Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 28, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
NEPAL
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT/ISIL/IRAQ/SYRIA
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT/ISIL/IRAQ/SYRIA
TURKEY
PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
VENEZUELA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
CHINA/SOUTH CHINA SEA
TURKEY/SYRIA/IRAQ/ISIL
SOUTH CHINA SEA
IRAN
SOUTH SUDAN
YEMEN
TRANSCRIPT:
1:02 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Brad.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: Just a quick note on Nepal here to top us off. The United States congratulates Bidhya Bhandari on her groundbreaking election as Nepal's first female president. We look forward to working with President Bhandari and the new government headed by Prime Minister Oli to foster unity, prosperity, and stability in Nepal. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Nepal as they continue along their democratic path and rebuild from the April earthquake and its aftershocks.
With that, Brad.
QUESTION: Thanks. I'll try to be fast with my questions today because I realize the Secretary is speaking.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I do want to kind of get down about 10 minutes till 2:00 so that you can all focus on the Secretary's speech.
QUESTION: Well, okay. I wanted to ask you first on the Syria conference. Now that Iran has confirmed it is attending, can you talk about your broader goals for this next round of discussions and what you hope to accomplish?
MR KIRBY: Well, we talked about this a little bit yesterday, and again, the Secretary is looking forward to this meeting on Friday in Vienna, and it will be a larger multilateral meeting than we've had in the past. And what we're trying to do is continue to build on the momentum that's already started toward answers – practical, tangible answers to what a political transition can look like. There were a good set of discussions in Vienna last week. The Secretary has maintained bilateral dialogue with many of the participants from last week's meeting, from then to now, and he's really hoping that they can start to solidify some of these ideas for what a political transition can look like.
I do want to stress, though, Brad, that while we're very much looking forward to this meeting on Friday – and yes, it is the – will probably be the biggest one we've – in terms of participants, the biggest one that we've had so far – it will be by no means the final multilateral setting and multilateral discussion about getting at this framework for a political transition. It's a complicated process. We expect it's going to continue to take some time. And I certainly would expect that while there continues to be momentum, we're not at a consensus yet. And it's going to take much more focused discussion to try to get at a consensus view on what a transition can look like.
QUESTION: So firstly, do you have a list of participants yet, or is that still being ironed out?
MR KIRBY: What I can – what I will do is I can speak to those nations who have already themselves acknowledged they're going. And I wouldn't – I don't want to speak for nations that haven't made a decision yet; that's for them to do. But what – we know that so far, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran – as you noted – have indicated that they're going as well as Egypt, Qatar, Lebanon, the European Union will be represented, and France. They've all said that they would attend Friday's talks. But again, I don't want to speak for those nations that have not yet announced.
QUESTION: Okay. You said that one other thing was to look for practical answers about what a transition would look like. Does this include the types of questions we've been asking in the last few days regarding the duration of a transition, how long Assad might stay in power, how elections might work? Are these things that you're looking – you're starting to probe for?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think broadly speaking, Brad, that's right. I mean – and we've kind of talked about the guts of a political transition in just the past few days. I mean, obviously, Assad's role is a key factor here. And we've talked about this before, that not every member in these discussions has the same view of Assad's future. So yes, I think you can expect things like the role of Bashar al-Assad in a transition to be discussed. I think certainly the role and the importance of opposition groups and the role that they can play and should play and will play in the transition – all that will be part of these discussions.
I do think that there's – broadly speaking, there's discussions about the length of time that a transition can or will take. I don't want to overprescribe that to make it sound like there's firm deadlines being established, but I think in general, you want to get a view from everybody about how long they think a successful transition can take. And then clearly, probably the most important discussion is about what a transitional government looks like, how is it composed, how is it organized, how can the working institutions of the Syrian Government continue to work to try to be responsive to the needs of the Syrian people – all of that stuff, and I'm sure other issues and factors will be discussed.
QUESTION: And then just lastly – and it's kind of a two-part, so let me just make it simple – do you see this round as a test of some sorts for Iran and Russia to – if – are you gauging whether they're serious about this process, or have you already reached that conclusion?
MR KIRBY: Well, it's our expectation that if they're coming to this meeting in Vienna, that every participant coming will come with an eye towards being serious about it. So participants wouldn't have been invited and, we would expect, not be going unless they intended to take it seriously.
Are we looking at Friday in Vienna as some sort of litmus test? No. As I said, it's one in a series of what will be continued discussions on a multilateral basis at trying to arrive at this political transition. But we certainly have every expectation that nations that are going to be coming and not just – the EU's also going to be there, not just nation-states – that participants are going to come with a serious view towards arriving at serious answers.
QUESTION: The second part of that question is: Since you've left this as an open-ended process and something that's going to take time, what is then your – I don't want to say "leverage" – what is your potential response if you find that the Iranians and the Russians are just stalling for time here while continuing their military operations to expand – shore up and expand Assad's rule?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, obviously, we don't want to see anybody playing for time here, and I'm not going to speculate about the motivations of other participants. As I said yesterday, and based on discussions that the Secretary has continued to have with Foreign Minister Lavrov, it's our understanding that the Russians are absolutely taking this seriously, and they have been participating in political-track discussions, which we welcome.
Now, it's true that they're also playing a military role that we find unhelpful because it tends to prop up the Assad regime, but – and we're not turning a blind eye to that, but we do think that, largely speaking, the participants who will be coming to this meeting have at least – though they may not agree on every aspect of transition, at least have a shared understanding of the criticality of getting to a political transition and a sense of urgency about the violence and the civil war in Syria.
So I don't want to hypothesize about who's playing for time or not, but --
QUESTION: Right. But you don't have a line in the sand at which point you say, "Look, they're playing with us here, this process"?
MR KIRBY: Well, let's see where it goes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I mean, let's see where it goes before – I mean, I've said this before – the Secretary is a pragmatist on this. He's looking at this from a very clear eye, and it's our expectation that people will come to this meeting with serious intentions about solving serious problems, and doing so in a manner that can lead to a resolution of a deadly bloody civil war as soon as possible. And if some nations have a different view of that and if they're not going to approach it seriously, well, then, we'll have to deal with that when it comes. But I don't think it serves anybody's interest here on Wednesday before a Friday meeting to kind of go into it with anything other than an expectation that everybody participating will do so seriously.
QUESTION: John, Tony Blinken has said in Paris today that Russia's intervention in Syria is not going particularly well, and that gives it an incentive to push for a political transition in the country. Can you elaborate on that?
MR KIRBY: I would completely agree with the Deputy Secretary's assessment, and we've talked about this before. I don't know how much I need to elaborate on it. They have not been taking much efforts or pains to go after ISIL inside Syria; rather, they have – militarily speaking, they have focused on the opposition groups, which has only emboldened Assad to stay into power, which, as we've said, will only encourage extremism inside Syria and prolong a civil war, lead to more refugees.
And so I think it's pretty self-evident what the Deputy Secretary was referring to in terms of not going well. These military activities against "terrorists" are really against opposition groups, and really against – working against Russia's own stated goal of wanting to see a political solution in Syria. You can't get there from here, from where they are in terms of propping up the Assad regime. If you want a real political solution, you got to work on a political solution, which means you don't create the conditions that make it easier for Assad to continue to brutalize his own people and to stay in power.
QUESTION: That means you are confident that they will get rid of Assad at the end of the game and soon?
MR KIRBY: What I'm confident is that we're looking forward to the meeting on Friday, and our expectation is, as I said to Brad, that everybody's going to come to this meeting with serious ideas about solving serious political problems in Syria.
It is made more – so that Russia's continuing to participate in these political track discussions is encouraging, and we welcome that. What we would like to see is that their actions militarily are in line or line up with what we want to see happen politically, and right now they're not.
QUESTION: I have two more on this. Do you have any schedule for the Secretary on Thursday? He will – who will --
MR KIRBY: The exact schedule is still being established, but I think it's fair to say that he's traveling tonight. Tomorrow we expect that he'll have some bilateral discussions in Vienna and then the multilateral discussions will occur primarily on Friday. But exactly when and all that, we're still working that out.
QUESTION: And Friends of Syria will meet in Vienna, too. What's the purpose of this meeting at this specific time?
MR KIRBY: I'd have to – you'd have to go to the Friends of Syria to talk about --
QUESTION: But you are part of it.
MR. KIRBY: I'm going to – I can only speak for what we're doing in Vienna for Secretary Kerry. I'm not going to speak for the Friends of Syria and what they may be discussing.
QUESTION: Did you mean that you will not participate in this meeting?
MR. KIRBY: I didn't mean that at all. I'm just saying I'm going to talk about what the Secretary is doing and what the State Department is participating in in terms of Vienna on these multilateral meetings.
Yes? Anything else? Yeah.
QUESTION: Iraq. John, a couple of days ago Brett McGurk was appointed to be the United States presidential envoy for the fight against ISIS. I know that General Allen was also the State Department person. He was not at the Pentagon but he had a experience of military. Does that – this change in leadership – having just somebody who has no military experience or is just a pure diplomat make the believe that – the United States believes that the fight against ISIS in Iraq is not about the military component; it's about the diplomatic component?
MR KIRBY: No. No. Brett McGurk's assignment or future assignment to replace General Allen is representative of Brett McGurk's experience and talent and leadership abilities with respect to this particular campaign and our desire to keep the coalition vibrant and healthy and strong going forward. And Brett has been at General Allen's side from the very beginning and has been a key figure in helping us achieve the level of cooperation that we've been able to achieve in this coalition.
But you kind of answered your own question there in the way you asked it. The task given to General Allen and to Brett McGurk at the outset was to build a coalition, to work the diplomatic and the economic and the informational aspects of this campaign the hardest. But really, it was to build this coalition, to get it up and going and then sustain it, and they've both done that. And it's just – it makes perfect sense that Brett would be coming behind to take General Allen's place.
It was never intended to be solely focused on the military line of effort, though there's obviously – in any coalition building effort there's a military component to it, which General Allen and Brett were able to manage quite well. But the execution, the implementation of that line of effort is obviously in the Pentagon's lane.
QUESTION: John, can I – sorry, can I go back?
QUESTION: Do you have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yeah, I have more. If you want to go back to the previous topic, it's okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, to the Friends of Syria meeting --
MR KIRBY: Do I get a vote in – (laughter). Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are they still calling it Friends of Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah. Why you did prefer not to talk about this meeting --
MR KIRBY: I just don't have any information on it. I'm not trying to dodge you or dodge the issue; I just don't have any information on the friends of Syria meeting. So I'm not at liberty to – I'm not going to give you information I don't have.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Are they still using this term, "Friends of Syria," or has that been phased out now that --
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that there's been any change, but I don't know. I don't know. I just don't have anything for you, so why don't you let me --
QUESTION: But you support this meeting.
MR. KIRBY: Why don't you let me take your question and we'll get you an answer back?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to try to make up information for you that I don't have from the podium.
QUESTION: On the change, the leadership, so does that mean that it's not going to change anything, that having Brett McGurk replacing General John Allen in the plan for the next year?
MR KIRBY: Nothing's going to change about the coalition's strategy against ISIL. We still believe it's sound and we believe it's working. What is going to change, and the Secretary has talked about this, is we're going to intensify our efforts against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria across all the lines of effort. And Brett is the obvious choice to come in behind General Allen and to continue the great work that he and General Allen have started.
QUESTION: So I'm wondering how you believe that this is working, because you haven't been – there are not major achievements in the – in north – the Kurdish side – and also in the south. There are some achievements – Baiji taking back, retaking, like, different kind – different times, but not a major change. Like, Ramadi is still under ISIS control, Sinjar is under ISIS, Mosul is under ISIS. Hawija is also. So how you believe this is working, because there are also disagreement – major disagreement between the Kurdish administration in Erbil and also Baghdad over the equipments, over the weapons, over the oil revenue, all of that issues. And you are also involved in most of these issue, the military assistance.
And also, do you agree with this – believe that – the Kurds, they believe that you are using your leverage, the military assistance, to force especially the Kurds to work with Baghdad and not just giving them arms unconditionally and the arms is conditional to force the Kurds to work with Baghdad, and otherwise there will be no military assistance, and that's why they are not willing to advance toward Mosul and other areas?
MR KIRBY: Look, I think General Allen was on Capitol Hill today testifying the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Assistant Secretary Patterson. They talked quite a bit about the progress in the campaign. I'm going to refer you to the transcript there. I could get up here and just talk for 10 minutes about the progress that we're making, which I've done before, and I'm not going to go through all that again. We know we're having progress. We're making progress against ISIL. They have less territory than they had before. They're being pressured economically in ways they weren't pressured before. They're losing leaders by the day, and fighters. Nobody said it was going to be easy. Nobody said they weren't still able to recruit. They still are able to recruit in talent. But they are very much feeling the pressure from the coalition. We know it's going to be a long fight. We know it's going to be difficult. We know it's going to be complicated. And that's why it's important that the coalition has remained so strong and united – 65 nations. That is no mean feat to assemble that many nations in an effort against one enemy like this. So there has been progress. And again, I'd point you back to what General Allen said this morning on this.
On your other question, we've talked about this too quite a bit. Our support in Iraq is through the government in Baghdad and Prime Minister Abadi, and it will remain so. And the prime minister and the government in Baghdad has worked very hard to make sure that the Peshmerga up in the north get the arms and material assistance that they need, and that will continue.
QUESTION: Which one is more priority for you: Is the integrity of Iraq is more priority for you, or the fight against ISIS? Because the Kurds say if you have the weapons, we will – can take over Hawija --
MR KIRBY: I think our record of support – I'm going to – this will be the last one on this because I've talked about this before.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: The record of success that the Peshmerga have had in the north, which is beyond dispute, is a testament not to just their courage and their skill but to the support that they're getting from the coalition, which will continue. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkey. Turkish Government seized a critical media company just days before the election.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And the police today stormed the TV station violently, journalists injured and detained. Do you have something on that?
MR KIRBY: I think we've said this – I'm going to repeat what I said yesterday. We've obviously seen these reports and they're concerning to us. We continue to urge Turkish authorities to respect not just media freedom but the political process, which includes a vocal opposition. And we want to see Turkey continue to live up to its own democratic values enshrined in its own constitution. It's important not just to us but more important to the people of Turkey to see that, and we share in that concern.
QUESTION: Shouldn't Turkey implement the court decision ordering the seizure of a media company? Actually it's not about a media company. There's a parent company who are – who is accused of illicit money trading, money laundering, and those kind of different accusations and allegations. And then afterwards, this court order came up, and then because the media group was part of this parent company, the police force itself to get inside the building and basically there was this clash happened over there. So do you think should Turkish police or the authorities shouldn't enforce the court orders?
MR KIRBY: What I'll say to that is that we look to governments to ensure that legal enforcement activity is done in accordance with international legal standards, including full respect for due process and equal treatment under the law. We continue to urge Turkey to follow such standards in this and other cases.
QUESTION: Have you expressed concern directly to the Turks in recent days, and especially after this latest incident?
MR KIRBY: I won't speak to private diplomatic discussions that we have. I think it's safe to say that we continue to make our views known both privately and publicly. And I might add that I just addressed this again yesterday from the podium. So I think our position --
QUESTION: But it got worse.
MR KIRBY: -- our position has been made plain.
QUESTION: You keep making your position clear, that you're concerned, and they don't seem very concerned that you're concerned, based on their actions. Is that correct? The --
MR KIRBY: Well, I think you'd have to refer – I'd refer --
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: -- you to the Turks to speak to the degree to which they're taking our concern seriously. But it doesn't mean that we're going to be silent in representing them. And look, I mean --
QUESTION: No one's asking you if you're going to be silent. We're – people are asking you if you're going to do anything at any point beyond just saying you're concerned, because they're not taking that concern into account when they go about whatever they're doing.
MR KIRBY: It – we think the approach is clearly not one that we believe is in keeping with their own democratic values. And I can just tell you that we're going to continue to make that concern known both privately and publicly. These are obviously decisions that Turkish authorities have to make and have to answer to, to their own people.
QUESTION: More broadly, are you worried about Turkey losing its democratic character?
MR KIRBY: I would just say what I said before: that Turkey's democracy matters to us, their democratic values matter to us, and we want to see those preserved.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On Pakistan. The former Pakistani president, General Pervez Musharraf, today in interview said that Pakistan supported and trained terrorist organization like Lashkar-e Tayyiba. And you know Musharraf was your friend and a key ally in the war against terrorism for 10 years. What do you have to say of this?
MR KIRBY: I didn't see the former president's comments. All I would say is that – well, a couple of things. One, we have a shared concern with Pakistan about violent extremism in that part of the world. Two, that we know that the safe haven still exists along that border region, and we've been very plain about our concerns over those continued safe havens. And number three, that we're mindful that Pakistan itself and the Pakistani people have fallen victim to terrorism – continue to fall victim to terrorism. Not only lost civilians there, they've lost soldiers. It's a serious threat, and we know that they take it seriously. And so what we're focused on – and again, I haven't seen President Musharraf's comments, so I'm not going to get into that. And I'm not going to re-litigate the past here. What we're focused on is the future and a future in – particularly in that part of the world that can lead us all to a better outcome with respect to violent extremism, and to a relationship with Pakistan which can deepen and grow and strengthen with respect to countering violent extremism.
QUESTION: You talked about mutual (inaudible) and joint statement was issued during last week's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visit here, did mention about Pakistan taking action against Lashkar-e Tayyiba. How much time do you want to give them? It's – what's the timeline for that?
MR KIRBY: So you want me to just say that we have a – we've dictated a schedule here of operations for them?
QUESTION: No, but that has been going on for last 10, 15 years, and this is only for the first time --
MR KIRBY: We're not dictating to Pakistan the timeline under which they would or would not undertake operations against that or any other terrorist group. We know that they know that these are serious threats. We know that they know how much it matters not just to the region but to the world. And it's a difficult problem to crack. The relationship with Pakistan has been complicated at times. What we're looking at and what we're trying to get to is a future where that relationship deepens and grows and becomes stronger with – especially with respect to countering violent extremism.
I don't think there's a Pakistani citizen today that needs to be reminded of how serious the threat is. Many of them have lost family and friends and, as I said, they've lost soldiers. They know darn well how serious it is, and we stand in unity with them against that threat and continue to make the point that we're – that we would and will continue to be willing to help them as needed.
QUESTION: But how can you say that when some of the perpetrators of Mumbai terrorist attack, in which several U.S. citizens were killed, are roaming freely in the country?
MR KIRBY: As I said earlier, we're not unmindful that there remain safe havens and we're not unmindful that there remain challenges in terms of dealing with those safe havens on both sides of the border. We know that. The Pakistanis know that. So does the Afghan Government. That's why it's important that these efforts continue. It's one of the reasons, quite frankly, that we have a continued military mission, though narrow, inside Afghanistan. There's a counterterrorism component to that. And as well on the advise and assist role in Afghanistan, it's to help the Afghan National Security Forces improve their CT capability so that they can cooperate even better and more seamlessly, when appropriate and when both countries agree, with Pakistan.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria.
MR KIRBY: Nah, I've already got you. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Quick question on Venezuela. Yesterday afternoon you put out a statement on the lack of judicial independence on Venezuela. Do you have anything new to add, and then could you please put it on the camera?
MR KIRBY: To my statement? Do I have anything to add to my statement? (Laughter.) No.
QUESTION: Or put it on the camera, please.
MR KIRBY: I don't. Next question.
QUESTION: We need a soundbite.
MR KIRBY: It was a great statement.
QUESTION: Could you read out loud? We need a soundbite on camera.
MR KIRBY: Oh, you need a soundbite on camera. (Laughter.) All right. All right. (Laughter.) I think I can do that.
QUESTION: Look at the camera.
MR KIRBY: Well, then I won't be able to read it.
As I said last night in my statement, one of the prosecutors in Mr. Leopoldo Lopez's case stated recently that he was pressured to pursue the case based on illegitimate charges and false evidence. If true, these statements highlight the lack of judicial independence and adherence to due process of law in Venezuela. We call on the Venezuelan Government to respect the rights of all political prisoners and to guarantee fair and transparent public trial consistent with the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Venezuela's own constitution. And we renew our calls for the Venezuelan Government to release all Venezuelans who are imprisoned for political reasons, including Mr. Leopoldo Lopez.
QUESTION: Is there any discussion on potential sanctions against officials allegedly pursue such fake trial against Lopez?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything with respect to that kind of an outcome to talk to you today. We've made our – I think our expectations plainly known. Obviously, we have continued, and certainly last night in the statement, and I think there's absolutely no doubt where the United States stands on this issue.
I'll come back to you later. You've had your shot. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you, John. Five minutes on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, please. Apologies if you spoke to that earlier this week.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: What do you mean no? I talked with --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Never.
QUESTION: What's your assessment on the impact of the measures announced by Secretary Kerry on Saturday in Amman, and are you not disappointed that it – these measures didn't have the effect that was expected?
MR KIRBY: I think it's too soon to talk about the effects. The Secretary was grateful for the time that he had with all the parties – the prime minister, King Abdullah, Foreign Minister Judeh in Jordan, and of course his time with President Abbas. He was grateful for the time that they afforded him; he was grateful for the productive nature of the discussions. I think the fact that he was able to get up in Amman and talk to you all about these measures, these recognitions by all sides of certain elements about the status quo was not insignificant particularly given the violence that we continue to see and certainly that we saw last week. He himself described the installation of these cameras as a potential game changer. He still believes that they can be and that they will be. They're not installed right now, so I think you got to let some of this continue to process here before you start giving it a report card. Obviously, the Secretary's not pleased to see that violent attacks continue. Obviously, we continue to call for a restoration of calm and for an end to the violence. And we want to see all sides convey themselves in a way that can lead to that outcome.
So nobody's happy about the continued violence, but I don't think that the Secretary today is looking back on the meetings last week with anything other than a sense of measured optimism about where things can go, which is exactly the way he put it in Berlin after his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I believe that that's exactly how he thinks of it today.
QUESTION: And the U.S. remains completely confident that Israeli prime minister is committed to implement these measures and is committed to defusing --
MR KIRBY: Well, the --
QUESTION: -- to defusing the tensions?
MR KIRBY: I would just point you back to what Prime Minister Netanyahu said himself on Saturday evening and exactly how he put it. I think his comments speak for themselves.
QUESTION: What do you make of president – of prime minister – President Abbas's speech today at the Human Rights Council?
MR KIRBY: We've seen the remarks, and as I've said before, I'm not going to parse every set of remarks made by every leader on all sides except to say what we've said before: that we continue to call for all sides to avoid provocative statements and actions and work constructively to restore calm.
QUESTION: I ask you about this one not because it's the latest but also because it's a high-profile forum, the United States is a member and was there. So he essentially told the United States this, and I'm not – I don't need to go through the speech, but do you feel that that speech was – the tenor of that speech was consistent with kind of the approach you're looking for from him right now?
MR KIRBY: Again, I think it's important to remember that this meeting of the Human Rights Council was a special one just specifically to hear President Abbas. No other countries spoke and there's not going to be any resolution or other council product as a result. Now, the council has held similar meetings in the past at the request of other countries, so this was held due to his personal request to speak at the Human Rights Council regarding the current situation. And I think --
QUESTION: Are you happy with the message? That would be the basic question.
MR KIRBY: I think what I would say, what we want to continue to see – what we want to see is words and deeds that do not do anything to escalate the tensions and actually can contribute to calm, and I think I'd leave it at that.
QUESTION: China?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: The Chinese ambassador to the United States accused the U.S. of militarizing the disputed South China Sea region by sending military vessels. Are you aware of his comments, and what's your response?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the comments. We would just flatly disagree. To sail a ship through international waters is not a provocative act in any way whatsoever and it should not be taken as a provocative act.
QUESTION: Earlier Secretary Kerry has a Foreign Affairs Policy Board meeting, which the U.S. policy toward the Asia Pacific is one of topic. Was the issue from yesterday, South China Sea, came up in discussion during the meeting?
MR KIRBY: They talk broadly – they did talk broadly with the Foreign Affairs Policy Board about the Asia Pacific region, the rebalance, the tensions that are ongoing particularly in the South China Sea. I'm not going to read out specific details of all these discussions, but obviously, they talked about the tensions in the region. And I'll let the policy board members speak for themselves.
I can just tell you that the Secretary stressed, as he continues to stress, that we want to see those tensions de-escalate and calm down, and we don't believe it's in anybody's benefit for there to be any militarization of these reclaimed features, and that all that does is increase tensions, and we want to see those tensions decrease.
QUESTION: Last December 4th, if I remember correctly, the State Department put out a document – the name is "limits of the sea" – in which they summarize, that – saying China has not clarified through legislations, proclamation, or other official statement the legal basis of – or nature of its claim associated with the dashed-line map. Do you – I mean, from December last year to here, is that still the same view that the State Department feel the same --
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that our view has changed. I'm not. I mean, I'm happy to – we'll take a look and see, but I don't believe that our view has changed in terms of a clarification. But look, it's not – as I said before, we're not taking a position on individual claims. We want these things resolved diplomatically, peacefully, and in accordance with international law. We do take a position when it comes to coercion and we do take a position and have taken a position about these reclaimed features and the militarization of them. And that's not going to stop.
Now, on the Chinese side, they've said they've halted that. And if that's true, well, that would be a welcome step. But I think it remains to be seen just how true it really is.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkish PM Davutoglu the other day --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you, but he keeps jumping out of his seat, so I got to go back to him one more time.
QUESTION: Turkish PM Davutoglu the other day said that Turkey hit YPG positions in northern Syria after YPG forces tried to cross the River Euphrates. YPG confirmed the attack occurred. What is your view on that, like these two partners of anti-ISIL coalition kind of getting into clash – getting into a clash?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak about military tactical matters. You know I won't do that. I've seen those reports. I'm not in a position to confirm them one way or the other. I would point you back to Turkish authorities to speak to this. We've long said that we're going to continue to provide support to counter-ISIL fighters that are fighting effectively inside Iraq and inside Syria, and that's not going to change from our view. We also understand the terrorist threat that Turkey faces from the PKK in particular, and we recognize that Turkey has – with respect to PKK attacks, has a right to protect its own citizens.
QUESTION: Aren't you concerned of a kind of escalation between two parties?
MR KIRBY: What we're concerned about, okay, is the 65-member coalition, which includes Turkey, continuing to press on ISIL and to eventually degrade and defeat that group. That's what we're concerned about.
Yeah, Lalit, you had one? I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: On South China Sea itself, several countries in the region have – are supporting your move, what you did in South China Sea this week. But do you see this as some kind of a formation of anti-China bloc in the region?
MR KIRBY: What as an anti-China bloc?
QUESTION: After you move in – military move this week, do you see the formation of a anti-China bloc because number of countries are supporting you?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR KIRBY: No, I don't, and there's no reason for anybody to conceive – again, I'm not going to speak to military operations one way or the other. I understand that the Secretary of Defense did confirm the operation. But as I've said repeatedly here today, that freedom of the seas is a fundamental principle which must be protected, and that's one of the reasons why the U.S. Navy exists. And operations in international waters are just that – they're operations in international waters and they're not meant to be nor should they be perceived to be by anybody as provocative.
And the Asia Pacific rebalance that we continue to pursue and the security aspects that we continue to observe in the Asia Pacific region are not aimed against or for any one nation. It's about what – about preserving our own national security interests in that part of the world, the national security interests of our allies and partners. And I would remind you that five of seven of our treaty alliances are in the Pacific region, so we have serious commitments there, and they're not aimed at China. They're aimed at trying to decrease tensions and preserve stability, because that region is so vital to the rest of the world – economically alone, but on other levels as well.
QUESTION: Is there any move by the U.S. and China to sit down and decide what the lines are, where does the boundary end?
MR KIRBY: Where the boundaries are?
QUESTION: Yeah, of the --
MR KIRBY: Of these reclaimed features?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of. Again, international waters are international waters. They don't need to be disputed. They don't need to be de-conflicted. International law prescribes what international waters are, and ships of all nations have free passage in international waters. That's what freedom of the seas is all about.
QUESTION: But China has a different view on that, and so there is a dispute that --
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for China's view. I can only speak for the international – for our view, which is supported by the international community and international law.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. Iran. We understand that equipment is missing from Parchin, including so-called containment vessel for nuclear weapons testing. Is that also the State Department's understanding? And how is this missing equipment consistent with the roadmap?
MR KIRBY: Look, for any specifics regarding the IAEA's investigation into possible military dimensions of Iran's program and any past concerns with Iran's program, I'm going to refer you to the agency. As we all saw on October 15th, the IAEA issued a statement saying that Iran had concluded the steps that were required of it under the roadmap for clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding their nuclear program. As part of that roadmap to address the past concerns, the IAEA will now prepare a final assessment by the middle of December – December 15th, I think.
So I'm not going to get ahead of that assessment and I'm not going to answer questions that should be addressed to the agency, such as yours. What we've said – (laughter) – I see you smiling, but it's true. What we've said is that we've long made our assessment of Iran's past activities, and it's that assessment and the shared concerns by the international community about the nature of Iran's past activities and Iran's attempts to hide them that led to the international sanctions regime which brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place and culminated in the JCPOA. The JCPOA is designed to ensure that Iran does not engage in any of those activities that caused concerns in the past, or if they do and if they do, they will be quickly detected.
Our job is to look forward now to get to implementation day, and there are many nuclear-related steps that Iran still has to take to get to implementation day. We're looking forward. We've already made our assessment about the past. I'll let the agency speak to the questions they asked and the answers that were given to them. What our focus is on is doing our part – and you've already seen some waivers go forward to Congress by the President – and we expect Iran to continue to do its part with respect to getting us to implementation day.
QUESTION: If the equipment is missing, then how can the U.S. and its partners establish the baseline for the nuclear program?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk to questions that the agency is in a far better place to answer. What I would just – again, I'd point you to what they've said themselves, that the questions they asked, they got answers to. They're going to do an assessment, and then we'll see what they say in mid-December. We have already made a determination of our own about past military dimensions of Iran's program, which is why we supported the international sanctions regime which brought Iran to the table in the first place. It's also why we are in favor of this deal – because once implemented, the deal cuts off all their pathways to a nuclear weapon. All of them. And some of them are in place forever.
What matters here to us is less about what we call PMD, past military dimensions, and more on what the future looks like. And what we want to see is a future for the region, frankly for the world, that doesn't include a nuclear-capable Iran. And this deal gets us there. And so that's where our head is. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Before we end, do you have a comment on South Sudan? There was a report that made reference to mass graves, cannibalism --
MR KIRBY: I'm going to have to --
QUESTION: -- various things that would fall under aegis of war crimes and whatnot.
MR KIRBY: What I would tell you, Brad: We welcome the release of the report by the African Union Commission of Inquiry on the atrocities committed during the early stages of the conflict in South Sudan. That report identifies acts that may constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, human rights violations, and violations of international humanitarian law, and we are of course reviewing those detailed findings and recommendations on institutional reform. We commend the commissioners and their staff for their tireless efforts to cast light on these horrific abuses that occurred during the early stages of the conflict – first in Juba, and subsequently elsewhere in the country as the violence spread.
In the months since the commission finished its investigations, warring parties have perpetrated further acts of violence and abuse with innocent civilians, particularly women and children, as their victims. So although the leaders of these parties signed a peace agreement in August, violence has continued and the South Sudanese people continue to suffer, and we want to see that suffering end.
QUESTION: John, on Yemen?
MR KIRBY: One last question then I got to go.
QUESTION: On Yemen. Saudi and British foreign ministers have said today that the war in Yemen is getting on the verge of ending. Do you agree on their assessment?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments and that assessment, and I'm not going to be in a position today to call it, as it were. We continue to be concerned by the ongoing conflict in Yemen. We want to see the humanitarian suffering cease. We believe and continue to believe that a political solution is ultimately what has to happen, and we're going to continue to work through and with the UN to that end.
Thanks, everybody. Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:50 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
