Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 9, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/AUSTRALIA
LIBYA
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
SYRIA/RUSSIA/ISIL/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP
INDIA
AFGHANISTAN
TRANSCRIPT:
..2:12 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, a couple things at the top. A schedule note: Secretary of State John Kerry and the Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter will co-host the Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defense Minister Marise Payne at the 30th Annual Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations October 13th in Boston. The secretaries and ministers will discuss ways in which the two countries can expand and deepen alliance cooperation in the Asia Pacific region and beyond, from countering ISIL to the next steps on the recently concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The delegations plan to discuss alliance cooperation, developments in Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, India, the South China Sea, and the Pacific, as well as global issues, including counterterrorism, Afghanistan, Russia, and of course, Ukraine. This year's AUSMIN coincides with the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Australia and the 10th anniversary of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The ministerial will conclude with a joint press availability in Boston on Tuesday.
Turning to Libya, the United States welcomes the October 8th presentation of the final text of the Libyan political framework, which includes the names of the senior leaders for the new Libyan Government of National Accord. This final text comes after months of tireless negotiations by courageous Libyans, and it is an important step in restoring peace and stability to Libya through the establishment of a government that will unify the country. The time to move forward and finalize the approval of the political framework is now. Libya continues to face many challenges, and we urge the house of representatives and the general national congress to immediately and conclusively endorse the final framework text and the senior Government of National Accord leaders. We encourage all Libyans to come together and support the formation of the unified government the country needs.
The United States, for our part, stands ready to support the implementation of the political text and to ensure that a government of national accord and its institutions can function effectively and meet the urgent needs of the Libyan people.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Really? You don't have anything else at the top?
MR KIRBY: Is there something else that you expected?
QUESTION: Well, I don't know. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this morning. I usually expect to hear something out of this building or the White House, considering the President actually is a previous awardee. Anything to say about the Nobel Peace Prize?
MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly congratulate the winners for the great work that they've done in helping Tunisia transition towards democracy. And we thought – we think, we believe the award is well earned and well deserved.
QUESTION: Okay. Does anyone have anything else about that?
MR KIRBY: Is there any other toppers you want me to give on any other issue here?
QUESTION: No, I just -- (laughter) --
MR KIRBY: I mean, I could --
QUESTION: I just assumed that you would start with something like that.
MR KIRBY: How about football predictions this weekend? Anything – I mean --
QUESTION: Can you help my fantasy league?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) Can't do that.
QUESTION: I'm not doing well. Right.
I wanted to ask you – start with Syria and the announcement that was made today by the Pentagon and others at the White House about this. Presuming that the Secretary and this building is fully on board with it, does it – will this new approach entail any more involvement from this building, any less, the same – which is, I guess, minimal at least in terms of how it relates to actually dealing face-to-face with fighters?
MR KIRBY: I think without getting into quantifying it too much, Matt, obviously, we are deeply involved in continuing our work with the coalition through General Allen and Ambassador McGurk. And I suspect that that level of energy and urgency will continue. I am not – I don't see anything – with respect to the modifications that were talked about today, I don't see anything in there that would change our level of effort, focus, or urgency with respect to what's going on inside Syria.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: A follow-up very quickly. Now, I listened in to the conference call from the White House.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Now, they were saying that the Russians are targeting moderate groups, moderate opposition groups. Can you identify those groups? Who are they? Who are these moderate groups that have been targeted by Russia?
MR KIRBY: I don't have a list of every group and every individual or unit that's been targeted by these Russian strikes. I would ask you to talk to Moscow about further identification of their – of what they're targeting and what their battle damage assessment is. As I said, and I wouldn't – even if I had the list, I don't think it would be appropriate to go into it from this podium. As I said before, though, the vast majority of the strikes we've seen them conduct to date continue to be against opposition groups and not against ISIL.
QUESTION: My question is inquisitive because you guys keep asserting that there are moderate groups. There are so many different groups in Syria. I mean, there are probably in the hundreds. How do you determine or decide that this group in this particular area is moderate and this group is less moderate, and so on?
MR KIRBY: There is, Said --
QUESTION: What kind of – yeah.
MR KIRBY: There is, Said, as you know, a wide, disparate collection of groups that --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- are in opposition to the Assad regime. And some of them have multiple levels of things and people that they are opposed to and are acting against, to include ISIL in some cases. It's – there isn't one monolithic opposition group. There are several. Now, they are represented, of course, by the SOC. But obviously, we understand that there's many groups, and they don't all share every goal in common.
What I can tell you without getting into great detail here, which I wouldn't do and it wouldn't be appropriate, but I can tell you that what we've seen so far in terms of Russian military activity and the strikes they're taking, that they are predominantly against opposition groups. I'm not going to qualify with an adjective all of them as moderate this or moderate that, but the large majority that we've seen are against these opposition groups, groups that are predominantly focused on the regime. And some of them – we've said this – some of them are groups that we have supported in one way or another over the last couple of years.
QUESTION: Just my final one – question on this. Now, the new – the new program will include training leaders and embedding them among groups. What will be – what is the mechanism to do this?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'd point you to our colleagues at the Defense Department. This is their program and I'm not in a position to get into too many of the details.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: And what about the – this is actually a question for NATO and your take on it. From where are we coordinating the flights and all this? Because the French are bombing, the U.S. is bombing, all the coalition partner, Russians are bombing. Is it in Brussels? Is it here? Is it in Pentagon? Where is the coordinating point that there is no accident, there is no friendly, as we will call it --
MR KIRBY: There's no friendly what?
QUESTION: In case there is a friendly fire or a collision of aircraft or something like --
MR KIRBY: But there's a coalition air operations center in the region that is coordinating the air campaign. I would point you to the Defense Department for more details about how they do that. That's a military function, and it's worked very well coordinating the air activity of multiple nations that are flying missions both in Iraq and in Syria. Not all of them are airstrikes. I mean, some of them are logistical flights and that kind of thing.
But to your point I think is the de-confliction. And again, I'd point you to the Defense Department, but that – but the very thing you're asking about is the reason why it's important to move forward in some fashion with a mechanism that can allow us to de-conflict air operations in the region so that there aren't misunderstandings, there aren't mishaps, and there aren't dangerous incidents where, certainly, coalition pilots are put at greater risk than they already are.
QUESTION: The question was more to find out what is the diplomatic efforts with Russia and all, because the defense is okay but there is a --
MR KIRBY: Well, your question wasn't about diplomacy. But as I talked about yesterday, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke again yesterday for nigh on half an hour, and I suspect that they'll continue to have discussions, and the Secretary was hard at work at the UN General Assembly last week talking to Arab and our European allies and partners about the modalities of what a political transition could look like going forward. He spoke at length with Foreign Minister Lavrov about that very issue up in New York and again yesterday.
So I can assure you that at the very highest levels here at the State Department a political track is being pursued. But I interpreted your question to be more about military de-confliction, and that's for our Defense Department colleagues to speak to.
QUESTION: And just one more. The EU – European Union Commission president has said that it's time to better relations with Russia and time to stop being dictated from Washington. Do you have any reaction?
MR KIRBY: I didn't see those comments. But as I've said before and as the Secretary has said many times, there are many areas where we can and do cooperate with Russia, and the Iran deal is a great example of that, and there are obviously issues that we differ and we have deep concerns about – Ukraine, and of course, what they're doing in Syria. That is why it's so important to maintain a dialogue and to have a conversation, and that's why Secretary Kerry continues to speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov and will. It's why these de-confliction talks at a military level are important to have. Because if you don't have a conversation, if you don't have a dialogue, if you don't have a mechanism to discuss, then you really do get into an area where misunderstandings and mishaps and potentially much more dangerous outcomes can result.
So again, the Secretary is very committed to working these issues through. It doesn't mean that we – that in the effort – in the act of diplomacy that we're turning any blind eyes to things that we find destabilizing. We're going to continue to raise our concerns and to make them as known as possible. Okay?
Pam.
QUESTION: The original version of the train and equip program did not have the desired results. How confident is the Administration that this new version will work? And then secondly, are there any aspects in this new version that address some of the underlying concerns? And that is that some of the moderate opposition is really more interested in targeting Assad than going after ISIL forces.
MR KIRBY: Now, there's a couple of things there. I think – and they addressed this when they talked about this, this decision this morning – that what the – what they're going to focus on now are efforts that have proven effective in the past. In other words, everybody acknowledges that there were issues and challenges with respect to the training aspect of some of these moderate opposition fighters. But what has proven effective in the past, particularly in Syria, has been the equipping part of training and equipping. It helped us in Kobani; it's helped us in Iraq even before we had an advise and assist mission stood up. And we've seen that it can be effective when combined with the use of air power. And so what you're seeing now is a focus more on the equipping aspect of that formula than the training aspect. But I think they also made clear that nobody's abandoning forever the idea of training. It's just that there is going to be a pause here while a focus is more aptly put on the equipping aspect. The other advantage to that is that it does not remove from the field and from the fight Syrian fighters that are actively engaged against ISIL. You can supply them and equip them and support them while they are actively engaged in the efforts against ISIL.
To your other question on motives or intentions, I mean, this was something that we addressed long, long ago when the program was first started. And we recognize that – as I said to Said, I recognize that not all opposition members, moderate though they may be, have a single focus on ISIL. In fact, some of them – we recognized then and now that some may be more arrayed against Assad. But our efforts – and we talked about this this morning – our efforts in Syria are directed against ISIL. Our military efforts are directed against ISIL.
Politically, the Secretary continues to pursue a political solution to a transition to a government away from Assad. But militarily, it's against ISIL. And so I think you can expect that the support given through the change in the program now will be support given to those groups who we have a measure of confidence are going to be going against ISIL.
QUESTION: John, a few more questions.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: I'm trying to figure out how – I'm trying to get my head around how this would – if you – if what you say is true, that the Russians are now also going after these opposition groups – that you're now going to equip, right – how does this change that calculus if the – if Russian aircraft are not bombing ISIL, they're bombing the opposition groups that you're now going to be equipping.
MR KIRBY: Well, you're – I don't want to get into – I don't want to get into future operations and a tactical discussion about what group in what city or area is going to get a certain measure of support. That's really for my colleagues at the Defense Department to speak to. I would – I would leave you with, though, is that the support that's going to be provided is going to be provided to those groups that there is a measure of confidence in, both in their leadership and in their expected focus against ISIL. And as for exactly what groups and where, I wouldn't get into it here; I wouldn't able to get into it from here.
What our message to Russia is – and it's no different and it hasn't changed – is that we would welcome contributions by the Russian military if those contributions were against ISIL. If they were willing to go after the same target sets – not the same targets but the same focus on ISIL, then that's a conversation that we would be willing to have a contribution that we would be willing to welcome.
If, on the other hand, it's going to continue to be, as it has in the last week or so, against opposition groups, then all that's going to do is make a political solution that much more hard to achieve, if not impossible. Because through going after opposition groups they are doing nothing but prolonging Assad in power, which makes it difficult to get to any kind of political solution, and they're perhaps inviting more extremists into Syria and exacerbating the violence in the country.
So I understand the premise of the question. I'm not in a position here to go into great detail into exactly how, when, or where the equipping is going to occur. Again, that's really a military question. All I can tell you is that it's going to be done through leadership and two groups who we have a measure of confidence are going to be arrayed against ISIL.
QUESTION: Because that's why I asked the question. If this is a change in strategy, what's going on, I mean that these forces would also now have to repel what's going on. If the Russians are bombing them, they would then have to be that – was that in mind when you changed the strategy?
MR KIRBY: Well – and it's an interesting hypothetical question that I'm just not – I'm in no position to answer right now. And I think the modalities of how this process will occur is really more for the Defense Department to speak to, not here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Can I also ask you that – would the U.S. then kind of loosen standards towards which groups it supports? So does that line move to the right, kind of --
MR KIRBY: What line?
QUESTION: Would you be arming – would you be willing to work with groups now that you wouldn't have previously?
MR KIRBY: I think I'm going to leave it where I said before, that we'll be working with – specifically with those leaders of – that have been vetted and with groups that we have a measure of confidence are going to be arrayed against ISIL.
QUESTION: I have one more question. Do you – is the Secretary still pushing the issue of a no-fly zone?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Given there's – all this change of tactic in the last 12 hours --
MR KIRBY: No, I mean, it was the way you asked the question that --
QUESTION: Oh, well, according to CNN reports --
MR KIRBY: I know, I've read the CNN story. The – as I said yesterday, I'm not going to get into the advice and counsel that the Secretary provides to the President or to the National Security Council. I mean, that's – that's not an issue to be spoken about publicly. Our – nothing has changed on the status of a no-fly zone. There's – there are no efforts to conduct one or put one in place at this time. And we've talked about before that the recognition that – of the resource intensity that a no-fly zone would entail.
As I've also said many, many times, we understand specifically the concerns the Turks have expressed in terms of wanting some kind of – they call it the buffer zone or safety zone or no-fly zone. We have steered away from that language in general and in practice, but it is a discussion that we continue to have with the Turks as we move forward. But as we're talking here, there are – there's no change in – and no plans to put into effect a no-fly zone.
QUESTION: I guess --
QUESTION: John, can I ask you a technical question, because you've used this phrase now at least three times, and other officials have too, about this measure of confidence. What unit of measurement are we talking about here? I mean, how much confidence do you – I mean, what is a measure of confidence? Don't you have to be – don't you need to be totally satisfied that these people are not rampant human rights abusers and beheaders and confident that they are not going to fight Assad but rather ISIL? I mean, I don't understand "a measure" of confidence. Is that a foot, a quart? What is it that gets them across that hurdle?
MR KIRBY: It is not – I don't think it is – I don't think we can enumerate it, Matt, but it will be based on, has been based on our knowledge of certain of these groups and certain of these leaders and our experience with them in the past and our expectation of their future cooperation going forward.
QUESTION: Okay. But when you say "a measure" of confidence, it suggests that it's not --
MR KIRBY: I think --
QUESTION: You don't have to be 100 percent. You don't --
MR KIRBY: It's not --
QUESTION: You might not even – you might not even – I don't know if you can ever be 100 percent sure, but it's not even 90 percent or 80 percent. I mean, is it 50, 60 percent? What --
MR KIRBY: As I said, Matt, I'm not going to – I can't and I wouldn't enumerate this. It's based on knowledge and experience in the practicality of having worked with and vetted some of these leaders.
QUESTION: Why --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. You've been --
QUESTION: Thank you, thanks.
MR KIRBY: You've been fairly jumping out of your seat there. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Why has the train and equip program not worked? Has the Administration analyzed the reason why?
MR KIRBY: That's a great question for the Defense Department, and I think they've --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, now. I'm going to give you a shot. That they – the Defense Department has talked about this at quite some length and it really is a – and I'm not shirking your question. It really is a better question for the Defense Department. It is a Defense Department program, and I think they've been very candid and frank about – over the last couple of months in particular about the challenges that they have faced in terms of recruiting fighters for the program.
And not to get into this in any greater detail, but I – one of the great strengths of the U.S. military is the ability to adapt and to try new things and not to be afraid to try a new approach. And sometimes that new approach doesn't work and sometimes you run into obstacles and challenges you didn't know you were going to have or you couldn't have predicted it. But one of the great things about our military is it's adaptive and it's not afraid to A, admit when it makes a mistake and B, change direction if it needs to change direction.
I would also remind you that this particular aspect of the program is not being shelved forever. There's a pause being put in place, while we focus more on the equipping side of those groups that are in Syria now and have proven confident – I'm sorry, competent against ISIL. But as for the exact laundry list of specific challenges they've had, I would point you to the Pentagon for that.
QUESTION: So from this podium you can't explain why it has --
MR KIRBY: From this podium I am telling you that it's a great question that you should pose to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: But do --
MR KIRBY: I'm not saying I can't. I'm saying that it's not appropriate for those specific answers to come from this podium.
QUESTION: Well, the Defense Secretary – and you spoke to that several months ago – testified in Congress and said it's difficult to identify rebels with the right mentality who would not then turn over weapons and themselves to ISIL. Would you agree with that assessment now?
MR KIRBY: I would certainly not challenge the assessment of the Defense Secretary, but if you already had that, then you probably had at least some of the answer to your question.
QUESTION: But I want to hear it from you. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: And I appreciate that, but I'm not going to give it to you because it's not appropriate to come from this particular podium. This is the Defense Department's program. I mean, it would be like asking me to run down for you Defense Department budget priorities or law enforcement issues that the FBI is working about.
QUESTION: But it matters for policy, right? It matters for policy. In order for a new strategy – to come up with a new strategy, isn't it important to analyze why the old strategy hasn't worked?
MR KIRBY: Well, two points. One, it's not a new strategy. The strategy against ISIL has not changed. It's still the – still same lines of effort are in place. Militarily, we're still going to go after ISIL with a broad range --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. You asked a question; my job's to answer them. So there's a long – there's a – the essential elements of the strategy are going to stay the same about how we're going to go after ISIL with, oh, by the way, a coalition of more than 60 nations; it's not just the United States. So the strategy's not changing. The strategy is still to degrade and destroy ISIL and their capabilities inside Iraq, inside Syria. And it's not just about putting warheads on foreheads. It's about going after the ideology; it's about going after the financing. And all that work will still continue. Elements of --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, now. Elements of – anybody who knows anything or has any knowledge of history, particularly military history, will tell you that over time in a campaign, whether it's a war or a battle, military strategy may stay the same but the way it's executed, implemented – the tactics – can change. And so what we're talking about here – and I don't want to speak too much for my colleagues at the Pentagon, but what we're talking about here is the program is still in place. The authorities to conduct it are still in place. They're simply changing the focus away from the training element and more towards the equipping element. It was at the outset a train and equip program. They're going to change the focus to equipping, okay?
QUESTION: Just to --
MR KIRBY: This is not a new strategy.
QUESTION: Just to specify and to clarify, what does the strategy now consist of specifically?
MR KIRBY: The strategy --
QUESTION: What is the strategy against ISIL right now? What is the U.S. strategy? Can you spell it out?
MR KIRBY: It's exactly the same as we've been – I just answered that for you.
QUESTION: But just minus the train and equip program, right?
MR KIRBY: No. No, I just said the train and equip program is not going away. The training aspect of it is on a pause right now and they're going to focus more on equipping. I just said that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Till now, what I have been hearing is that there is a talk with Russia going on and there will be cooperation if needed. But in – at the press conference in NATO, the Defense Secretary, he said that U.S. will take a multilayered approach to support Syria against Russian aggression. Now, on here – this podium you are saying that the Secretary of State has talked to his counterpart, things are okay, and he's defining it as Russian aggression against Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't think there's any separation between how the State Department and the Defense Department look at what Russia's military activities inside Syria are doing. We both agree that to date, they have been counterproductive to an effort to pursue a political resolution inside Syria. And again, we only – we can only judge Russia by what they've done; not by what they have said they're going to do, but what they've done. And if you just look at what they've done, it's been to conduct military strikes against mostly opposition members and not ISIL, something I think I said yesterday – greater than 90 percent is the Pentagon's assessment of the strikes have been conducted against opposition groups. So we've – and we've said all that's going to do is exacerbate the conflict. All that's going to do is extend the violence. All that's going to do is keep Assad in power and make a political transition that much harder to achieve.
So if you're asking me is there daylight between the Defense Department and the State Department on our view of what Russia is doing inside Syria, I'd say absolutely not.
QUESTION: So if --
QUESTION: Do you agree with the – his statement that it's Russian aggression?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to parse words one way or the other. I haven't seen those comments. I'm – I think what I just said speaks for itself.
QUESTION: It was a press conference at NATO.
MR KIRBY: I understand that, but I'm giving one now here, and I haven't seen that one. So I'm just telling you there's no change to our view of what Russian military activity so far has and has not done, and if continued on the trajectory that it is, won't achieve, which is what even the Russians have said at the outset that they wanted, which was to support Geneva and a political transition inside Syria. Hitting the opposition groups with 90 percent of your ordnance is not the way to get to that outcome.
QUESTION: So do you agree that this is a proxy war going on?
MR KIRBY: We talked about this again yesterday. Look, nobody --
QUESTION: Go ahead and just say "yes."
MR KIRBY: No --
QUESTION: Just say yes. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: As much as I would love to be able to just spout Matt's wisdom up here – look, nobody wants that to happen, and there's no reason for it to happen and occur. That's not a productive outcome here in Syria – more bloodshed, more violence, more war. The Syrian people deserve better than that. They've lived with it now for two and a half years. What we want is an end to that conflict, and it can only end politically, not military. Nothing has changed about our view that there's not going to be a military solution to that conflict.
I understand there's a military component to the strategy against ISIL, and there will continue to be regardless of what Russia is doing. But there's not going to be an ultimate military solution to the civil war in Syria. It has to be solved politically. Propping up Assad doesn't get you any closer to that outcome. In fact, in our view, it makes it that much harder to achieve and only extends the violence and bloodshed more, and enflames sectarian tensions which are already high in the region. I get that. But by choosing sides like this, Russia's only going to exacerbate sectarian tensions, and again, that's not good for Syria or for the region.
Yes.
QUESTION: Well, but that – by choosing a side – but you guys have chosen a side as well.
MR KIRBY: What side have we chosen?
QUESTION: You've chosen the anti-ISIL, anti-Assad side.
MR KIRBY: We've chosen the anti-ISIL militarily, and I would remind you that 62 other nations are also aligned against ISIL and in the coalition.
QUESTION: Right, but you're aligned against – but your – but you don't think that Assad is a credible leader and you think he needs to go. So you've chosen a side, right?
MR KIRBY: We have chosen to pursue a political solution to the civil war in Syria.
QUESTION: If it's true what you say, yes, of course, you've --
MR KIRBY: And yes, nothing's changed about the fact that --
QUESTION: But you've taken a side.
MR KIRBY: -- we want a government that is more responsive to the Syrian people and doesn't have Assad.
QUESTION: But you've taken a side; the Russians have taken a side.
MR KIRBY: The difference, Matt, though is that --
QUESTION: I mean, I understand that there's a difference, that you make the argument that there's a difference but --
MR KIRBY: They've chosen a side militarily and tactically in a sectarian way that we have not done.
QUESTION: Okay. If in fact it is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, but if it is true that what the Russians are doing is making a political transition harder rather than easier, what does that mean about your – not you personally but the Administration's belief several weeks ago or a month or so ago, particularly after the meeting in Doha, that in fact, there was a change in the Russian position and that they were willing and more open to pushing for a political transition?
MR KIRBY: Well, at the time when we --
QUESTION: Did you get fooled? Did they trick you? Did they lie to you? What – why is it that you came away – not you again personally, but why did the Administration come away from the post-Iran deal glow thinking that there was some kind of change in what --
MR KIRBY: I don't think you were making a pun by "glow," were you?
QUESTION: No, no.
MR KIRBY: No. The – I think coming out of the Doha meeting – and I believe it's fair to say that the Secretary still believes that there can be a way forward here politically and diplomatically towards a political solution and a transition in Syria. And I would still maintain that coming out of Doha and the positive nature of the trilateral meeting there that he held with both Minister Lavrov and Foreign Minister al-Jubeir of Saudi Arabia, that – that the – that even still coming out of that meeting he would tell you that there is still a chance that there could be cooperation with Russia towards a political solution in Syria. And he said as much last week at the General Assembly, and so did the President quite frankly, that we would be, as a nation, willing to have conversations with Russia and with Iran at some point about a political transition.
Now --
QUESTION: And then two days later though they – the bombing campaign began and you guys changed your tune and said now what the Russians are doing is not good and it's hurting a political transition. So --
MR KIRBY: I don't believe there was a change in tune, Matt. We were simply reacting to a very kinetic, tangible reality on the ground in Syria, which is opposition groups getting bombed by Russia aircraft – which to me certainly speaks volumes, and has over the last few days, about what their intentions are – seem to be. That doesn't mean that – and I wouldn't want to ever – I don't think we'd want to be at a place where there isn't still a belief in the opportunity to pursue a political solution, and I think the Secretary very much still wants to do that.
It is made all the harder though – obviously, when we came out of Doha they didn't have 40 some-odd tactical aircraft added to bases inside Syria and they weren't flying missions against opposition groups when we came out of Doha. So things have changed. They've changed because Russia has made it change. They have changed the calculus on the ground. They have changed the situation.
And as I said yesterday, the Secretary has not been bashful about expressing his concerns to Foreign Minister Lavrov about those changes and what they portend. But it doesn't mean that the Secretary's going to give up the pursuit of what he believes, what this Administration believes, is ultimately the right answer for the Syrian people, and that's political transition.
Said.
QUESTION: Can I change topics?
QUESTION: No, hang on. One more.
QUESTION: Another on Syria.
QUESTION: Can I just ask on the – yesterday you mentioned --
MR KIRBY: It's very self-policing in here, isn't it? I was – just for the record, I was willing to change topics. I was willing to change topics 10 minutes ago. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: There's always one of us.
QUESTION: I want to help you that way.
QUESTION: No, well, because once you get on that one, we're never going to get off it. So --
MR KIRBY: Ouch.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) The one – one thing I want to ask you. Yesterday you said they were discussing modalities of the – of trying to get this transitional – this political transition track going. What did you mean by that?
MR KIRBY: What I meant was the architecture of what a transition should look like. And I don't want to get too much into hypotheticals, but it would – it's how long do we think that transition's going to take, what role does Assad have in that transition, how long is he present for it, what happens post-Assad, how does a transitional government – how does it get established, how does it get entrenched, how does it administer itself, how do you get to long-term governance and stability inside – it's all those things. But I wouldn't go into too much of the details, but those are the weighty issues that they had – they discussed at the General Assembly and continue to discuss.
QUESTION: And just one other question on the change on – the more emphasis on equipping and training. Obviously, this was discussed with the allies in the coalition. Did they agree – they obviously agreed to what's – to this?
MR KIRBY: I would, again, point you to DOD to speak to the specifics of this program and the changes to it, but clearly what I can tell you is that key foreign partners, members of the coalition were certainly apprised of this change in focus. And I'd – they would have to speak for themselves in terms of their level of support for it. I wouldn't do that from here. But there was communication with our foreign partners about this change in focus, as you would expect there would be, since, again, we're not – we lead this coalition, but we're not – certainly not the only member in it.
QUESTION: But was it done through Kerry as well? Did the Secretary get involved in this?
MR KIRBY: No, this was predominantly done through --
QUESTION: Something else?
MR KIRBY: -- the Defense Department. I do think that in certain capitals, our diplomats were involved in those discussions, as you might expect. But this is obviously a Defense Department lead here.
Yes.
QUESTION: A new topic, John.
MR KIRBY: Now, you wanted to stay on Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah. Last question. When United States air-dropped weapons to Syrian Kurdish group PYD last year in Kobani, Turkey protested. Have Turks expressed any concern regarding this new program since United States is going to arm PYD again?
MR KIRBY: I would ask you to – I'd refer you to Turkish authorities for their views on this. I can tell you that they – as I said to Lesley, they were informed of how we wanted to change this program. But I think they should speak for themselves in terms of their views of it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New country – Israel.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: What's your assessment and your comments after one week of violence in Israel, in the West Bank, and now which is spreading to the Gaza Strip?
MR KIRBY: Well, we remain deeply concerned about all this recent violence and the escalating tensions, including the – those attacks that you referenced in Gaza today. We condemn in the strongest possible terms violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. And as the Secretary has done and sadly we must do again, we extend our condolences to the victims and their families. And we continue to urge all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and refrain from actions and rhetoric that would further escalate tensions. I think the Secretary addressed this, I thought very well, earlier this week in urging calm, condemning the violence, and calling for a return to – at least in terms of Haram al-Sharif and the Temple Mount, a return to the status quo, and for both sides to take the tensions down.
QUESTION: Does he plan to give a call to the leaders of the region?
MR KIRBY: As you know, he maintains regular contact with leaders in the region. He met with Prime Minister Netanyahu last Friday before we left New York, and I suspect he'll continue to stay in touch with them. I don't have any specific phone conversations to read out to you today, but this is obviously something that's been on his mind, as it is everybody here at the State Department, and he'll stay engaged on it.
QUESTION: On the same topic, are you concerned about the apparent excessive use of force that the Israeli army is using against Palestinians?
MR KIRBY: Certainly, we're aware of reports of that. And as we've made clear, we're deeply concerned about all this recent violence and the tensions, and we continue to condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence against both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Obviously, we're going to be always concerned about any credible reports of excessive use of force against civilians. And as I've just said before, it's important that steps be taken to guard against this and to bring the tensions down.
QUESTION: In your judgment, this current round of violence, does it drive home the message that perhaps Palestinians under occupation and the Israeli settler population cannot live side by side, and maybe the time has come to make good on your statement declaring the settlements illegitimate? Is that the judgment from this building?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't say that our statements haven't been made good on. They – we still stand by them. And I also would say, Said, that we still stand by the hope and the expectation that a two-state solution can be found.
QUESTION: So you can point out to an example where the Israelis have actually tore down a settlement as a result of your stated position on the settlements?
MR KIRBY: I can't point to the intent behind any one act of demolition. We've been very clear about our views on this. And as I said, we still continue to believe that a two-state solution can be found.
QUESTION: I have one last question on the settlement. I raised this question before in this room, and I want to ask it again. Now, there are a number of settlers in the thousands – 60,000 altogether with American citizens and so on. Do you feel that you have any kind of leverage perhaps to convince those settlers to sort of de-conflict from that area or relocate and so on?
MR KIRBY: I – our discussions are – on settlements are largely with the Israeli Government, Said, and again, we've made our position very, very clear on new settlements, and that's not going to change.
QUESTION: John, I'm just wondering if – does the – and this is not intended to be purely a semantic point, but does the Administration have a view as to whether this wave of violence that you've condemned is criminal in nature, or is it actually terrorism?
MR KIRBY: We would consider these – the violent acts that we're talking about specifically here as acts of terror.
QUESTION: So acts of terror – terrorism, I mean, I know that this is again getting into semantics again, but after --
MR KIRBY: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: -- so terrorism. That you're referring to attacks by Palestinians against Israelis, yes?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: To stabbings and the shooting of the --
MR KIRBY: The stabbings, the shootings – terrorism, yes.
QUESTION: There was an incident in Dimona, okay – let's look at it from the other side – there was an incident in Dimona – I believe it was in Dimona – in southern Israel this morning where an Israeli stabbed four Palestinians. Does that fall in the same category or is it --
MR KIRBY: I don't have the details on that, Matt, so I'm not going to – I'd really rather not get into --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- event by event. I haven't seen the details on this, but – I understand, and I understand the question. As I said, we do consider these particular acts of violence that we've seen, the stabbings, the – and the killings there, particularly in east Jerusalem, as terrorism. But I think I want to go back to the larger point here, which is all the violence needs to stop --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and calm does need to be restored.
QUESTION: Right, but the reason I asked the question was because there was an incident in the United States – Sacramento the other day – that – where one of the men who stopped the guy on the train from killing people was stabbed, right? And the immediate question was, well, was this just some kind of an altercation or was it terrorism, okay? It goes to how not only the local government approaches the incident of violence, but also how the international community responds to it – whether it is simply a robbery with a stabbing or whatever, or whether it – there is actually some broader intent behind it like terrorism. So that's the reason why I ask the question.
But – so I just want to drill down and make sure you're not – you don't know the circumstances of the situation in Dimona, so you're not prepared to call that one incident terrorism?
MR KIRBY: I'm not at this point. I simply don't have the details of it. And I think you can understand I'd prefer to know more before I make that kind of judgment.
QUESTION: But you have termed before settler attacks Palestinians as terrorist attacks. You have, correct? I mean, and the incident, let's say, in the village of Duma when a settler burned a whole family down and so on, you called that an act of terror. We're still waiting on the Israelis to make good, for the lack of better words, on their commitment.
MR KIRBY: I don't know of any change in our position on that, Said.
QUESTION: So you do term attacks by Israeli settlers or the Israeli armed – the Israeli settlers on the Palestinians --
MR KIRBY: But I think without getting into --
QUESTION: -- as terror.
MR KIRBY: I don't want to get into a laundry list of every act of violence.
QUESTION: It's just a quick follow-up on what Matt was asking --
MR KIRBY: I think our position has been very clear consistently in terms of what terrorism is and what it isn't. And again, let's not get wrapped up in definitions out of the dictionary. I'm not saying – and I'm not making light of the word "terrorism." I understand. Believe me, I understand the connotation of the word and what we're facing as a country around the world, and so many of our allies and partners are. But I think we're missing the point if we're going to get wrapped around the axle on this one word. What we want to see is the violence stop, calm restored, and real progress made, which we still believe is possible, towards a two-state solution.
I've got just time for a couple more. Yeah, go ahead, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another issue just quickly. John, sir, as far as U.S.-India trade and commerce relations are concerned in connection with TPP, how you are going to help or affect the relations with these 11 nations and U.S.-India relations going on?
MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary spoke about this in broad terms in his statement when the agreement was reached in Atlanta. We believe it's good for not just American economic growth but strategic relationships there in the region, and stability, the stability that can come from prosperity. And again, the Secretary looks forward to getting the agreement in force and to seeing what it can do for our prosperity, our security, here at home and in the region. And I think what we need to do now is to get it into force.
QUESTION: And finally, many Indian Americans and also many Indians in India are asking that whatever is going on between the two countries now what happened here at the State Department strategic dialogue and so much going on between them back and forth, is it going to be the same talks of the past, or we are going to move forward this time?
MR KIRBY: I think there's been enormous progress in U.S.-India relations, and certainly since Prime Minister Modi came into office. The relationship continues to deepen and grow on the security front and certainly diplomatically, and we look forward to that relationship continuing to grow and to deepen and to become more productive. I think everybody has every expectation that it will.
Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
QUESTION: A follow-up on his question. During the Strategic and Commercial Dialogue, climate change was another important issue to be discussed between the two countries. And India has now announced its commitment for the – on climate change before the Paris summit. Have you seen that? What is your response to it – India's commitment on this?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry --
QUESTION: Have you seen India's announcement and its commitment on climate change which was announced on October 2nd? How do you see it?
MR KIRBY: I have not seen it. But obviously, any contributions by India towards helping us deal with the problems of climate change and clean energy initiatives are welcome, and we would look forward to working in close cooperation to achieve those goals. I mean, it's obviously something the Secretary is very deeply concerned about, but I am – you've got me a little bit unfamiliar with the specifics of that.
QUESTION: I'd also like to have your comment on – about an Indian woman's hands been chopped off in Saudi Arabia.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that case.
QUESTION: Can you take that question?
MR KIRBY: I'll certainly take the question. I'm not familiar with that particular case.
QUESTION: Just in the neighborhood again on Afghanistan, today the Pakistan has again offered its resources for talks with the Taliban, peace talks with Taliban. How do you see this?
MR KIRBY: Again, I haven't seen that development, but nothing's changed about our desire to see an Afghan-led reconciliation process move forward. That's important for the future of the region and for Afghanistan.
QUESTION: And finally, is U.S. in talks with Pakistan on a separate civilian nuclear deal?
MR KIRBY: I don't have an update for you on that. Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Well, hold on. Are you aware – has the Administration at all changed its position on whether it would support an independent investigation into the Kunduz hospital bombing? I'm asking because there's a report with an interview with General Breedlove in which he says that he would – and I realize he's NATO, but he is an American general. As far as you know, has the Administration changed its position on --
MR KIRBY: Not as far as I know.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:03 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
