Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 23, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
MEXICO
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
RUSSIA/JORDAN/REGION
RUSSIA/SYRIA
COUNTERTERRORISM/ IRAQ
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
MEXICO
DEPARTMENT
NATO
RUSSIA
PAKISTAN/INDIA
BURMA
TRANSCRIPT:
12:37 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Happy Friday, everyone. Just a couple of things I wanted to call your attention to at the top here.
First of all, I wanted to speak a little bit about Hurricane Patricia, which is en route to impact Mexico. We are obviously closely monitoring the path of Hurricane Patricia and its potential impact on U.S. citizens who are in the affected area. Hurricane Patricia is currently a Category 5 storm predicted to make landfall later today near Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, which, as you all know, is a popular destination for U.S. tourists. We're closely coordinating with Mexican authorities and advise U.S. citizens to follow Mexican authorities' guidance. The U.S. Consulate General in Cuidad Juarez has established an emergency hotline to respond to inquiries regarding U.S. citizens in the affected area. Contact information can be found at travel.state.gov and at Mexico.usembassy.gov.
At this time, the airport in Puerto Vallarta is closed. All water ports in the affected area are also closed. We encourage U.S. citizens traveling and residing abroad, of course, always to enroll their travel plans on travel.state.gov using the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program. But obviously, this is something we'll be watching closely in the hours and days to come, and offering whatever support we can.
I also just wanted to briefly give you an update on the Secretary's day in Vienna. He did hold a trilateral meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir and Turkish Foreign Minister Sinirlioglu. He then met separately with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and held a meeting with all three foreign ministers – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia. Finally, the Secretary participated in a Quartet meeting with EU High Representative Federica Mogherini, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov again, and UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nickolay Mladenov.
The Secretary will, I think, shortly depart for Amman, Jordan and plans to meet separately tomorrow with the Jordanian King Abdullah, Foreign Minister Judeh, and Palestinian Authority President Abbas.
I'll take your questions. Brad.
QUESTION: I want to get back to Patricia later --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- but let's start with the Secretary. Can you tell us what – can you update us on what the result was of these various meetings, firstly on Syria (inaudible)?
MR TONER: Well, just to update you all, he did conduct a press availability, and we'll have that transcript out, I think, shortly. But just to give you some of the highlights, he did characterize his meetings on Syria as constructive and productive, and said they were – they produced ideas but didn't say – said he didn't want to share them today, but rather – but said that he hopes that they have the possibility of changing the dynamic involving the Syria crisis.
He stressed that obviously – we've talked about this many times – arriving at a solution to the crisis in Syria is difficult. And the ministers all agreed to consult with all parties and aimed to reconvene soon with a broader meeting in order to explore if there is sufficient common ground to advance what is many's stated goal in this, which is a political process. And all parties agreed on the fundamentals of the Geneva process that the transition must produce an inclusive, unified government that contributes to stability in the region.
QUESTION: So when you say "a broader meeting," you mean broader in scope or more countries participated?
MR TONER: So first of all, he did say that – he said "broader meeting." I don't want to characterize whether that means more countries. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So what does it mean, then? It would be a wider room? (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Well put. Look, he said that they – what the Secretary said was that they're going to consult with all parties, aim to reconvene hopefully as early as next week, next Friday, but obviously, nothing firm there.
QUESTION: Do you know --
MR TONER: And speaking about broader, I would guess that possibly that includes more countries.
QUESTION: Any thoughts about bringing Iran into the process at this point?
MR TONER: Not at this point. But of course, we've always said that Iran at some point needs to be part of the process.
QUESTION: Where the meeting will be held?
MR TONER: Where – that's – none of that was nailed down yet. Again, just the expectation that there'll be a meeting late next week.
QUESTION: Geneva III --
MR TONER: There'll be a meeting late next week.
QUESTION: Geneva III, for example?
MR TONER: No, I don't think we're at – I wouldn't characterize it in that sense. This is a – as the Secretary said, a broader meeting. I think the Secretary wants to come back here, obviously, discuss this with the President and others, and then convene a meeting next week and talk about some of these ideas.
QUESTION: Any idea about these ideas?
MR TONER: No. No, I mean, I think – I'll just go back to what the Secretary said, which is it was constructive, it was productive. There were ideas shared, but he's going to – he's not going to discuss them in any detail at this point.
QUESTION: Pretty low bar for productive at this point that – I don't know if you can confirm that ideas came up. That's the definition now of a constructive meeting on Syria's 300,000 dead civil war?
MR TONER: Look, Brad, what the Secretary said was that he believes the ideas shared today have the possibility of changing the dynamic, and I think everyone agrees that the current dynamic is not sustainable, that the country is in crisis mode – by the country I mean Syria is in crisis mode and that everyone has to do more to end the conflict there. So it's always, frankly, a delicate dance. I don't want to, nor does the Secretary want to, talk about ideas before they're – they've been – they've had a chance to be discussed and fleshed out. But I think that everyone gets the urgency here.
QUESTION: Was there any discussion with the Russian foreign minister about this new Russian-Jordanian agreement on military cooperation with regard to Syria?
MR TONER: Was there any discussion at the --
QUESTION: Between Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
MR TONER: Yeah, I'm honestly not aware if it came up at the – during the actual meeting or not. I can't rule it out or I can't rule it in. I mean, I just would say that we've seen --
QUESTION: Okay. If not, you'd have a comment, no?
MR TONER: We've obviously seen the reports and I would just let Russia and Jordan speak to the parameters of any agreement they may have come to. We've long said Jordan's an invaluable partner and ally in – on a range of issues, but certainly encountering ISIL.
QUESTION: But Mark, this is the --
QUESTION: Just one more.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: I mean, in the last few weeks you talked about how Russia was so isolated and it was acting on its own. And even if its coalition is smaller or less broad, I could say, than yours, it seems like they are making more and more agreements with regional countries, at least for limited or – cooperation or some level of interaction. Does that kind of undercut that message that they're just doing this on their own and --
MR TONER: No, I don't think so. I mean, look at our own MOU with Russia. It's very specific about what it consists of. It's aimed at, as we talked about de-conflicting between aircraft operating in the same area, and it's limited to that in scope. Now, I don't know the details of whatever they've reached – agreement they've reached with Jordan. It could be simply that, something along that scale. I just don't know.
But look, we have a 65-nation member coalition fighting ISIL. We've said many times that if Russia wants to play a constructive role in that effort, we would welcome that. We haven't seen that thus far.
QUESTION: Mark, could I follow up?
MR TONER: Yeah, Michel. Yeah, please, go ahead, and then --
QUESTION: Sorry. A follow-up on Brad's question.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: This is the third mechanism that Russia established in the region. One was with Israel, the second with Jordan, and the third with Iran and Iraq in Baghdad. And now Foreign Minister Lavrov is saying that he thinks that other states that participate in the anti-terrorist fight can join this mechanism as well. What do you expect – the coalition to be a part of this mechanism or these three mechanisms to be part of the coalition?
MR TONER: I'm sorry, you said three separate – I know you mentioned Jordan, you mentioned Iraq --
QUESTION: Iraq and Israel.
MR TONER: And Israel. Yeah. I mean, look, Iraq specifically was very – has been very limited. In fact, the government has said that they don't have practical cooperation with Russia. But speaking more broadly, again, I would just go back to what I just said, which is Russia can play a constructive role in countering ISIL. Thus far we've not seen that from their actions in Syria. So if it wants to change its focus, we would welcome that, but we just haven't seen that thus far.
You're asking me specifically how these arrangements might work within the broader coalition? I mean, I can only speak to the fact that we continue to have close train, advise, assist relationship with the Iraqi armed forces, and we're going to continue to work with the 65-member anti-ISIL coalition. But as to how that – how Russia's other agreements may or may not fit into that, I just can't speak to it.
Please, Michael – yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: One more, please, on this. Does it mean anything for you that U.S. allies are establishing these mechanisms with Russia?
MR TONER: I mean, again, it's up to these countries and these governments to speak to the – what these agreements consist of. Some of them are quite limited, and frankly, as I said yesterday, it's – these are sovereign decisions for many of these governments to make. All I can speak to is what our aim here, what our focus is, and that's on countering ISIL through the coalition and through our cooperation with the Iraqi armed forces.
Yes. And then I'll get to you, Michael, but --
QUESTION: Mark, the number of the countries in the coalitions – is it 65 or 62?
MR TONER: Fair question. Did I say 65? I think it's 65.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yeah, I think it's 65.
QUESTION: Because the statement by the Secretary today – he said 62 countries.
MR TONER: I believe it's 65, but I'll double check on that.
QUESTION: Sixty-five that are actively participating in military operations? Or just expressing --
MR TONER: No, that's not true, but just part of the overall coalition. I don't know the exact breakdown on who's actually carrying out airstrikes and military --
QUESTION: And Canada is going to cease taking part in airstrikes following their election. Are they still in the 65?
MR TONER: They're cooperating and I think continuing to cooperate on the anti-ISIL coalition, even if they don't – or if they make a decision to withdraw their air assets.
QUESTION: But the entry level to the coalition's pretty easy. Some of the countries just delegitimize, right, ISIL. You just have to say ISIL's bad and you join the coalition. (Laughter.) I think Andorra's a member. I know they haven't been launching too many airstrikes, but --
MR TONER: Look, I wouldn't say the bar is low. I would just – how I would put it --
QUESTION: I mean – delegitimizing – I mean, how --
MR TONER: No, but how I would put it is that there are a broad number of countries who are playing different roles within the coalition. Some of them – and we've talked about – many times about the different lines of effort in combating ISIL, and each country – as we've seen before, frankly, within even alliances like NATO – countries bring different assets and different capabilities to the job at hand. And so that --
QUESTION: Right. What would be, like, Andorra's delegitimization capabilities?
MR TONER: I would have to check on that. I would have to check on that. I don't know.
Please, Michael.
QUESTION: Yesterday President Putin was commenting on cooperation with – Russia cooperating with the moderate opposition fighters against ISIL. He said he raised this issue with President Assad, who said yeah, that's fine. He agreed that it would be a positive thing for Russia to work with the moderate opposition against ISIL. Do you think this is a positive development?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think that – and I spoke a little bit about this yesterday, but what we've talked about is – and the Secretary said as much when he was in New York – yes, in the sense that Assad could change the dynamic tomorrow if he decided to put in place a ceasefire and decide to move forward with a political process. If Russia wants to play a constructive role in reaching out to the Syrian opposition – moderate opposition – rather than, frankly, carrying out airstrikes against some of them, we would welcome that.
We need to – and I think there are areas of common understanding or common goals. That came out of the meeting earlier today. We want to see a unified Syria, secular Syria; we want to see a political process move forward. Again, some of the sticking points remain: What is Assad's ultimate role? We disagree. We think he should ultimately step aside, and – so that a transitional government can take place. But there are areas of common agreement, and so we're using that as a basis to move forward.
And again, without attempting to parse President Putin's words, this is something we've been working towards, which is getting the moderate Syrian opposition and getting the Syrian regime to come to some kind of way forward – a political process along the lines of Geneva.
Please.
QUESTION: And Lavrov said both sides have to intensify efforts on the political front to welcome Syrian officials – Syrian authorities – to work with the political opposition. He said – his indication was we're not doing enough. We need – the international community needs to intensify those efforts to bring those groups together.
MR TONER: You're talking about the Syrian moderate opposition and the regime? Yeah, I mean, I – look, I mean, clearly, as I said, as we – as they discuss the outlines of a political process moving forward, ultimately, yes, there has to be some kind of process that allows the existing government structures and the moderate opposition to work on a way forward. Again, what we've been clear, many other international partners have been clear, and frankly, the Syrian people have been clear is that Assad cannot be part of that, ultimately.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: One question on President's announcement today about Brett McGurk replacing John Allen.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know when he will officially replace him on the practical level?
MR TONER: Yes. So thank you for raising that. I think many of you saw the – also the Secretary put out a statement applauding General Allen's extraordinary efforts to build this coalition against ISIL over the past year. He's accomplished a great – an enormous amount in the past year. He's going to remain in his current position until November 12th. And so, as you mentioned, Brett McGurk is going to follow in his footsteps, take over the job that General Allen has occupied, as well as he's going to work closely with the national security team to strengthen our partnership with Iraq and also work intensively on – with regional partners in an effort to bring an end to the civil war in Syria, which continues, as we often stated, to fuel the conflict with ISIL and other extremist groups.
So I'm looking here desperately for a date. I believe he would start as early as November 12th or November 13th.
QUESTION: Just one more question.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Even though the position, President's special envoy to the coalition, is a civilian position, but General Allen had an intensive military background. Does this change, while Brett McGurk doesn't have any such background, indicate any change in policy or strategy?
MR TONER: No, I wouldn't read that into it at all. General Allen certainly did have a military background, but Brett McGurk has a proven track record. He has worked on these issues for many years now. Over the last year, in fact, he's worked, frankly, shoulder to shoulder with General Allen on the anti-ISIL coalition. He's played a key role in developing our strategy, as I said, to counter ISIL. He was instrumental in managing our immediate response after the fall of Mosul, developing a strategy to help Iraqis push back and working in the region with all Iraqi leaders as they stood up a new government led by Prime Minister Abadi. So he's – his credentials and his experience, I think, are ironclad.
Yes, sir. Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Is one of the ideas that they discussed today in Vienna that President Assad stays in power for one year or 18 month?
MR TONER: I'm, again, not going to – and frankly, I'm not aware of what the specific proposals were. I'm just giving you a readout of what the Secretary said and shortly after they broke the meeting.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Quartet part of the day? What – I didn't see a statement yet, not that they're terribly informative usually. But so can you say what they resolved after discussing the situation in Israel and Palestinian territories?
MR TONER: Yeah, no, I mean, I'm not sure. I mean, I think it was part of our ongoing efforts, obviously, to encourage all sides to take affirmative steps to end the violence, end the rhetoric, end the incitement. I'm trying to see if there's anything particular, though, he spoke about, reading out the Quartet meeting. I don't think I have anything right now, but I'll try to get you some.
QUESTION: Do you believe that you are starting to see those affirmative steps yet?
MR TONER: I believe that the Secretary's had good discussions, hopes to continue those discussions tomorrow in Amman – clearly with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. There's more work to be done, but as he said yesterday, he was cautiously optimistic about the way forward.
QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to Israel ending the age restrictions for Muslim men to come into the – to go up to the Temple Mount, the Haram al-Sharif?
MR TONER: Right. I mean, I think that – you're talking about – yeah, the age restrictions. I think that they've not been in – I think for some time now, but – that they've not been in effect, I think, for several days is my understanding. But that said --
QUESTION: Well, I think today was the first Friday, right?
MR TONER: Right, right. That's correct.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: Look, I just think that it's – this is – we would view as an – one of those affirmative actions that we've talked about to reduce tensions.
QUESTION: Do you think there's been a change of tone in the last day or two after kind of where it was, say, Wednesday, when it seemed like it was – couldn't get too much worse?
MR TONER: Again, I just – we're, again, cautiously optimistic. I think that these discussions obviously need to continue with all sides. But we would welcome – and indeed do welcome any day that goes by without continued violence.
QUESTION: And then just lastly --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- has there been any plan, per se, that's been developed yet on how you kind of resolve long-term this Haram al-Sharif status quo issue? Since you've been doing this like every nine months, it seems, recently.
MR TONER: I mean, obviously, there's – I mean, look, first of all, we welcome Israel's efforts and Jordan's efforts to continue maintaining the status quo. That was something that the Secretary and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke about yesterday, or talked about yesterday – how important it is to maintain it. There's clearly a lot of history here. We get that, we understand that. I think both sides understand the importance of that history and are working to ensure that the status quo is maintained, and we believe that that can be done with the current agreements still in place. So we're not calling for any kind of new agreements or new – or written-down agreements, but we believe with the current agreements in place that that can be held – that the status quo could be maintained.
QUESTION: The current verbal understanding, sort of.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Please, sir.
QUESTION: Can I move to the hurricane, or are there --
MR TONER: Sure. I think – are we done with – good, yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, any more specifics on the assistance going to the Mexican Government? Has the Mexican Government asked for assistance yet?
MR TONER: No. I don't think we're, frankly, at that point yet. And that's – so there's kind of two pieces to this. Obviously, there's our concern about American citizens who might be affected who are in the path of the hurricane, and certainly that speaks to what I said at the top – where they can get information, that we're monitoring the situation very closely, and that we're going to do everything we can in, certainly, during the event but also in the immediate aftermath of the event to ensure their safety. But we've not received any requests that I'm aware of from the Government of Mexico yet, but we stand by to offer, I think, any assistance that we can in the aftermath of this what appears to be at least a pretty epic event in terms of the intensity and the size of the storm.
QUESTION: Is it possible – and I imagine it's difficult – but is it possible to estimate the number of U.S. citizens in the path of the storm?
MR TONER: I tried to get that number, and you know we shy away from giving firm figures, but I think we're talking, just with the tourist population there as well as residents, upwards of tens of thousands.
QUESTION: And you haven't suggested to Americans yet that they should leave the area that's foreseen as the landing area, have you?
MR TONER: Right. Well, I think what we've said is they should follow the authority – the guidance of the Mexican authorities and whatever they're recommending. They should seek shelter, frankly, if they're in the affected areas and stay in place – shelter in place.
QUESTION: And there's no other way of getting out either?
MR TONER: No. There's – as I said, the Puerto Vallarta airport is closed. But look, again, this is --
QUESTION: And on – oh, sorry.
MR TONER: That's okay. Just to make very clear as well, this is a dynamic situation, and so as anything changes in terms of our response and what we're trying to do for American citizens and certainly what we're trying to do to assist the Government of Mexico in the aftermath, we will update you today, tomorrow, throughout the weekend.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You may have seen in the press that there was a rather lengthy hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday involving the Secretary's predecessor and the Benghazi committee. At one point during that testimony, there was an exchange with Secretary Clinton about her email account, where she said that the State Department had 90 to 95 percent of all her work-related emails already captured in State Department systems. And the chairman asked her who had told her that and she said, quote, "We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the emails that were already on the system." Can you tell us who at the State Department would have informed Clinton or her aides that 90 to 95 percent of the emails had been captured in State Department systems?
MR TONER: So, we're aware of that exchange and appreciate the question. I'm not, frankly, in a position to do that right now. I would have to refer you, frankly, to her campaign team, which has used that figure previously, I think, and explained it in a fact sheet that they released. It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it – the figure – so they can give you more information about the rationale or the background behind it. I'm not aware that we have given that figure, but again, I'm not in a position right now to confirm that.
QUESTION: Okay. And she indicated that that information came from a July meeting last year between her people and the department. Was there anything said in that meeting that you're aware of that would lead one to that impression? And can you give us any other background information on what that July meeting was about?
MR TONER: On that July meeting? I can certainly look into it. I don't have any information available right now in front of me about that meeting. But again, I'm aware that 90 to 95 percent is something that her campaign has been using. I'm not aware of the source of that.
QUESTION: And why – just to follow up on that --
MR TONER: Sure, sure. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: If indeed it were true, why would there have been such urgency to try to recover emails from her, from three former secretaries, if – because that – frankly, that capture rate sounds a lot higher than, for example, the inspector general has found in reports, where they found like in certain situations less than 1 percent of emails being captured in the systems.
MR TONER: Sorry, so your – but your question is why would that have – sorry, I just want to be clear I understand the --
QUESTION: My question is: In terms of this 90 to 95 percent figure --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- why would the State Department have gone to these former secretaries to seek their assistance in restoring its systems? Because that figure seems, frankly, much, much higher in terms of capturing official email than other reports we've seen saying State was, in some situations, capturing only 1 percent or less on average of record emails, at least under prior archiving systems. It doesn't seem like the kind of capture rate that would have led to an urgent effort to collect email from former secretaries.
MR TONER: Sure. Again, I can look into the timeline and the history behind – and what motivated us to reach out to the secretaries of state – the former secretaries of state. I believe it was, frankly, part of a realization that we perhaps hadn't captured all of the records, not just of Secretary Clinton but previous secretaries of state. And partly it was a, I believe, part of a newly updated federal record-keeping mandate that forced us to go back and look at how some of these email records were compiled over the years, and so we reached out in – kind of in that spirit to the former secretaries of state.
QUESTION: So I know you want to defer to the campaign, but are you suggesting that the figure is untrue? I mean, they wouldn't know that. You would know that. So --
MR TONER: I just don't – again, we've not been able to confirm that. I'm not sure where that information come from. I just don't have a firm --
QUESTION: Forget 95 percent. Can you find out when you asked last year for the emails how much you had already on the system?
MR TONER: On the system? I'll take the question.
QUESTION: You'll take the – thank you. Thanks.
MR TONER: Please. In the back.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Earlier this week at Harvard, Anders Rasmussen, the former secretary general of NATO, was speaking at Harvard and he was talking about the need for European countries to bolster their defenses and contribute more to NATO in the face of Russian aggression. He mentioned that only five out of 28 NATO members meet the 2 percent threshold of their – contributing their GDP to the operations of NATO.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: And he also mentioned a concern about Pew polls that show minorities in France and Germany and Italy saying that they would come to the defense of a NATO ally, that they should – the very concept of NATO. And so I'm just wondering if the State Department shares that concern and believes that European countries should do more.
MR TONER: Well, again, and having worked and spent time at NATO headquarters in Brussels, I can say that the defense spending issue is, frankly, a continual challenge for the NATO allies. And we call on all NATO allies to reach that, as you mentioned, that 2 percent GDP threshold. I think we've seen progress in the last few years in reaching that goal. I think certainly, speaking more broadly about how or what the public perception is among Europeans toward NATO, frankly, some of the events of the past year and a half vis-a-vis Ukraine but also other actions, events along the borders of NATO ally countries I think has only reinforced the alliance's relevance. And certainly, we've seen it also continue to play a very relevant and important role in Afghanistan as well.
I honestly believe that for any organization in the abstract, you've got to constantly strive to build public awareness of that and public support for it. That's part of any democracy's fundamental processes. You've got to constantly – just as we do in the United States, NATO in the abstract versus NATO in reality. And that's ongoing. But it's extremely important that governments – NATO allies, governments of NATO allies continue to reach for those defense spending goals because we need to make sure that NATO has the proper capabilities to face not only today's threats but future threats as well.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: On Russia, the Russian defense minister yesterday announced that they're planning to build military installations on the Kuril Islands. Do you have any comment on that, given the proximity to not just Japan, obviously, but also to Alaska?
MR TONER: You're talking about comments by the Russian defense ministry yesterday about the Kuril Islands?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Yes, let me – I think I have something on that. I apologize.
QUESTION: Way in the back, I guess.
MR TONER: Apparently, I don't. I'll take the question.
Yeah, please, sir.
QUESTION: Next topic?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Pakistan. The Pakistani prime minister met with Secretary Kerry yesterday and President Obama.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Earlier speech today, however, he sort of said that India is engaging in an arms buildup and that Pakistan would be compelled to take countermeasures. Are you concerned that he's sort of using this rhetoric so soon after meeting with the Secretary and the President, where he sort of said we should engage in dialogue with India?
MR TONER: Well, look, first of all, it was a very – a very successful meeting. The visit overall highlighted our strong and growing relationship with Pakistan, and frankly, provided an opportunity to strengthen our cooperation on a range of issues. Obviously, first and foremost is security, but there are other issues of mutual interest, including cooperation on economic growth, trade, investment, clean energy, nuclear security, climate change, and regional stability. So it was a good chance to really strengthen the overall relationship and talk about, as I said, a range of issues, not just the security issue. But that's obviously something that's important.
In terms of – you mentioned his comments about --
QUESTION: India.
MR TONER: -- India. Look, I mean, we've been very clear that India and Pakistan need dialogue. They need to continue to discuss with each other their concerns about – their mutual concerns about security and that they need greater engagement, because frankly, better dialogue, improved dialogue, greater cooperation between those two countries is important for all the security of the entire region.
QUESTION: Mr. Sharif, I think, would agree with that, but his point was that India can't be pushed to the negotiating table with Pakistan when it feels it's getting all this international support and it's being able to build up its armed forces thanks to foreign nations, and including the United States, upping it with arms deals. He said that the India-Pakistan relationship was the single greatest threat in the region and by far his priority over and above the Taliban.
MR TONER: You're talking about – yeah. I mean, again, I think that – first of all, I'm not going to certainly parse his perception of what he views as the greatest single threat to Pakistan. Pakistan has been, as we all know, deeply affected by terrorism and has taken steps to counter that terrorism in the recent past. We want to see those efforts expand. But it's such a complex dynamic. You've got Afghanistan and the Taliban's continued presence there on one side. You do have tensions with India, and those need to be addressed. We believe that that's best addressed through continued dialogue between the two countries. Beyond that, they need to share information, share – but ultimate – share cooperation. But ultimately, it's up to those two countries to chart a way forward that addresses each of their concerns.
Is that it, guys?
QUESTION: I have one more.
MR TONER: Oh, please, go ahead. It's okay.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on recent fighting in Shan state in Myanmar?
MR TONER: I don't. I haven't seen anything about that.
QUESTION: You haven't seen anything about that?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: There's been a flood of refugees.
MR TONER: Okay, I'll certainly look into it. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR TONER: Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:15 p.m.)
DPB #176
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
