Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 16, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
YEMEN
RUSSIA/SYRIA
RUSSIA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
CHINA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:47 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. Just a caution at the top: I've got a hard deadline to stop in about a half-hour, so I apologize, but I did want to get to your questions today. I have something – I have one thing to announce at the top and then I'll take your questions.
Escalating violence in Yemen, which has already faced years of instability and poverty, has left 80 percent of the country's population in need of urgent humanitarian aid. So I'm pleased to announce that more than $89 million in additional assistance to help people affected by the ongoing conflict in Yemen, including nearly 71 million from the United States Agency for International Development and more than 18 million from the Department of State's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. This new funding will support the efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international organizations, and brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance in response to the crisis in Yemen to nearly 170 million, and that's in FY – Fiscal Year 2015.
With this new funding, the United States is supporting emergency food assistance, safe drinking water, improved sanitation, emergency shelter, lifesaving medical care, nutrition services, and protection for vulnerable populations. The United States stands with the people of Yemen and remains committed to helping the millions of men, women and children who continue to suffer in Yemen and across the region because of the crisis there.
Matt, over to you.
QUESTION: Yeah. Let's start with what Secretary Kerry had to say upstairs a little while ago about his conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the proposal that he said Foreign Minister Lavrov made about U.S.-Russia military-to-military talks on this. The Secretary did not say that the Administration had decided to go ahead and accept this offer, but he made it pretty clear that he thinks personally it's a good idea because – well, he listed numerous reasons: de-conflicting things, making sure there's no misunderstandings or no miscalculations. So I'm just wondering if you can elaborate a little bit more. Has this reached any – the stage of more than just a kind of vague proposal?
MR TONER: Well, as the Secretary said, this was a – something the Russians proposed in his conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think we're still in the very preliminary stages and, as the Secretary pointed out, one of the critical elements going forward is that we have a dialogue, that we have an understanding of what Russia's intentions are in Syria. And so in order to have that, you have to have a conversation, which is how he framed it, I think, just a little while ago. But I think we're still very preliminary stage here, so I don't have much more meat to add to that bone, so to speak.
QUESTION: Okay. So – but you are – or his belief is that in order to fully understand what Russia wants to do and what their intentions are, that there should be a – that there needs to be a conversation back and forth. Is that correct?
MR TONER: Well, yeah, and as he said, not taking anything at face value, but --
QUESTION: Understood.
MR TONER: -- obviously need to have a conversation and need to de-conflict, yeah.
QUESTION: All right. So I'm curious – General Austin was up on the Hill earlier today talking about the train and equip program, and came out with a rather astounding figure of – that there were only four to five individual U.S.-trained and equipped fighters currently fighting ISIL in Syria. One senator said that that's a joke, and it's hard not to disagree with her, I think. Is that one of the reasons that you're – that the Secretary is willing to have a dialogue with Russia about this? Because the Russians say that they're there because of ISIL, not because – necessarily because of President Assad. If you only have single – less than a handful, or a handful or less, of people who have benefited or are fighting from the train and equip program, it would seem to me that you need all the help you can get. Are you willing to accept Russian help?
MR TONER: A couple of responses to that question. First of all, well aware of the comments he made on the Hill. Certainly don't challenge that assessment. But the Department of Defense has been very candid in pointing out that this train and equip program for the moderate Syrian opposition has not, frankly, lived up to what we initially thought and is striving to do better, to train more moderate opposition, to put them into the battlefield – to reinsert them, if you will – to train and equip them. But they've fallen short and I think they've been very, as I said, candid and upfront about that assessment.
That said, that's only one component of our strategy, and you know this, Matt. We're working with groups like the Syrian Kurds, the YPD and others – Syrian Arabs – who are fighting against ISIL on the ground. We're supporting them with airstrikes. So I mean, we have this train and equip program --
QUESTION: Sorry, let me just interrupt.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Those are – that – those are the Kurds that the Turks aren't bombing, right?
MR TONER: Well, that's a different matter. You're talking about the PKK, which is a terrorist – FTO.
QUESTION: Who are also fighting – who are also fighting ISIL.
MR TONER: And also taking – and also killing Turkish military and police officers. Anyway, that's another issue. But just back to my response: So this train and equip program, while it hasn't lived up to expectations, is just one part of what is, frankly, a larger effort. Let me finish, sorry.
But the Secretary was also clear that if it's true that Russia is only focused on ISIL, then there is the possibility for cooperation. That's exactly what he said. And that's why I think that we would be willing to pursue this military-to-military cooperation – or dialogue, rather – going forward, to try to get answers and to try to have a conversation about it. But ultimately that's going to be for the Department of Defense and the Pentagon to pursue that.
QUESTION: Okay. So this would --
MR TONER: Yeah. So I wouldn't necessarily draw a connection. Sorry.
QUESTION: His understanding – the Secretary's understanding of this is that it would be purely military to military; he wouldn't be involved at all, or he wouldn't --
MR TONER: Well, I think, again, the military to military about anti-ISIL, if you want, kinetic actions that Russia may participate in – that has to be a mil to mil. But to a broader political settlement in Syria, we certainly – and we say that all the time – we're open to discussions with the Russians.
QUESTION: And my last one --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- and I realize this is unfair because it's not a State Department program, it is a Pentagon program, but when you say that this train and equip program hasn't lived up to expectations, that's an understatement, isn't it?
MR TONER: I'll leave that for the --
QUESTION: I mean, when you first said you didn't challenge the assessment, are you talking about the assessment of Senator Ayotte, who said that that's a joke? Or are you – what assessment are you --
MR TONER: No, the total numbers of those trained for the program.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Before these latest announcements about the Obama Administration weighing Russia's – looking into Russia's offer, Russia's strategy, we heard U.S. officials say that Russia's strategy for fighting ISIL is "not a winning strategy." Well, that would imply that the U.S. has a winning strategy. Has – how winning has the U.S. strategy been so far?
MR TONER: That's – so I think you're conflating. What we've said is – just your question, the way it was phrased – what we've said is we don't believe continuing to support the Assad regime is a winning strategy. We've been very clear on that and very clear about that for a long time, that we think if there's going to be a successful political transition – which is what we all want in Syria – that that ultimately can't include Assad, so any effort to prop him up, to strengthen his position or his regime's position we view, frankly, as not a winning strategy. That's on the – that's not something that we can support.
QUESTION: Now, about the U.S. strategy to defeat ISIL.
MR TONER: But – sorry, but – sorry, just – sorry, I'll get to all of that. But what the Secretary said and what we've said before is if Russia does want to play a constructive role in anti-ISIL efforts or in the coalition against ISIL, that's certainly something we can look at. And again, in that vein, that was what the Secretary was saying upstairs, was that we need to have a conversation military to military, certainly about the military aspects of any involvement that Russia might have in order to de-conflict, but more broadly, a political resolution in Syria.
Your – then your broader question was what's the --
QUESTION: Well, actually --
MR TONER: -- what's the ISIL, the winning strategy?
QUESTION: Well, Russia's strategy – Russia says that its strategy would include – will include the Syrian Government and the Syrian army, so that is part of the Russian strategy that, as Samantha Power said, and I believe President Obama as well, is – the U.S. says is not a winning strategy. So how winning has the U.S. strategy been?
MR TONER: Well, I think, again, we've got a six-pronged or six components to our overall strategy against ISIL. We're a year in; we've been very candid about saying this is going to be a long and difficult struggle. We have made significant gains. I can quote back to you all of the stats that others have given over the last couple of weeks as we reach this one-year anniversary in the struggle, but overall, I think we have seen gains on the ground. We've supported and our strategy is based on this 60-plus-member coalition. Part of it is airstrikes, part of it is supporting groups on the ground in northern Syria, also working with the Iraqi military as well, and trying to bring the fight to ISIL.
But it's broader than that. It's about strangling their financial support structure. It's about changing hearts and minds, if you will, trying to stem the flow of foreign fighters. There's a lot of different aspects to it. But just to finish --
QUESTION: You – yes.
MR TONER: Just to finish my answer – but fundamentally, where we have come down on this consistently is that we believe the Assad regime is largely to blame for the environment that allows ISIL to thrive right now in northern Syria and that's where we simply draw the line that --
QUESTION: Understood.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Understood. You mentioned gains. Well, since the beginning of bombings last year, ISIL grew in territory. In front of me I have the map of the territory that they controlled from September of last year and from this September, and it is considerably bigger. I can show you that. The number of fighters, as I understand, stayed about the same.
Does that sound like a result of a – does it sound like gains? Does it sound like a result of a winning strategy?
MR TONER: Again, we've seen – certainly, in Iraq you've seen ISIL lose ground in – at Mosul Dam – Dam, rather, Tikrit, other places. They've been pushed back from areas around Kirkuk and Erbil. We've got now a more effective – again, I'm speaking about Iraq – a more effective military, Iraqi military on the ground that we've been working with, training, equipping. They're able to – and are under much better command and control. They're able to take the fight to ISIL there.
In northern Syria --
QUESTION: So you do you not argue the fact that they're --
MR TONER: Let me finish. I let you ask the question.
In northern Syria we've also seen ISIL pushed out of areas where they had thought they controlled, largely through the efforts of groups like – I said the YPD, the Syrian Kurds and Syrian Arabs and other groups that have been really effective against ISIL. And certainly enhanced – their efforts have been enhanced by airstrikes coordinated with the coalition with the U.S. involved, certainly with Turkey now involved.
QUESTION: Well, even --
MR TONER: So this is a long effort, though.
QUESTION: I understand. But even U.S. officials say --
MR TONER: And I can't – I wouldn't --
QUESTION: Even U.S. officials say --
MR TONER: Sorry. Let me finish. But it's – we have made, we believe, gains in the past year. Are we there yet? No. Have we done enough? No. It's going to take longer.
QUESTION: Well, even U.S. officials say airstrikes alone are not going to do it. And about the U.S.-trained force, well, how winning is that force if it's just not enough of them?
MR TONER: Well, again, we're working and across a broad spectrum. Matt brought that up, the – talking about the moderate Syrian opposition forces that we're training.
QUESTION: The four of them?
MR TONER: That train and equip program – let me finish my – train and equip program has fallen short. The Pentagon has admitted that, been very candid about its assessment, need to do better. But we're also working with a wide variety of groups in northern Syria, as I just mentioned, who are actually effective.
I'm going to let some other people – go ahead, please.
QUESTION: The Secretary also said that he wasn't taking the Russian assertions at face value, so what specifically are you going to ask the Russians to do to prove to you that they are only there for fighting ISIL and that you are confident in that? Or do you have anything specific you are going to ask them to do to de-conflict?
MR TONER: Well, the Secretary – sure. The Secretary mentioned he's spoken with Foreign Minister Lavrov several times in the past couple of weeks. Those conversations are going to continue. Certainly, he mentioned that he spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who's, in fact, apparently going to Moscow, where he's going to meet with Putin, also going to able to pose those questions.
We've been very candid – or very candid – very – yeah, I guess candid about saying what we're asking our friends and partners and allies to do is also pose some of those tough questions to Russia about what its intentions are, what it's doing. We're certainly going to continue to watch as things develop. And as the Secretary said, this military-to-military conversation or dialogue that Russia did propose is one way to keep that channel open. If – and if there is any kind of constructive role that they want to play, certainly there is any number of questions about de-confliction and other issues that would need to be resolved. So we're just going to continue to watch this closely. We're going to continue to talk to the Russians and press them for answers and clear information about what their intentions are.
QUESTION: But can you be specific about what steps you would like them to take?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, writ large or in general about their actions on the ground?
QUESTION: As a show of good faith.
MR TONER: I mean, I think we've been very clear about our assessment that any effort to prop up Assad so that he can continue to attack Syrian civilians, which he's done now across four years now, we would view as, frankly, counter-productive and detrimental to any kind of peaceful resolution, which is what we all presumably agree to as the path forward on Syria. So that's really – that's some of our clear areas of disagreement. If we saw any kind of efforts to continue to prop up Assad's military might in order to take the fight against Syrian civilians, we would view that as detrimental to a peace process.
That said, going forward we have said we would welcome a constructive role that Russia could play in anti-ISIL efforts. But what that looks like and how that's defined, that's going to have to be through a lot of conversations and a lot of dialogue going forward.
QUESTION: Can I just --
MR TONER: Please. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: You had an interesting qualification in that last line.
MR TONER: Did I?
QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I thought it was interesting. You said any kind of effort to prop up the – Assad. And then you added to – in order to continue the fight or carry on the fight against innocent civilians. Does that mean that --
MR TONER: Which is what he's done. No, I didn't mean to imply that if he suddenly – look --
QUESTION: No, no, no.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: What I'm asking – what I'm about to ask is --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Does that open the door for you to say that the Russians are cooperating if they help Assad but Assad is only turning his guns and the Russians are only turning their guns on ISIS?
MR TONER: I – we have been very clear all along that we do not view Assad as a credible partner in any anti-ISIL efforts.
QUESTION: Okay. So in other words, the end of that sentence --
MR TONER: So please – yes. The only point I was trying --
QUESTION: -- in order to carry on the fight against innocent civilians should be stricken. (Laughter.) And it's any kind of effort to prop up Assad you would be – see as counterproductive?
MR TONER: Sure. You could put a period there.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR TONER: I was only trying to point out the obvious fact that Assad's – much of Assad's effort and his military's effort has been directed against innocent civilians.
QUESTION: Does it mean that you would approve of Russia doing it rather than helping Assad fight ISIL?
MR TONER: We've said – I – again, I would simply quote the Secretary, who said that any type of constructive – we would be receptive to a constructive Russian role in countering ISIL. What that looks like, that's going to be the result of a lot of dialogue going forward.
That's it?
QUESTION: No, I have – (laughter) – well, I actually have two more. But one --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- is Russia, Russia-related.
MR TONER: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I saw the embassy in Moscow put out a statement, or the ambassador put out a statement today --
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- about the closure of the American Center at a university in Moscow. Do you – I don't expect that you'll have much more to say than what Ambassador Tefft had to say about that, but as we all know, diplomacy is often run on – or mostly, largely run on reciprocity. Are there any plans for the – actually, I'm not sure there are any similar facilities or Russian facilities in the United States. But are you – is there any action planned to take in response to this?
MR TONER: I mean, I can't – I don't have anything to announce, certainly, or anything to even preview. I think Ambassador Tefft's statement, as you mentioned, speaks for itself. It's – this comes on the heels of last year's unfortunate decision by the Russian Government to close down the Future Leaders Exchange Program, the FLEX exchange program. And as he stated, it calls into question Russian Government's commitment to maintaining people-to-people ties with the United States.
And this is – again, this is the closing I – I was trying to get the statistic that I could give out if I got asked this question, but we've seen the systematic closing down or shutting down of our American Centers over the past couple of years. This is only the – I think the final straw. But that – these are simply places where Russian citizens can get information about the United States and are able to learn more about American culture, politics, whatever. And the fact that they're being systematically pressured to shut down is just a really unfortunate phenomenon.
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: But I can't speak to any kind of reciprocity. I just – nothing to --
QUESTION: Okay. Well – okay. So here you have the Russians, by your own – what you were saying is they're shutting down these people-to-people exchanges; it's a very unfortunate thing; it's a systematic effort to try and clamp – and yet, at the same time, you're perfectly willing to have a military-to-military dialogue with Russia on Syria?
MR TONER: Well, again --
QUESTION: I mean, I can understand that they're two completely separate things. But on one hand, you are essentially welcoming this proposal from the Russians to have this dialogue on Syria. And at the same time, you're saying that the Russians are not interested in having a dialogue with the American people because they keep shutting down these centers. So I don't know, it just seems to me they're – either the Russians are being inconsistent or you guys are being inconsistent and not understanding exactly what's going on.
MR TONER: I think we've spoken to this many times, including when Secretary Kerry traveled to Sochi to speak with President Putin. And it is simply the fact that, as we've seen with Iran and also seen with Ukraine, we have areas where we vehemently disagree with Russia's actions. And I'm speaking specifically about eastern Ukraine. But there are areas like Iran, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, where we seek their cooperation because we both have the same goal in mind.
And I agree with you to a point. We think – I think what is happening now, we believe what is happening now – the United States – in terms of closing that information space and that free information space in Russia is concerning. That's a much broader topic about the state of, frankly, Russia's democracy. But what you're talking about in terms of military-to-military conversations apropos to Syria, as the Secretary said upstairs just a little while ago, it's about de-confliction, it's about getting a clear understanding of what their intentions are.
QUESTION: I understand that. But you're basically --
MR TONER: You have to be able to do that in diplomacy.
QUESTION: -- on one hand – on one hand – yes. But on one hand, you're accusing the Russians of being hostile to the U.S. by closing down these – by closing – systematically closing down these centers. And I don't think it's a leap to say that critics are going to be looking at this and saying, well, if you're accusing them of being hostile, what on Earth thinks – makes you think that they are not going to be – that they're going to be doing something different in terms – vis-a-vis Syria?
MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think you have to be able to send a clear message when you – where you disagree, but also leave the door open for conversations because you need to be able to have those conversations in order to move forward in a diplomatic way.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Change of subject. Tomorrow there's going to be a markup hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on a bill that expresses concern that – of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement by the Palestinian Authority. Does the State Department agree that the Palestinian Authority has been doing that and that there's concern about this? Do you think that these kinds of resolutions are helpful?
MR TONER: Right. I'm frankly not familiar with the bill and the contents of it, so I'd have to actually look at it and study it to see what our position would be. More broadly speaking, our position in general is that we want both sides in the Middle East to refrain from any way that escalates – any – or sorry, any language or any efforts that would escalate tensions between the two entities. But I can't – I don't know what's in the bill, so it's difficult for me to speak to it. I apologize.
QUESTION: Related issue.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I had asked you and it was a taken question about UNRWA and these allegations against UNRWA employees. I did get an answer to that, but the answer said that you were waiting to hear back from UNRWA about their internal investigation into this.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Have you heard anything?
MR TONER: I have not heard back. I'll double-check on that, Matt, though.
Yeah, please, sir.
QUESTION: Last night the White House announced that President Xi is coming on the 25th. Is – are there any meetings scheduled for Secretary Kerry with his counterpart?
MR TONER: At this point, nothing to formally announce. Certainly, we look forward to the visit. It's an important one. It's an important relationship, as we all know. But I don't have anything in terms of the Secretary's schedule to announce, but I can assure you that he'll be having appropriate meetings with his counterparts. But when we have more we'll let you know.
Great. Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah, Matt. Thanks for getting me down early.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
