Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 7, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
AFGHANISTAN
SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
VENEZUELA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
BURMA/REGION
JAPAN
DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
2:02 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Welcome back.
MR KIRBY: Thank you. Just something short at the top here.
I want to note that yesterday the Congress passed legislation exempting families who have legally completed adoptions from having to pay a second or in some cases a third immigrant visa application fee if their adopted child is unable to leave the country before the visa expires, as a result of adverse actions of a foreign government. And we welcome this news, of course. The proposed bill will help alleviate the financial burden placed on families awaiting exit permits for children adopted most especially in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And you might recall a couple weeks ago we talked about this phenomenon.
While this does not reunite the children and their families, we do hope that this measure will bring some relief to adoptive parents, as this means now that a family only has to pay the processing fee one time for adoption cases. So, again our concern about the adoption process remains in place. We certainly want to see these kids get to the families who have legally adopted them, but we do appreciate Congress's action here in at least alleviating this financial burden from them on top of everything else that they're dealing with – the stress and the anxiety of having their children home with them. So we're grateful for that.
Matt.
QUESTION: I just want to start hopefully very briefly with the whole Kunduz bombing. Your colleague at the White House has already spoken at great length about this, and I think still is speaking at great length about it. So – but I just want to know, given now that the President has called MSF and apologized, as well as President Ghani, is there any sympathy at all in this building for the argument that MSF makes for this Geneva Convention fact-finding commission to go ahead, to have one? Because if it is only investigated internally, i.e. by the people who did it in the first place, that it sets a bad precedent. Is there any inside this building or inside the Administration at all, is there any credence given to that argument?
MR KIRBY: So I'd say a couple of things on that. First of all, I mean, we're certainly aware of Doctors Without Borders and their call for this UN independent inquiry into this. The State Department's not taking a position on that.
The Secretary obviously extends his condolences to all those affected by this tragic incident and is confident that the Defense Department will conduct a thorough, complete, and transparent investigation on what happened. And as you know, Matt, there's actually three investigations going on. There's one NATO; there's an Army/DOD investigation; and then, of course, there's a joint investigation with Afghan authorities. And the Secretary is confident that those investigations will be – will, again, be thorough and objective, and we'll find out what happened.
And so I think he's going to, obviously, be following it as closely as he can, but again, his confidence is in that process.
QUESTION: Well, when you mean – when at the very top you said you don't take a position on it, surely the Administration still supports the Geneva Conventions?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I though you meant --
QUESTION: Right. I want --
MR KIRBY: -- taking a position on the call for this separate --
QUESTION: The call for this, but under that framework is what they're calling for – what MSF is calling for.
MR KIRBY: We certainly support the UN framework. But the Secretary defers to the Defense Department to investigate this appropriately.
QUESTION: Okay. So you're not aware that there's anyone – in other words, the short answer to my question is no, there is no sympathy for the MSF argument and the argument advanced by others who say that a purely internal U.S. or NATO, or however you want to call it, but investigation, just isn't going to be enough or could set a bad precedent.
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't characterize it as no sympathy, Matt. Again, the Secretary is well aware of the anguish that Doctors Without Borders is going through right now. But no, no --
QUESTION: Sympathy is maybe the wrong word.
MR KIRBY: But --
QUESTION: I mean, there's no sense in this building that there is any credence to that argument?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary has the utmost trust and confidence in the Defense Department to properly investigate this incident and to get to the bottom of it, and to – once learned, to take the steps necessary to prevent it from happening again.
QUESTION: And you don't believe it will set a bad precedent for potential future – other incidents like this that take place that the U.S. might not even be involved in?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, look, the precedent for this kind of investigation into this kind of incident is well set and well established, certainly, over the last 14 years of war. The Defense Department is eminently capable of investigating mishaps and accidents and has done a superb job over the last decade or more doing that. And I can assure you that nobody is tougher on themselves than members of the U.S. military and the Pentagon and the Defense Department when it comes to taking a hard look at mistakes that were made and putting remedies in place to keep them from happening again, and holding people accountable as needed.
QUESTION: So should there be a move to convene some kind of whatever – what MSF is asking for, the United States would oppose it. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speculate about a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet. As I said --
QUESTION: Well, they have. They've – I mean, they've called for it. So --
MR KIRBY: As I said, the Secretary has not taken a position on that, on that call. He is confident that the Defense Department will be able to investigate this thoroughly.
QUESTION: John, just a quick follow-up. What happens with the investigation? I mean, once the finding are released, are arrived at, what happens then? I mean, from past experiences --
MR KIRBY: Well, again – I mean, I want to be careful here, folks, in getting too much into this, because it is a military matter.
QUESTION: We understand.
MR KIRBY: So please, you've got to respect that my position here is different. That said, this investigation will take some time to work through, and I think, as I said, there's three of them. They will all proceed at whatever pace is deemed appropriate. And when they're complete, the chain of command will get a chance to look at them.
What happens is oftentimes in an investigation like this, there are sort of two things: There are findings, this is what happened; and then there's recommendations, this is what we think should happen going forward to prevent it from happening again; and/or to, if there's need for accountability, to hold people accountable. The chain of command looks at those and makes a judgement about the findings – agree or disagree with the findings, or agree or disagree with some of them and not all of them – and then it makes a judgment about the recommendations and whether they should be accepted and moved forward.
Then that is given to whoever is the ultimate authority. It depends on – each investigation happens at a different level. But at some point in the chain of command, there will be an ultimate authority who will make a decision about those findings and those recommendations and then implement whatever recommendations, and, quite frankly, the high authorities can make additional recommendations on their own separate and distinct from those found by investigators. And then you move forward.
But again, let's – we're quite a bit of time away from that right now.
QUESTION: Seeing how there are so many conflict zones and so many warring factions and so on, so this is happening with more frequency, is it your feeling – or how should, let's say, humanitarian groups and like Doctors Without Borders, or even other UN agencies and so on, operate in these areas? I mean, should they be giving some sort of immunity of some sort? I don't know what you would call it.
MR KIRBY: Immunity?
QUESTION: Safe area, safe haven and so on, where they can operate among, let's say, populations that are suffering from these things?
MR KIRBY: Well, we --
QUESTION: I mean, what kind of protocol should there be?
MR KIRBY: I don't think we would dictate to nongovernmental organizations where or – where they can operate or what they can do on the ground. They have important work to do; and when they're working in places like in Iraq and Syria, I think they're well aware of the risks in doing that. What we can assure them of is that we're going to take all the precautions we can to avoid these kinds of mistakes and these kinds of casualties which are devastating to everybody. And nobody works harder than the United States military at preventing civilian casualties and preventing the deaths or the injuries to innocent men, women, and children.
And I would also say that no other agency in the world – military or otherwise – investigates itself so thoroughly and so publicly, and holds itself accountable to such high standards, than the United States military.
Yes.
QUESTION: On the – what has Secretary Kerry's role been in this? I mean, there must be some kind of dent in the credibility of the United States in the eyes of many Afghan – Afghanis and groups like these. Is there any role that he's been playing or made any calls on this?
MR KIRBY: No, I mean, he fully respects that this is – this was a military operation, that this is a military investigation. Obviously, he extends his thoughts and prayers, as I said, to all those affected. But he's mindful that this is primarily a Defense Department issue, and he respects that. He, as I said at the outset, has full trust and confidence that the Defense Department will fully investigate this.
QUESTION: Why would the U.S. not be willing to open this up to an independent investigation?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, that's not a judgment for me to make or for the State Department to make. The – my colleague at the White House addressed this a little earlier. Secretary Carter has addressed this. There are no less than three investigations ongoing, and I think it's important to let those investigations run their course. And they will each run a different course, and we've seen this happen before, sadly. And each will run their own course, and I think it's safe to say that each may come to different conclusions. And so we need to let that work proceed.
And then when we get there, when it's – when they're complete and when they've been briefed, there'll be a time and a place to talk about what they found and what actions need to take place further.
QUESTION: Is it – this is a general standing policy for the U.S. Government, is not to allow or not to support independent investigations into incidents?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any standing policy not to allow or not to support. And as I said, we're not taking a position one way or the other on this. I think it's important – I think we all believe it's important to let the three investigations that are currently ongoing run their course.
QUESTION: Right. But you know, when there are incidents that happen, even inside the United States, the Justice Department often moves in and takes over because it is not a involved party. Can you see how people might have an issue with the involved party here doing its own investigation? Or is that just not – is that just beyond the scope of --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Again, you're getting me into military matters, and I – but just --
QUESTION: I'll have our Pentagon people ask.
MR KIRBY: Just – but – so I want to be – yeah, I want to be careful not to get into this. But I'm not unmindful of my own experience. So what I would tell you is that, again, nobody investigates itself more thoroughly and more aggressively than the U.S. military. And to think of the military as this – a monolith would be false. The reason why the military is so good at investigating itself is because it does pull into investigations agencies or units outside the one involved. That's what gives it the independence.
QUESTION: No one is – I don't think the issue is not that people are questioning whether the military is capable or whether they're able to do a complete and thorough investigation.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: It's just the standard that's set. Why not allow – and I realize this is not a question for you, so I will drop it and move on unless --
MR KIRBY: Okay. Fair enough. Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we move on to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: I know the Administration hasn't been enthusiastic about a no-fly zone in Syria, but have the Russian airstrikes now completely ruled out that option as far as internal discussions go?
MR KIRBY: Well, we've talked about this before. I mean – as I've said before, we continue to have discussions about how to best go after ISIL, and particularly there in Syria, in northern Syria in particular. And we've talked about the concerns that the Turks have expressed about the movement of ISIL there in northern Syria. And to date, there's been no decision to move forward with a no-fly zone. There are a lot of challenges, as we've noted, with doing a no-fly zone, and not least of which is an issue of resources. But as Secretary Kerry said just last week in New York, we're going to continue to look at ways to intensify our efforts against ISIL.
What Russian military activity has done or has the potential to do – as I think I'd rather say – is to exacerbate the conflict already ongoing inside Syria along sectarian lines. And as we've said before, that if there's a constructive role to be had by Russia against ISIL, then that's a conversation we're willing to have. We're not – obviously, I don't think we're at that point right now given what they're hitting and what they're choosing to do with their military forces.
But if what they're doing – and certainly if you look just intrinsically at where they're striking and who they're going after certainly would lead one to conclude that what they're trying to do is to prop up the Assad regime. All that's going to do is prolong the conflict – in fact, make it worse. And that is not something that we're interested in furthering and having a dialogue with in terms of Russian future activity.
QUESTION: But in terms of the air activity and the assets deployed – anti-aircraft assets, for example – has that strengthened those who would argue against any possibility of a no-fly zone? I mean, how has it impacted the discussion?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get into internal deliberations here about the operations inside Syria. I wouldn't do that. As the Secretary made clear, we're looking for options, we're looking for ways to intensify activity against ISIL. I'm not going to get ahead of any of that. As we've said, there are challenges with a no-fly zone. As we've also said, we – and I've made this very clear in the past – we understand certainly the concerns the Turks have expressed in desiring one, and we've also said that we're going to continue to have conversations with them about that and those conversations continue. But I'm not going to get ahead of or get into internal deliberations.
QUESTION: John, on this very point --
QUESTION: John, a follow-up to --
QUESTION: CNN Arabic reporting that Secretary of State Kerry submitted a proposal for a no-fly zone to the National Security Council meeting last week. Can you confirm that? I mean, it's --
MR KIRBY: No. As I said, I'm not going to get into internal deliberations and I'm certainly not going to discuss any advice and counsel that the Secretary of State may or may not be offering to the President or to the National Security Council. I would just simply say that he's being clear, the President's being clear that we're going to continue to go after degrading and destroying ISIL inside Syria and in Iraq, obviously, and that we're going to continue to look for options to intensify those efforts.
QUESTION: I understand, but the President seems to be opposed to a no-fly zone. Is the Secretary of State for a no-fly zone? Is there disagreement there?
MR KIRBY: I'm simply not going to – I think you can understand why I would not talk about internal deliberations and any advice and counsel the Secretary of State may or may not be providing.
Everybody – this is – but this is important to remember, Said. Everybody shares a sense of urgency about what's going on inside Syria particularly but also in Iraq, and everybody understands the same sense of urgency about ISIL inside the 60-plus-member coalition. And everybody recognizes, as we've said, that this remains a lethal and determined enemy. And while this enemy has suffered losses and has suffered setbacks, it's still viable and has – is the root cause for so much of the violence and bloodshed there in the region, and we're going to remain committed to going after them.
Pam.
QUESTION: Russia appears to be expanding its strategies for strikes in Syria. The defense ministry released video showing it launching strikes from the Caspian Sea. Two questions – first of all, what is State's initial reaction to this tactic? And then secondly, has anyone in this building expressed concern to Iraq about this type of missile launch in that it appears to be going over Iraqi territory?
MR KIRBY: Well, I've seen the video that the Russian ministry of defense has put out. I'm not in a position one way or the other to confirm the veracity of it. I'd point you to our colleagues at the Defense Department. But separate and distinct from that, nothing's changed about our message with respect to Russian military activity in Syria. If it's designed to go after ISIL and if there's an opportunity there to talk about that, then we're willing to have that discussion. But if, and as we have seen by what they're hitting so far, it's really about going after opposition groups and bolstering the Assad regime, well, that's a different discussion altogether and is only going to make the conflict worse, it's only going to increase the violence, and it's going to do nothing but prolong what is already a very long, very bloody civil war.
QUESTION: Is it – do you believe the Russian Government when it says that it is – it wants – it supports a political transition under the terms of the Geneva communique, which is political transition by mutual consent? Do you --
MR KIRBY: Well, we note that that's what they have said that they would support. Their actions to date militarily seem to contradict that statement, because the way to a political transition in Syria is not to prop up the Assad regime and not make it easier for him to stay in power.
QUESTION: Does the – does the United – does the Administration believe that you can have the mutual consent that's called for in the Geneva communique without there being an Assad regime? In other words, if the Assad regime was to fall, could there be a mutual – could there be political transition through mutual consent, or would it just be nothing?
MR KIRBY: Well, we obviously signed up to Geneva on this and as have the Russians. I'm not going to get into a hypothetical here about the longevity of Assad and what that would do to mutual consent, but that is the proposition upon which we have all set out here with respect to --
QUESTION: Right. But mutual consent – and I was at Geneva when this thing was done, and the mutual consent that was envisioned by that was the regime on one side and an amalgamation of opposition groups on the other side. If one of those sides isn't there, can't you see an argument from the Russians that if their side – if the Assad regime is no longer there and viable, you can't have mutual consent?
MR KIRBY: I haven't – I haven't heard that that's their argument. But if that's their argument, then it simply supports what we've been saying in the past that what we're seeing out of Russia is, first, reactive – they're reacting to pressure that they've seen Assad come under, for whatever justification. Maybe it's they don't want to see a vacuum, maybe they just want to keep him in power; that's up to them. But (a) it's reactive, it's not some part of a grand strategy on their part; and (b) it's a failing – it's a failing tactic to take because keeping him in power, even if it's because you want to get to mutual consent, propping him up only prolongs the conflict. And Secretary Kerry I think said this very well last week, that Assad himself can do what's right for Syria by simply signing up to a ceasefire right now and starting that – and starting to have that discussion. It has to start with him.
QUESTION: John, could you maybe – on to Pam's question on what your comment is on whether you support or – or how you feel about Russia's new tactic of firing from warships?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm not going to – I'm not in a position to confirm that they actually have done that. It --
QUESTION: But Moscow said that.
MR KIRBY: Well, I've seen the video of it, and I'll let Moscow speak to what they're doing militarily. What our concern is is more about the impact that the military activity is having inside Syria in terms of going after groups that are not ISIL and not al-Qaida affiliate terrorists. And greater than 90 percent of the strikes that we've seen them take to date have not been against ISIL or al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists. They've been largely against opposition groups, groups that want a better future for Syria and don't want to see the Assad regime stay in power.
So whether they're hit by a cruise missile from sea or a bomb from a Russian military aircraft, the result is the same: that Assad continues to get support from Russia. Assad continues to be able to have at his hands the capability of striking his own people, including those who are opposed to his regime. And that's not a good future for Syria.
It's also – as we've said before – we believe, a mistake for Russia, because not only are they going to be exacerbating sectarian tensions there in Syria, but they're potentially exacerbating sectarian tensions in Russia itself. They're putting themselves at greater risk.
QUESTION: But from what I can gather, there's no discussions going on right now, are there? I mean, there's not a de-confliction discussion. Is there a follow-up on that discussion? Is – Secretary Kerry, how is he taking forward the diplomatic track? Because it looks like a stalemate right now until you seem to get some clarity from Moscow on what they're trying to do.
MR KIRBY: Well, I won't speak for the Defense Department and the status of de-confliction discussions. I know that the – as we all know, they had one recently, and I don't know what the plans are to have another round of discussions about tactical de-confliction. The Secretary continues to obviously support the diplomatic track here because he believes and he said that – and, frankly, the Russians have said they're interested in this, although, again, actions speak louder than words – that there has to be a parallel political track to any military discussions about what's going on inside Syria.
For his part, the Secretary continues to have a dialogue with Foreign Minister Lavrov. As you well know, they spoke and met frequently during the UN General Assembly last week. Now, they haven't spoken since then, but they certainly had a lot of time together last week and I suspect he'll continue to have conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov going forward. But it has to be in parallel.
And as we've long said, there's not going to be a military solution to the civil war in Syria. Obviously, there are military operations being conducted against ISIL by the coalition. That's going to continue. That's going to continue unabated, by the way. But what really needs to happen inside Russia is a political transition to a government away from Assad --
QUESTION: Inside what? Woah, woah, woah.
MR KIRBY: What'd I say?
QUESTION: You just said --
QUESTION: "In Russia."
QUESTION: -- "what really needs to happen inside Russia" --
QUESTION: Inside Syria. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- "is a political transition." Happy birthday, President Putin. (Laughter.) Inside Syria. I'll let you go ahead --
MR KIRBY: Inside Syria. Please, for the folks transcribing this, it was a misstatement.
QUESTION: Can I just – you seem to be saying that you still don't know a week – almost a week into the strikes and weeks into the movement of all this materiel into Syria by Russia, that you don't know what their strategy really is. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: I think there's a – there's not a level of transparency about it that would lead one to certainty.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: That said, Matt, you take actions which speak pretty loudly. And if you look at what they're doing, what they're hitting, who they're hitting, where they're hitting them – largely inside Syrian Government-controlled areas, largely against opposition groups, largely in support of the Assad regime – it's difficult to get from that to a point where you can say with certainty that they're interested in going after ISIL and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist groups.
QUESTION: But isn't it also if you don't know for certain what the strategy is, how is it that you can be so sure that it's a failing strategy? Because to a lot of people outside – and including, I'd suspect, people in Russia and people around there – it's not – it's the United States that doesn't really have a strategy.
MR KIRBY: There's a lot there. First of all, I wouldn't call what they're doing a strategy. As I said, it's largely reactive because of the pressure that they've seen Assad face. So let's take it off the table of calling it a strategy.
Number two, it's failing and we continue to believe that it's failing and will fail, because in propping up Assad, all that does is inflame sectarian tensions further, makes the conflict worse, forces out more refugees, and does nothing to get at the threat in the region, which is ISIL, and does nothing – by propping Assad up, does nothing to get us closer to a political transition where Assad is no longer in charge of that country and there's a government that is responsive to the Syrian people that can provide a whole, unified, pluralistic, stable, and secure Syria, so that these millions of refugees can go back home and go back to their lives. That's why it's failing.
QUESTION: But John --
MR KIRBY: And then – wait a minute, there was another point you said – that ours is failing. So let's talk about that for a second, because there's two tracks here. There is a campaign against ISIL, which, I would argue, while still ongoing and still deadly, is not failing. It has had some success and will continue to make progress.
And where we really want to put the effort – and this came out of the UN General Assembly last month – was towards this political transition. And the Secretary, as you know, met numerous times with our European and Arab allies to try to work out how we can define what that looks like, how it's going to be. Was there a final resolution? No, but there were very productive, fruitful discussions during that week that he's going to continue to have to try to define what this political transition can look like.
QUESTION: How is it not failing when, according to the Pentagon, twice as many ISIL entered Syria last year since the bombing began on September 13th, 2014, than the year before? How is that --
MR KIRBY: Twice as many what?
QUESTION: Twice as many ISIL fighters have entered into Syria, according to Pentagon estimates.
MR KIRBY: Well, I haven't seen those – I haven't seen those figures, Said. But as I recall, the estimate now of ISIL fighters is --
QUESTION: 20,000.
MR KIRBY: -- yeah, between 23 and 33, and it was 20 to 31 or something before. So let's keep it in perspective, okay? So they're roughly – they're roughly about where they were, which means they're losing a hell of a lot of people, and they're going to continue to lose a hell of a lot of people. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't recruit. We know they can continue to recruit. That's why I said at the outset nobody is underestimating the resilience of this particular enemy, but let's not paint them as 10 feet tall, 'cause they're not. They have considerably less territory than they once had, and territory for these guys is like oxygen. And if you want to govern, you got to have – you got to have territory, you got to have land, you got to have some dirt to grab. And the dirt that they're grabbing isn't as much as it used to be, and their finances are under more pressure.
So I mean, we got to – you've got to keep this in perspective. Nobody's doing touchdown dances here. Nobody's declaring victory. We know that this is going to be a multiyear effort against an enemy that continues to be viable. But I think it's important that you have to take this last year – now we've been operating against them kinetically – "kinetically" is a Pentagon word, but actively for a year now, a year-plus. And this is not the same group that they were when they started out. You don't see footage of them doing wheelies and – with MRAPs and tracked vehicles. You don't see them storming into towns with their flags waving. You know why? Because they know if they do, they're going to get hit, and they're going to get hit hard. So they're operating differently and they're under a lot more pressure than they were before.
QUESTION: Could I just – a quick follow-up on the Russian strategy. Is it conceivable that Russia is trying to convince those who support the opposition – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the GCC countries – that Assad is not going anywhere anytime soon, and therefore there is no military solution, so you better come to the table? Is that conceivable, in your view?
MR KIRBY: That --
QUESTION: That maybe Russia is – Russia's strategy is to convince those who are supporting the opposition that there is no military solution, that we will keep propping Assad till – for a very long time?
MR KIRBY: It's a funny way to convince somebody there's not a military solution when you're dropping bombs on their head.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the others are dropping bombs (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: Who's the others?
QUESTION: The opponent, the opposition, supported by Turkey, the GCC countries, and others. I'm not taking a side. I'm just saying this is the situation on the ground.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I refute the notion that Russia has some kind of grand strategy here. I think they're doing what they feel like they have to do to keep Assad propped up and in power. And as we've said before, if that's what they're – if that's what they're up to, it's not going to succeed, because it's only going to make things worse, and it's only going to create more of a refugee problem, and it's only going to give more breathing space and oxygen to ISIL, who certainly isn't getting a whole lot of pressure from Russian aircraft.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The Russians are saying today that 40 percent of ISIS infrastructure destroyed since Russian operation launched a week ago. What do you think about their statement?
MR KIRBY: I have no ability to judge the battle damage assessment of Russian aircraft. I don't even want to get into battle damage assessment here in any great detail about coalition operations. I can't independently verify that. What I can tell you is based on where we've seen them hit, and we have many sources of information to gather this, certainly the great majority – greater than 90 percent – is not in ISIL territory and not against ISIL groups or units or activities.
QUESTION: And one on them – cruise missiles. Were you aware of the launching these missiles from --
MR KIRBY: No. As I said, I'm not in a position to independently verify whether they actually did launch cruise missiles or not. I can't confirm that.
QUESTION: And to what extent do you think they posed a threat on the coalition assets in the region?
MR KIRBY: Well, that's one of the reasons why, quite frankly, that we want to have a mechanism where the Defense Department and the ministry of defense can have some sort of understandings so that there isn't a risk posed to coalition pilots or coalition assets that are in action against ISIL. We have to do what we need to do to protect our people and our pilots and our aircraft.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria.
QUESTION: Syria – the airstrikes. Regarding where they're hitting – Russia – you're saying they're hitting the wrong areas --
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: -- where moderate opposition are located generally? The U.S., you think – what you're seeing --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I mean, if you just take a look --
QUESTION: What you're seeing – yeah.
MR KIRBY: If you just take a look at where we know they're hitting, and again, we don't have perfect visibility into every building that's struck, but we have a general sense, a pretty good understanding, and we have many ways of knowing that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I don't dispute that. Has Moscow officially requested that information – the location information?
MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of. But again, you'd have to – I'd have to go to the Defense Department on that.
QUESTION: How do you – and number two is: How do you distinguish between moderate forces and ISIL? How does the U.S. do that?
MR KIRBY: We know where ISIL is and that's what our focus is militarily, is against ISIL. And we have, again, various means of information to know where they are. And as you know well, we have and we'll continue to support different moderate opposition groups inside Syria. So we have a good sense, and I'm not going to get into intelligence matters, but we have a good sense.
QUESTION: One more. President Putin today said he supports the notion of combining the Free Syrian Army with Syrian-government controlled troops. Do you support this notion – to fight the Islamic State. So combining the moderate opposition with Syrian Government forces would be formidable – to attack a common enemy?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments, but I can't imagine how that could be a feasible solution. It's also made all the more difficult when you're dropping bombs on them, the Free Syrian Army.
Yeah.
QUESTION: You just said you know where ISIL is. Well, Russian defense say the U.S. refuses to share intelligence on ISIL targets. The defense minister spokesperson said that others who are in this fight against ISIL are actively helping with intelligence about targets. Why does the U.S. refuse to share intelligence about ISIL positons?
MR KIRBY: I don't know how you can share intelligence when you don't share a basic, common objective inside Syria. We're not at that – we're nowhere near that point. There's no shared, common objective here about going after ISIL. There's their stated objective to go after ISIL, and then there's what they're doing on the ground which doesn't back that up.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On --
QUESTION: Excuse me. So the --
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second.
QUESTION: But on Iraq, the head of parliament defense panel has said today that Iraq wants Russia to have a bigger role in fighting Islamic State in Iraq than the U.S. How do you view this statement, and what's your reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I understand it, this is a member of parliament that is not speaking for the Abadi government. And I have not – Prime Minister Abadi said himself, I think a few days ago, that while he would be willing to have a discussion with Russia about support against ISIL, that it can't be independent and it has to be part of an integrated coalition effort against ISIL. But as far as I know, we've seen no reaction by the Iraqi Government to this particular claim. And so until we do, I'm simply not going to entertain hypotheticals about it.
QUESTION: The Iraqi prime minister used, actually, in the interview with France 24, he used the word "welcome." He would welcome Russian airstrikes. No decision has been made, as we understand. But he also in that interview complained that the Obama Administration lacks quote/unquote, "the will to provide major support to Iraq in this fight." And the interviews – the quote that my colleague was referring to in Reuters' interviews – yes, that political leader said that Iraq would like to see Russia have a bigger role in Iraq. So what are you – why do you think, if the strategy – the U.S. strategy works as you say it does, why do you think Iraq feels increasingly compelled to turn to Russia in this fight?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen an indication that Iraq is turning to Russia in this fight. You have one individual saying that he wants this. And you're right, but you only read half of what Abadi said: He would welcome it, but it had to be integrated inside the larger coalition. And what coalition is he talking about? The 63-member coalition that the United States is leading.
Now, I'm not going to get into military matters from this podium about what or what is not happening operationally on the ground inside Iraq, but I think, if you look at the last year – let me finish, please. If you look at the last year, we have been very supportive of Prime Minister Abadi's government, both his efforts against ISIL and his leadership efforts, which have been notable in terms of forging ahead to form a government that is inclusive and participatory and representative of all Iraqis. And he's made some important decisions, and again, we continue to want to support and to see him succeed.
So our support to the Iraqi Government is unshakable and it will remain unshakable as we continue to go after this very deadly enemy.
QUESTION: Sir?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: You just suggested that it's – it's one person --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, go ahead.
QUESTION: John, it's on a different issue. It's on Latin America.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Just I would like to --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, I have one question.
QUESTION: I have even more on this.
QUESTION: You said – you said it's one person in Iraq saying that. It's definitely more than one person. But what about the Iraqi prime minister saying that the U.S. lacks the will to provide major support?
MR KIRBY: I think if I – again, I haven't seen those comments. But all you have to do is look at what's been done against ISIL inside Iraq and inside Syria to know that not only does the U.S. not lack the will, but that no member of the coalition lacks the will – and oh by the way, Iraq is a member of that coalition, and Iraqis are fighting ISIL bravely inside their country. And they're suffering and they're dying and they're getting wounded in the fight against ISIL. Nobody lacks the will. And I think any assertion that the United States lacks the will is completely false and erroneous.
That doesn't mean, however, that we're not going to continue to support Prime Minister Abadi in the great work that he's doing both politically and militarily against ISIL. That support will continue and it will continue energetically. And as Secretary Kerry said as recently as last week, we're going to look for ways to possibly intensify that effort against ISIL.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I just go – I want to give you a chance to go back to the slip of the tongue there. The United States does not see and does not believe there is a need for a political transition in Russia; is that correct?
MR KIRBY: Yes, I thought I cleaned that up.
QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make – just wanted to make sure.
MR KIRBY: Let me state it for the record that when I was talking about political transition, I was talking about a political transition in Syria. Apparently, I said Russia. That was a mistake and I'd like that corrected in the transcript.
QUESTION: Quite apart from that – my response to that, I'm just wondering, do you have any birthday wishes for President Putin?
MR KIRBY: I think we say Happy Birthday to everybody who shares today as his birthday or her birthday.
Can we go to another issue?
QUESTION: Another issue.
QUESTION: Another one.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. How about you? I'll come back to you, ma'am.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Real briefly, I'm sure you've seen this AP report this morning about the efforts – FBI-Moldovan Police efforts to disrupt trade in nuclear materials to extremist groups in the Middle East or to, in this case, police posing as extremist groups in the Middle East. It's clear in the story that this is not still an active investigation, that this has concluded. Given, I guess, the fact that there are still many groups that express a desire to attack Western interests and U.S. interests, is – I guess what discussions are happening in this building to ensure that everything is being done to keep these nuclear materials out of the hands of extremists?
MR KIRBY: Well, the State Department works across the interagency. It's not just the State Department. There are obviously other federal agencies involved in this. And we're committed to countering the threat of nuclear smuggling and ensuring that terrorist groups who may seek to acquire them, these materials are never able to do so. So seizures of nuclear and radioactive materials such as that in Moldova demonstrate certainly that government's commitment to countering these activities, and we applaud the Moldovan Government's good police and investigative work which led to the recovering – led to recovering smuggling – smuggled materials and placing them back under regulatory control.
So it's something we take very, very seriously here at the State Department, I'd say broadly here in the United States Government, obviously. The proliferation, the smuggling, the movement of this material around, obviously has grave consequences if not stopped and if not hindered, and we're going to continue to work, again, across not just the U.S. Government but internationally, as this demonstrated, to try to stem that.
QUESTION: Are there conversations ongoing currently with Russian officials about this topic? Because one of the things that the AP article says is that police say a, quote, "breakdown in cooperation between Russia and the West means that it's much harder to know whether smugglers are finding ways to move parts of Russia's vast store of radioactive materials." Is that something that you work with your Russian counterparts on as well as former Soviet state governments?
MR KIRBY: We certainly work as hard as we can with Russian authorities on this issue. And obviously, look, there's issues where we can and do cooperate with Russia. The Iran deal is a terrific example of that, where Russia was, as the Secretary said, enormously helpful in getting us to that deal. This is certainly an issue, a concern that both our governments share because Russian authorities don't want to see this kind of material falling into the hands of terrorists any more than we do. So it's certainly an issue where we believe there can be cooperative efforts; there has been, and we hope that there will continue to be.
QUESTION: Are there currently cooperative efforts?
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I couldn't speak to anything specifically right now. I mean, it's an ongoing – I mean, I'm not going to – I can't speak to a specific operation or investigation going on, but it is an issue that we routinely talk to Russian authorities about, and as I said, I think we believe is a shared concern between our two governments.
Yes, ma'am. You've been very patient.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Mr. Kerry – it's on Venezuela. Secretary Kerry made some comments on Venezuela last weekend saying that Venezuela is an imperfect democracy. The Venezuelan foreign minister replied by saying the U.S. should stay out of Venezuelan issues. Then the ombudsman – the Venezuelan ombudsman was detained in Mexico and he blames the U.S. has something to do with that. And last but not least, the U.S. ambassador to Guyana said something that upset the Venezuelan Government, saying the U.S. is going to support Guyana in this dispute with Venezuela. So I would like to know where are – where are we? Where are the relations between the U.S. and Venezuela? Are you still trying to improve? Are you looking for dialogue? Where are the – what is the situation? What is going on?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary – the Secretary spoke to this last week in an interview, and I think that's what you're referring to. And I'm – I think he stated it very well that this is a – Venezuela has made some progress. There's more progress that they need to make and we'd like to see them make, that our relationship is difficult and strained in many ways but it's a relationship that we want to see improve, and we hope the Venezuelans want to see it improve as well. So there has been dialogue with Venezuela and I fully expect that that dialogue will continue. That's certainly our hope.
QUESTION: When you say "progress," you mean democratic progress?
MR KIRBY: I just mean progress in terms of certain aspects of Venezuelan governance, but I'm not going to detail it all here. It's a complicated relationship. And as he said, it's an imperfect democracy, and obviously, we want to help see this relationship improve but there's a lot of work that we think needs to be done.
QUESTION: And what about the accusations made by the Venezuelan Government that the U.S. is behind all these things that happening against some government officials?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those allegations, but we're not up to conspiracy here. We wouldn't be willing to have a dialogue and a discussion if we weren't genuinely interested in advancing the relationship and getting it to a better place, and we're very open and transparent about that.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about the situation on the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. First of all, has – aside from calling for calm, has the Secretary been in touch directly with either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or PA President Mahmoud Abbas on this situation?
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, he met with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week when we were in New York.
QUESTION: Yeah, but things have gone completely out of hand. There's a --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don't have any --
QUESTION: They are expanding the violence --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional discussions to read out since last week's. They both spoke to the media right before that meeting. I would point you to what the Secretary said on Monday in Chile when he was asked about this, where he said very clearly that we want to see the violence stop, we want to see calm restored, and we want to see the status quo – now, we're specifically talking about Haram al-Sharif and the Temple Mount – we want to see the status quo restored, that it's in nobody's interest for this violence to continue.
QUESTION: Today a member of Abbas's political party, Fatah, a member of the central committee, claimed that they informed the United States that they are no longer coordinating security arrangements with the Israelis. Is that true?
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: Yeah, okay. Now, the – my last question is the Israelis have been using sniper rifles – .22 caliber sniper rifles to go after stone throwers. Are you aware of that policy?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those particular reports, Said. But again, I would point you back to what the Secretary said about restoring calm and ceasing the violence.
QUESTION: Would you discourage the Israelis from using sniper rifles against stone throwers?
MR KIRBY: I have not seen those reports, Said. What I would say and what the Secretary, again, has made very clear is we want to see the violence stop, calm restored, and the status quo observed. None of what we're seeing here in terms of the increased violence and tensions are getting us any closer to the possibility or the potential of a two-state solution. And that's ultimately what we'd like to see progress made towards.
Yeah, Goyal.
QUESTION: Thanks very much, John. My question is that global leaders come around the whole year long in the U.S., including in the United Nations, and also as a official guest of the U.S. Government. But in recent days, it has become common for some groups to file lawsuits against those leaders, and it's embarrassment for the host country and for the UN and for the countries where they come from. Including in the past, there were lawsuits against Sonia Gandhi of India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Prime Minister Modi of India.
And now recently a lawsuit has been filed in New York court by the same groups against the president of Burma. And what these groups are saying – but they are not the Muslims, but they are filing lawsuits about that Muslims are being harassed in these countries. So don't you think that – and also the judge in New York has issued even a summons for the president of Burma, including he did for the Prime Minister Modi and Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi in California and New York.
So don't you think that this should be some kind of – that it doesn't become embarrassment for those? And they have to pay the price when they go back home, and also to – this doesn't make any sense for those people.
MR KIRBY: Well, I think, Goyal, the way I'd approach this is to just remind that federal court actions occur independently of the executive branch. This lawsuit that you're specifically referring to is unrelated to U.S. policy toward Burma. And also as a matter of policy, we're not going to comment on the specifics of legal cases. So I would direct you to the organization that filed the lawsuit for specifics on that.
All that said, we still remain deeply concerned about the situation in Rakhine State. We continue to stress the need for Burma to take measures to end racially and religiously motivated discrimination and violence against members of the Rohingya population.
QUESTION: What I'm asking, actually – I follow what you said. There is a problem, of course, human rights in Burma. And it used to be supposed to be because Aung San Suu Kyi, she has been working on for democracy rules, and of course, the democracy and against – under the rules of Burmese, of course, the military rule, and there should be democracy.
My question is here, that you talk all these people and those global leaders about the changes, democratic changes in those countries. But how come then these lawsuits also comes in the middle and then these judges also got into, and those organizations are not even related to those what's – alleged crimes committed in those countries against these – by these leaders?
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for the motivation of organizations that file lawsuits. And as I said, we don't comment on ongoing litigation. It wouldn't be appropriate. But we will, as we have certainly in the case of Burma and elsewhere around the world, we'll speak up when we see human rights being violated and we see discrimination against populations simply because of their race or their religion. I mean, we have an obligation to make our voice and our concerns known, and we're going to continue to do that. But I simply couldn't speak for the motivation of independent organizations that choose to file lawsuits. That's for them to speak to.
QUESTION: Just a final word. Since the election is coming in Burma, what is the final situation of – what are – if the U.S. is following, and also if they have spoken with the Burmese president stop all these human rights violations and also have a free and fair elections in Burma?
MR KIRBY: Well, we've – I mean, as we said, we've – obviously, we want to see free, fair, credible elections. And we have on many occasions have expressed our concerns about what's going on with respect to discrimination inside Burma, and I suspect that we'll continue to make that argument as clear and as plain as we can.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: I've just got time for one more. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: A quick one about Japan. The Japanese Government recently reshuffled its cabinet, and at the press conference afterwards, Prime Minister Abe mentioned how he wants the Japan – Japanese Government to be more involved in regional security and peace. Did you see those comments? Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I would just say we welcome the announcement regarding the new Japanese cabinet. We expect our close cooperation with the Government of Japan across a range of regional and global issues will continue to deepen. Our relations and our alliance are stronger than ever, and we look forward to strengthening our cooperative efforts to ensure peace and prosperity in Asia and around the world.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: I've got one very brief one. It's just because of your mention at the top on the adoption issue in Congress – it jogged my memory about a question I was going to ask Mark on Monday or yesterday and I forgot both times, and that is Senator Cotton and one of his colleagues – I can't remember who it is now – have holds – have put holds on about two dozen State Department nominees. Senator Cotton's holds are because he's demanding an investigation into the Secret Service allegations about Congressman Chaffetz, and I'm just wondering what – do you think this – the Department think that it's appropriate for a senator to put hold on a State Department nominee for something that has nothing to do with this agency?
MR KIRBY: We're obviously very concerned by the holds, Matt. They're impacting the – not just the careers of these individuals – most of them are Foreign Service officers and not political appointees – but also impacting the very important work of diplomacy that we have to do around the world. We obviously would like to see these holds lifted and in particular because they're being held against members of the State Department and diplomats over concerns that have nothing to do with the State Department. So yes, we have a position on this. The Secretary would like to see these diplomats be able to get to work around the world.
QUESTION: Great. Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)
DPB #165
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
