loud. So there's not going to be any solution against ISIL that would involve assisting, aiding, cooperating with, communicating with Bashar al-Assad. It's not going to happen. It can't happen.
QUESTION: But most reports suggest that most of his energies or the army's energies is actually spent in the fight against ISIS. So first of all, can you confirm that? And second, if that is the case, why not at least for the time being perhaps allow aid and so on, so you can defeat ISIS on the ground? I mean, those are the only real ground forces in Syria that are fighting ISIS.
MR KIRBY: Well, that's not correct. There are other ground forces in Syria that are fighting ISIL. I'm not going to speak for the Syrian army and to what degree they're spending their time on ISIL or opposition groups. That's for them to speak to. I don't talk about our military; I'm not going to talk about their military. But again, we're not – there's not going to be any cooperation. To the degree they see ISIL as a threat, again, they can speak to that. That's their issue. Our issue is on using the coalition and the assets we have to defeat them with a combination of airstrikes and as well as trying to support competent, capable ground forces inside Syria. And there have been some that are not – in fact, the most success that's been had against ISIL on the ground have been by other forces, not the Syrian army.
QUESTION: My last question on General Allen. It's been a year since he was assigned his assignment. Yesterday, as a matter of fact, marked the one-year anniversary.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could you give – tell us what has happened in that year in terms of the fight against ISIS?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the general spoke to this a little bit in some interviews last week. You're right; he has been on the job a year. And a year ago we didn't have a coalition of 60-some-odd nations. A year ago ISIL was still running pretty well rampant and free over Iraq and Syria. They are not now. A year ago places like Baghdad were under threat. You might remember we were talking a year ago – I know I was – about the threat to Baghdad. Baghdad is not now under any serious threat by ISIL. And a year ago you didn't have the kind of command and control and coordination capabilities that we have particularly in Iraq, which is multilateral in scope and quite effective.
So a year ago they had thousands more pieces of military equipment. You were seeing CNN footage of driving around doing wheelies in tracked vehicles. You're not seeing that footage anymore; and if you are, it's because it's old stuff. They're not driving around like that anymore. They have taken to hiding in amongst the population. They aren't moving in big formations the way they were. They aren't as free to sustain themselves as they were before. And a year ago they had pretty much all their leadership intact. They can't say that anymore either.
Now, we've talked about this before. Nobody is saying they're down and out. We all recognize this is a long fight. That's why standing up this coalition was so important and why General Allen's leadership has been so critical in that regard. I'd also say – speaking of General Allen's accomplishments – look at what Turkey is now contributing to the effort, which a year ago they were not. And General Allen deserves a lot of credit for helping work through issues with Turkey to get them to the point where they are right now. And they are – they always were or were at the outset a member of the coalition, but they are certainly contributing in ways now that they weren't before.
And so a lot has changed. Nobody's taking it for granted. Nobody's saying there isn't more fighting to do. Nobody's saying that there aren't going to be tactical victories and that ISIL is going to continue to see some success here. But we are in a vastly different place now a year later than we were at the outset.
QUESTION: John, can I ask you: Since you repeated the President's comments, I assume you agree with him, yes?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: That the strategy by Russia is a mistake --
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- and doomed to fail?
MR KIRBY: Of course.
QUESTION: What's the – how do you back that up that it's doomed to fail? I mean, this is the same Administration that has been saying Assad's days are numbered for roughly the past 1,400 days.
MR KIRBY: I think --
QUESTION: Why should anyone take that seriously, and why do you think it's doomed to fail?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, Bashar al-Assad is --
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, his days are numbered in the fact that he is a mortal human being and will die eventually of – for whatever, but I mean, the suggestion his days are numbered suggests that he's going to be out of – at least out of power quickly. And it's been four years since that was first said.
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: So I'm wondering why it is you think that the Russian strategy is doomed to fail.
MR KIRBY: A strategy that's based on trying to bolster him and his capability to continue to barrel bomb his own people and to visit violence in his own country, under the guise of perhaps trying to help him fight terrorists, is doomed to fail because the Assad regime is never going to have a credible capability against a group like that given their other activities. And I don't know how many more days --
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: But we know – we know and the Russians have indicated that they know that there has to be a political transition away from Assad in Syria. So just by dint of that – their own acknowledgment that a political transition is necessary – I think one can conclude that the way to get there – at least we conclude the way to get there is not by propping him up militarily and giving him more firepower.
QUESTION: All right. But I don't understand how you can say that you know that the Russians know that there has to be a transition and then accuse of them of plotting a – a strategy that's doomed to fail by --
MR KIRBY: Well, they've said themselves --
QUESTION: -- supporting the guy who you think they see needs to go.
MR KIRBY: Well, let me put it this way: If you believe that a political transition is necessary away from Assad – and the Russians have indicated in talks with us that they agree that there needs to be a political transition, and that's what – again, we still think there's an open opportunity to – if you do believe that, then what would be the logic of propping that same dictator up with military support?
QUESTION: Exactly. What would be the logic?
MR KIRBY: Exactly. So – so it's – so --
QUESTION: So the Russians are just stupid and illogical, or --
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that.
QUESTION: -- they're not – or they're not doing what you think that they're doing.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we don't have perfect visibility on exactly what they are doing or what they intend to do. We are taking what they said over the weekend at face value.
QUESTION: But you don't think there's any way that this buildup that they have could be – to be somehow in aid of a political transition?
MR KIRBY: It boggles the mind to see how militarily supporting with additional assets Bashar al-Assad is going to help lead towards a political transition.
QUESTION: So basically what you're saying is the Russian – what the Russians are doing makes no sense. Well, it makes sense to them, because they're doing it, right?
MR KIRBY: Well, you'd have to ask them why it makes sense to them. But again, that's what the President said. He believes it's a mistake. We obviously concur with that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: You want Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah, Russia-Syria. Do you think this military buildup – would it be fair to say that this is the largest projection of Russian military strength since the fall of the Soviet Union?
MR KIRBY: I'm not an expert on Russian military deployments. You'd have to talk to Moscow about the scale and scope of it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Ukraine.
QUESTION: And Georgia. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I'm just not – I'm not equipped to answer that question.
QUESTION: Is the full scope of what they're trying to accomplish in Syria with their stepped-up military presence clear at all to U.S. policy makers?
MR KIRBY: Is it clear? No. I mean, last week we were talking about the uncertainty here. Now, again, over the weekend we've seen on-the-record comments by Foreign Minister Lavrov and other Russian officials which certainly does add some clarity to what at least they believe they're doing. Clearly, they are providing more assistance from a military perspective. That's obvious. But the ultimate goal, the ultimate intent here, I think there's still a degree of opaqueness about that.
QUESTION: When was the last time that U.S. officials spoke to anyone in the Syrian Government? I know we don't have ambassadors in either capital, but we still technically have diplomatic relations.
MR KIRBY: I don't know, Ros. I have no idea.
QUESTION: John, can I follow up on this? So the Pentagon's saying that what Moscow is doing – I mean, analyzing from a military perspective – is that it suggests plans to establish a forward air operating base.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is that in any way threatening? I mean, you've just come back from – you've just come out of the Pentagon. Is that a threatening pose?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not in a position to clarify or to characterize the Pentagon's assessments of what they're doing, so --
QUESTION: Would you agree with them, though?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would – I'd go so far as to say we continue to see activities that certainly indicate increased support from a military perspective to the Assad regime, which, again, we do not find in keeping with movements toward an ultimate political transition. So I'm not going to – I'm not in a position to clarify that assessment, and I wouldn't talk about intelligence matters one way or the other.
QUESTION: So – well, then can I ask you from a diplomatic side on – so what would a big Russian intervention like this in Syria mean? Could it – can it change anything for the war, what's happening on the ground, if the Russians had to intervene like this?
MR KIRBY: It's a great hypothetical, Lesley, that I'm ill-prepared to answer. And you know I try to stick – stay away from operational matters on the ground. I'll just go back to what I said before that we – while we would welcome a constructive role by Russia when it comes to counter-ISIL and solely counter-ISIL operations, that can't come at the cost of or to the benefit of further bolstering and supporting the Assad regime.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the questioning on Russian logic? You said they've indicated that they would support a transition away from Assad. They have never said publicly that they support a transition away from Assad. Isn't that correct?
MR KIRBY: I don't know that that's correct, Brad, but if you look at our readout from the Doha meeting, it was – I – we made it very clear that as a result of that meeting, we – all the three ministers agreed that a political transition in Syria was appropriate and that it would have to include the opposition groups.
QUESTION: Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean a transition away from Assad. And if you say it doesn't make any sense to do this military buildup in connection with transitioning away from Assad, doesn't it in fact confirm to you that they have no interest in a political transition away from Assad?
MR KIRBY: You would have to ask them what their ultimate intent here is.
QUESTION: Well, I only ask because you keep mentioning how they've indicated something that they've never indicated to anyone, at least publicly, and even privately.
MR KIRBY: They have indicated support for a political transition. We still think there is a --
QUESTION: Right. I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- I know you're getting me on the word "away from Assad." I get that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: That's our position, away from Assad. I understand the rhetorical loop you're in here, okay. But they've indicated interest in a political transition; we obviously want to see that happen. It's hard to understand how that happens effectively when the Assad regime is continuing to get military support --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- to sustain its ability --
QUESTION: Well, then maybe they don't want a transition. I mean, their actions speak louder than words, right? So if --
MR KIRBY: That's a great question for Moscow.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: You have this --
MR KIRBY: That's a great question for Moscow.
QUESTION: And you have this current dialogue, or tri-alogue, or whatever you're having with the Saudis and the Russians and other partners. What does it say about the effectiveness of this when you've talked about a new opportunity when they are doing the exact same thing, again, that they've done previously, which is support in military and political terms the Assad government?
MR KIRBY: I would just go back to what I said before, and that's that we continue to believe an opportunity is there and we want to continue to work on that in dialogue with Russia and Saudi Arabia in particular. These activities are unhelpful to progress on that score. There's no question about that. But it doesn't mean that we're giving up on the opportunity to continue to pursue a political transition, because that's what we believe the right answer is for the Syrian people.
QUESTION: John, did you see any action from Russia in Syria to fight ISIL?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to speak for other nations and other militaries. I believe they – I can't speak for the Russians; I believe the Syrians have talked about activity they've taken against ISIL, but you got to talk to them. Our focus is on the 62 nations and the coalition that are fighting ISIL inside Syria.
QUESTION: And will this military buildup complicate the coalition work in Syria?
MR KIRBY: That – it's going to depend on what the activity actually lends itself to. I can't speak to that yet. Has there been – let me ask – I'll put it to you this way: Has there been an effect on counter-ISIL operations inside Syria as a result of these activities? No, not as of today.
QUESTION: Last question for me. The opposition has made the progress on the ground in Latakia, and the – a senior Syrian opposition figure has said that the United States is against targeting Latakia because it could spark revenge attacks by Alawites against its majority-Sunni population and add to an already huge refugee problem. Is this accurate?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to the Pentagon. I don't talk about the air campaign.
QUESTION: The Secretary spoke twice to Foreign Minister Lavrov in the past week. Has he spoken to him in the past three days? Does he plan to speak to him today or tomorrow?
MR KIRBY: I have no additional conversations to read out since the one I did last week. And --
QUESTION: Does he have any planned?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get ahead of the Secretary's schedule. But as we have in the past, if and when he speaks – and of course he'll speak to Minister Lavrov in the future; they speak quite frequently – when he does, we'll let you know. But I don't have anything to read out today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday Foreign Minister Lavrov said – based on the actions of the U.S.-led coalition, he said, "one cannot but suspect" that "they have ulterior motives," and he claimed that colleagues among the coalition members told Russia that sometimes the U.S. told them to hold off on strikes when certain IS regiments were stationed. Basically, there was Islamic State targets and the U.S. told them to hold back. And the insinuation there is probably because it could've hurt Syrian forces. So what do you think about his theory, his strategy, based on what Russia says they've seen on the ground?
MR KIRBY: I have not seen those comments. I have seen no indication ever that we've shied away from hitting ISIL targets where and when we can, certainly with a mind to civilian casualties and collateral damage, obviously. But for more details on strikes, you'd have to talk to the Pentagon.
Yes.
QUESTION: Different topics?
MR KIRBY: Sorry?
QUESTION: Different topics?
MR KIRBY: Sure, yeah.
QUESTION: On the Futenma relocation issues. Okinawa governor said Monday that he was preparing to revoke the approval for work needed to relocate the U.S. military air base from Okinawa to other. He also say he will take all possible measure to block basic constructions in Henoko, and this is a first step. And he is indicating to he is set for a legal battle with the Japanese central government. So the Futenma issue is a drag on the interests now. So how does the U.S. Government think of that? Do you have any plan to change it to the other option?
MR KIRBY: We're confident and remain confident that both sides – the U.S. and Japan – remain committed to implementing the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to Camp Schwab. We're very confident in that based on the discussions that we continue to have with the Japanese Government, and we remain and we'll stay in close communication with officials from the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Major of the Okinawa residents oppose to the new air base constructing in the Henoko, so what can we do in the United States?
MR KIRBY: What? I'm sorry --
QUESTION: Major of the Okinawa residents --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- they oppose to the constructing the new air base in Henoko, so what can we do in the United States?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we are working with Tokyo, with the Government of Japan. Both sides, as I said before, remain committed to this relocation. It's important, we both believe, for the health of the alliance, and we're continuing to remain in close coordination with them moving forward. And I'm confident that that process will continue.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about Clinton emails?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: There was a release today by Judicial Watch from its lawsuit, and it cited several email gaps it claims existed in the former secretary's list of ledger – full ledger of work-related correspondence.
MR KIRBY: Yep, seen the press report, Brad. We're not aware of any gaps in the Clinton emails set with the exception of the first few months of her tenure when Secretary Clinton used a different email account that she has already advised she no longer has access to. And as I understand it, Secretary Clinton's representatives have publicly stated that she used a separate email account in those first few months of her tenure. But beyond that, there's no gap that we have seen or are aware of in Secretary Clinton's email messages.
QUESTION: In that early part, you mentioned there was a gap of, I think, one month before – from the first received email to the first sent email. Now, I realize it's fully possible she didn't send an email that was work-related in that first month – that first month when she had that account, but is that your understanding or is that still an incomplete – you're still fully researching all of those emails or unearthing them?
MR KIRBY: I know of no research attempt to deal with those first few months, Brad, because, as I said, former Secretary Clinton's representatives already indicated that they were aware this gap existed and that she had – no longer had access to them. So it's difficult if not impossible to do any particular research or forensics to get at those first few months. And as for how many were sent and received in that timeframe, I just don't know. But this is not something that hasn't been addressed before by her representatives. And beyond that first couple of months, those first four months, we have seen no gaps.
QUESTION: And in the last part of – in the last part of her tenure, there was what they cited was another gap in January 2013, which I'm guessing you're saying is not a gap, in fact.
MR KIRBY: That's correct.
QUESTION: Can you – they produced an email which showed an official saying there's a gap or listing it as a gap. Do you understand what happened? Were those emails then later recovered or found?
MR KIRBY: Right. So we continue to maintain there's no gap. I think you're talking about this period of December 2012 through the end of January 2013.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And upon further review – so originally when they all came in, a cursory sort of preliminary look, a very quick look at the documents by an official here at the State Department revealed a potential gap of about a month or so in emails. But in going through them in a more fulsome manner after that, we've determined that in fact, there was no gap – that that time period is covered quite well by the emails that have been provided.
QUESTION: So you have emails from that period and --
MR KIRBY: We do.
QUESTION: -- when you get to that point, they'll be public.
MR KIRBY: We do, and I think you will continue to see – and we've been roughly rolling these out – roughly temporally and you will see – as we get to the remainder of the tranches, that you will see emails that were sent and received during that December '12 to January '13 timeframe.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the top where you started?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Can we change topics? Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: You began by saying that you don't want to see any changes in the Al-Haram Sharif – or al-Aqsa Mosque, or the Dome of the Rock --
MR KIRBY: The status quo, right.
QUESTION: You're in the status quo; you don't want to see any changes. So that means it should remain under exclusive Muslim authority?
MR KIRBY: We don't want to see any changes to the status quo.
QUESTION: You don't want to see any – okay. And my second question is regarding the Dawabsha family. Now I know that last week, you designated three Hamas operatives on the terror list. Now would you also list the settler terrorists on your terror watch list once they are known to you?
MR KIRBY: Will I – say that again?
QUESTION: I mean, those who have allegedly committed the crime against the Dawabsha family in Duma in July, the end of July, once they are known – because the Government of Israel says we know who they are; we just can't bring them – we can't bring charges against them because that will compromise their intelligence sources. If they have – if they become known to you, will you also list them on the terror watch list or on the terror list, whatever you call it – the terror designated list?
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I'm simply not prepared to make a judgment on that today, Said. What we want to see is the perpetrators of the attack brought to justice, we want to see the Israeli investigation proceed, and to get to results as quickly as possible. But beyond that, I'm not going to speculate.
QUESTION: And lastly, yesterday also is another auspicious anniversary. It was the 22nd anniversary of the Oslo agreement. Do you believe that 22 years since Oslo with no state in sight, the time has come to discard this process, that it has really shown no viability whatsoever?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you, Said, is that Secretary Kerry is committed to pursuing a two-state solution, and I think you're going to see him continue to do that throughout his tenure here at the department. I don't think anybody's – certainly not here – willing to give up on that ultimate goal.
Yeah.
QUESTION: One more --
MR KIRBY: Actually, let me get to this guy. I got you before, yeah.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: Uganda?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Have you seen reports that the Ugandan president over the weekend during a trip to Japan said that the anti-homosexuality act that he himself signed back last year is not necessary, and if you have seen those reports, any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: What I will tell you is we place great importance on the protection and promotion of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons around the world. No one should face violence or discrimination for who they are or whom they love. Human rights, as you know, remain, in our view, universal rights. So we've seen the comments, and obviously deeply concerned by that.
QUESTION: As a follow-up to that, the comments that Museveni made, would that have any impact on the U.S. potentially restoring some of the aid that was cut to Kampala after signing that law last year?
MR KIRBY: I know of no decisions at this time, but obviously, we take human rights very, very seriously, and we're not afraid to make that case known around the world. But I know of no decisions made now to deal with this particular law with respect to aid and assistance. It's something we're constantly evaluating, constantly looking at – we have lots of tools at our disposal – but no decisions to announce today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: One more on Clinton emails. The company that managed that server recently said that – there's reports that they said that there's no knowledge of that server being wiped, meaning that there are indications that there could be tens of thousands of emails that she thought were deleted that are not. Do you know that to be the case or not?
MR KIRBY: I do not.
QUESTION: Are you guys investigating that in any way? Would you – if those emails are recoverable, would you be going through those as well?
MR KIRBY: That wouldn't be a State Department function.
QUESTION: Because they're private or --
MR KIRBY: It wouldn't be a State Department function to do that. There are reviews and investigations going on, as you know, into the email arrangement, but our focus here at the State Department is making public the 33,000 emails – actually, I guess there's more like 26,000 left to go over the next several months. That's our focus.
QUESTION: And these wouldn't fall into that if they – all of the sudden we found out there were 30,000 more?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get into a hypothetical about what may or not be on the server. As you know, that server has been turned over and that is – all that is under review and investigation, and I'm simply not going to comment on that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR KIRBY: North Korea?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Several hours ago, North Korea issued a statement strongly suggesting that they can launch a long-range rocket around next month's ruling party anniversary. Are you aware of this?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we've seen the statement. I'm not going to speculate on the timing of it or any possible provocative actions by the DPRK.
QUESTION: Have you seen any things that – at North Korea's rocket launch sites that you had not seen before and caused you some kind of concern that they are preparing to launch a rocket?
MR KIRBY: I think you know I'm not going to get into intelligence matters here.
QUESTION: North Korea – my last question is North Korea also said in today's statement that it has the right to launch a long-range rocket for peaceful purposes. Do you have anything --
MR KIRBY: There are multiple UN Security Council resolutions that require North Korea to suspend all activities related to their ballistic missile program and re-establish a moratorium on missile launches, stop conducting any launches using ballistic missile technology, and abandon its ballistic missile program in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. So any satellite launch using ballistic missile technology would be a clear violation of those resolutions.
QUESTION: The United Kingdom?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just the main opposition party in that kingdom has just elected a new leader, and they – some of his past statements may be of concern to U.S. policy. He has been in the past in favor of leaving NATO. He has expressed dismay that Usama bin Ladin was killed in an extrajudicial fashion, and he has – obviously, he's an opposition leader, but he's one of the most powerful people in the UK right now. He has a history of statements that go counter to current U.S. policy. He's described himself as a friend of Hamas and of Hizballah, two groups that you regard as proscribed terrorist organizations. Do you have any comment and any plans for U.S. officials to meet Mr. Corbyn?
MR KIRBY: I know of no plans right now for a meeting, but obviously, we're talking about a relationship with a country which is exceedingly close – a very special relationship between the United States and the UK, and I suspect that in every way that relationship is going to continue very, very strong. So we don't comment on internal political matters, but I can assure you that regardless of the leadership changes in the UK Government, that we're going to continue to hold Great Britain in – just as close as we always have.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just on Australia. The – what's your response to the change of leadership in Australia overnight that's seen Malcolm Turnbull be appointed prime minister?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'd say almost a similar answer to that. I mean, we congratulate him, but – and look forward to working with him going forward. Again, this is a nation with whom we have a very, very close relationship and cooperate along a range of security issues around the world. So we look forward to continuing that relationship and to continuing to work with that government.
QUESTION: What impact do you think his appointment could have on Australia's cooperation with the U.S. in Syria against ISIL, and also on potential resolution on climate change policy in Paris at the end of the year?
MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn't speculate from here. I mean, those are questions that should be posed to him and to the government there. Obviously, we value the very close working relationship we have with Australia across a range of issues. You mentioned a few: climate and the ongoing crisis of conflict against ISIL. And we look forward to continuing to work with Australia on those and so many other international security issues around the world.
QUESTION: He has in the past expressed more favorable views towards some resolution on a climate change policy going forward that's in line with the U.S. and China. Does that fill you with any positivity compared to his predecessor?
MR KIRBY: I think Secretary Kerry's been very clear about the real challenges posed to the global community by climate change. We were just up in Alaska with the President dealing with the issues up there in the Arctic. He's been very clear about how this is not just a national security interest for the United States, but for nations around the world. Again, I won't speak to or comment on positions taken by other foreign leaders; that would be inappropriate. But our position on climate change has not changed. And again, the Secretary is very emphatic about the importance of this issue and he looks forward to working with the prime minister going forward on this, and again, so many other issues.
Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. I already got you, I think. Right? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Go back to U.S.-China cybersecurity issue for President Xi's upcoming state visit, which is going to happen very soon. What progress could be expected between the two countries?
MR KIRBY: I don't want to get ahead of the agenda, and this is a head-of-state visit so I'd point you to the White House to speak more specifically. But broadly speaking, Secretary Kerry is very much looking forward to President Xi's visit, and there will be time for him to engage with the president during the visit.
There are – this is a very important relationship, not just in the Asia Pacific region but in the world, and we've consistently said that we welcome the rise of a peaceful, prosperous China. And there are many opportunities and many issues – climate change being one of them – where there's opportunity for further cooperation and dialogue and progress. And I suspect that you'll see a lot of time spent during this visit on those kinds of issues where we can work together, where we can – where there's common cause and common opportunity.
There are also issues that we don't always agree with China on. We talked about cyber earlier. And I suspect that we'll – that there'll be avenues to talk about some of those in the hopes that common ground can be found and move forward. So I think it'll be – as it typically is when we engage with China in a bilateral way, there's a wide scope of issues that matter to both of our nations that we're going to spend some time on. And again, Secretary Kerry very much looks forward to the visit.
QUESTION: Is there any, like, new ground can be broken during this visit for U.S. and China to cooperate?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of what's on the agenda. We're very much looking forward to this. There's lots of areas inside the relationship that we believe we can continue to make progress on, and I think we look forward to that.
Yes, in the back there.
QUESTION: Yes. Going back to Russia and Syria, are you planning to by – in any way like to stop Russia from providing Syria with weapons, and like sanctions or international pressure?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any – I don't have any decisions to announce here. I think we've made it very clear and I've talked about it a lot just earlier today about our concerns about continued support for the Assad regime.
QUESTION: Have you talked to your European partners about your concerns?
MR KIRBY: About our concerns about what Russia is doing in Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah --
MR KIRBY: As I said earlier, we have talked to our friends and partners in the region, some in Europe, about our concerns, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask one more question about al-Aqsa or the Haram Sharif attack? So the Jewish settler – there has been a report that Jewish settlers participate in this attack that happened today in al Aqsa. And I just want to know – I mean, this – last time they burned, like, a child. A bunch of Jewish settlers, like, burned a child. Today they participate in attacking al Aqsa. And you refuse to – you don't categorize them in the – as terrorists, yet you categorize Hamas as terrorist. Don't you see, like, a double standard in this?
MR KIRBY: There's been no double standard by the United States when it comes to the violence in that part of the world and in this particular incident, and I talked about it right at the top. We want all sides to refrain from violence and return to peaceful conditions. We've been very, very clear about that.
QUESTION: But you categorize only one side, yet you --
MR KIRBY: No, I don't – I actually – I completely don't agree with that, disagree with that. We've been very clear about the violence on both sides and how it needs to stop. There's been no double standard with respect to our desire for a peaceful resolution here of these issues and no change in the status quo.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Gotta go.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:55 p.m.)
DPB # 155
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
