Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 4, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
UKRAINE
KEYSTONE
RUSSIA/EGYPT
PAKISTAN
RUSSIA/EGYPT
RUSSIA/SYRIA/REGION
CUBA
GEORGIA
TANZANIA
ZAMBIA
TRANSCRIPT:
3:06 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Afternoon.
MR KIRBY: It's a short little --
QUESTION: It's almost sundown already. You do realize the clock's changed, right?
MR KIRBY: Thank you for the – I know it's --
QUESTION: This is the twilight show.
QUESTION: It's 3 o'clock. It's 3 o'clock.
QUESTION: I know. The sun sets in like an hour, two hours.
MR KIRBY: Well, I'll – I promise to get you of here before sunset. I'll do everything I can. Of course, it all depends on the length of the questions themselves.
QUESTION: They'll be short. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: On Ukraine, while we welcome the recent pullback of some heavy weapons from the line of contact, we are disturbed by an uptick in ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine over the past two weeks. Throughout Donetsk and Luhansk, separatists have repeatedly attacked Ukrainian forces with small arms, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, and high-caliber machine guns.
This violence endangers the ceasefire and Minsk implementation, which is the right path – as we have said before – to restore peace to the lives of innocent civilians who have suffered grievously from Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine. We call on Russia and the separatists to end the violence and to live up to their Minsk commitments.
And what that, I'll turn it over.
QUESTION: Just briefly on that, is it your position or your understanding that the only violations of this are coming – the only violations are coming from the rebel side?
MR KIRBY: Right now, we – as I said, the violations we're seeing are coming from separatists.
QUESTION: And in terms of the removal of the heavy weaponry, both sides are doing that or both sides are not doing it?
MR KIRBY: No, it has – it has a – what we said before is we continue to see that both sides are – appear to be abiding by that.
QUESTION: But – and yet – but, yet it's –
MR KIRBY: But this is a small arms fire.
QUESTION: Which is only coming from the rebel side as far as you know, as far as –
MR KIRBY: As far as I know.
QUESTION: Okay. On another topic, I just want to know – following up on yesterday, the Keystone questions – have you replied – have you sent a letter of response to TransCanada?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we have communicated our decision to continue our review, and we've communicated that to TransCanada in writing today.
QUESTION: And do you know who sign – who wrote that letter, who --
MR KIRBY: I actually don't have a copy of it here who signed it.
QUESTION: Well, their letter was sent to Secretary Kerry. I'm just wondering, did he reply?
MR KIRBY: Let me find out for you, Matt.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: I do know it was communicated to them in writing today, though.
QUESTION: Okay. So further to some of the questions that I and others were asking yesterday, why are you going to continue to do the review if they have asked you to suspend it?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, first of all, we're not required to pause it based on an applicant's request. There's no legal basis to do that.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you could.
MR KIRBY: There's no legal requirement to do that. And a lot of interagency work has gone into this to date, to include interagency review and coordination as well as significant review and coordination here. And the Secretary believes that it's most appropriate to keep that process in place.
QUESTION: But you're not required – you're not obligated to continue to do it, are you? I mean, you could pause if you wanted to, correct?
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: The executive order that we were talking about yesterday does not force the government to continue with a review of something that the applicant has asked to be suspended; is that correct?
MR KIRBY: That is correct. The – absent a request for withdrawal, consideration of the application under the executive order will continue. This was not a request to withdraw; this was a request to pause.
QUESTION: Okay, right. Okay. So if it had been a request to withdraw the application completely, then you would --
MR KIRBY: Well, if there was a request to withdraw that the Administration concurred with, then there'd be nothing to review. But that was not the case. This was a request to pause. There's no obligation to pause. A lot of work has gone into this to date, and the Secretary wants that work to continue.
QUESTION: What would have been the negative effects of pausing? Why – what would have been the negative effects of pausing?
MR KIRBY: I think what you're trying to do is wring out sort of where we are in the review process, and I think you can understand I'm not going to get into that, Justin. What I can tell you is that we have told TransCanada that the review process is going to continue. And when it's over then, and we have something to talk about, we'll do so.
QUESTION: Well, I get this, but I'm trying to – I'm trying to figure out – the rationale is that a lot of time and money has already been spent on the review, and so you don't want to pause it. Is that the explanation?
MR KIRBY: Well, we're well into this process, Matt, and so --
QUESTION: Seven years in.
MR KIRBY: -- we're not saying – no, hang on a second. We've made clear that we're going to continue the review, including processing, and as we have considered millions of public comments. So we've reviewed those public comments and now we've received interagency reviews. The process is fairly mature and the Secretary believes that out of respect for the process and all the input that has gone into it, that it is the most appropriate thing to keep that process in place, to continue the review.
QUESTION: Okay. But again, you're not obligated to continue the review. So respecting the process – we seem to hear that a lot – is what we're talking about here?
MR KIRBY: I think to a large degree, yes, it is. And I'm – and I'm fairly confident in telling you that – and the Secretary's view that respecting the process in this is also respecting the time and the resources and the energy and effort that went into the review process to date, not just by the interagency but by the American people. And --
QUESTION: I can understand why that would be an issue if they were asking to withdraw the application completely, but they're not. All that time and money that's been spent on the process thus far is not wasted if it's just a pause in the review, is it?
MR KIRBY: It may not be wasted, but I think at this point in the process, there's no view that it is to the benefit of the actual process itself when we're this far along.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: So -- look, I'm not going to parse every word here. We've communicated to them our intention to continue the review. We will do that, and when it's over and when we have something to talk about publicly, we will. There's no obligation based on the request to stop that process.
QUESTION: Right, but you're – but what it looks like that you're doing is protecting the process rather than going about making a decision that's in the best interests of the country or that comply or that accepts the company's request for a pause. I mean, you do accept that if it's just a pause and not a withdrawal, the years and years of work that's gone into this is not wasted; it's – it will – it will remain, correct?
MR KIRBY: We believe that the – quite the contrary. We believe that respecting the process is, in fact, the way to eventually get at a decision --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- that best supports our national interests here in the United States.
QUESTION: Can you explain – so the picture that this paints, then, is of a review process that was going down the road of a recommendation from the Secretary to the President to reject the application, that the company got wind of this and asked for it to be paused, and you guys are bound and determined to deny the – to reject the application. How is that wrong to see --
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: How is that the wrong way to see this?
MR KIRBY: I won't get ahead of the decisions or determinations that haven't been made yet, Matt. I certainly can't speak for the motivations of TransCanada and their request to pause; they should speak to that. But I think it's – it is clearly – not even figuratively, but clearly premature to get ahead of any determination that the Secretary has or hasn't made yet. The process is not over yet. It continues. And the Secretary believes it's important to let it continue. And when it's over and when he's made his determination, then we can talk about that.
QUESTION: Do you under – see how a decision to essentially reject their request for a pause plays into criticism of the Administration that it is unfriendly to business?
MR KIRBY: There may be such criticisms.
QUESTION: Well, they're not "may be," there is. There's a lot of – (laughter) – there's a lot of it.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Anyway.
MR KIRBY: All right, let's – all right. So there's criticism about the decision to pause. Look, there's going to be --
QUESTION: No, no, no. Criticism of the decision not to --
MR KIRBY: Not to pause, I got you. Okay. Look, there have been and there will continue to be many views on this and many voices heard. For our part, we've reached a point now in the process where we've done a lot of the homework to listen to those voices, to hear them – public, interagency. A lot of work's been done and put into this, a lot of work – very thorough, very deliberate, and very inclusive. And as you might expect, Matt, even in our work, voices on all sides, which is exactly what the process is designed to produce so that the best-informed determination going forward can be arrived at. And that's, again, why the Secretary wants the process to continue and declined to pause that process at the stage that we're at.
Now, again, critics may call it what they will. I am not going to get ahead of a determination that Secretary Kerry hasn't made yet. It just wouldn't be appropriate. But I can tell you that he's very comfortable in our decision to not pause this process as it has reached this mature phase, and has been so inclusive and has involved so much effort and resources.
QUESTION: Okay, last one and it'll be very brief. The Canadian Government – well, there's a new prime minister as of today, right, or yesterday – has been very involved and interested in this. Do you know if there's been any communication between this building and the Canadian Government about the response to TransCanada?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I'm happy to check on that. Our communication was directly to TransCanada, but I can check on that for you.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, just to change subjects to the Sharm el-Sheikh crash: Do you share the assessment that came out of London today that, "There is now concern that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device"?
MR KIRBY: Seen those comments out of the UK today. Where we are, Justin, is we are going to decline to comment on this ongoing investigation. Russian authorities are investigating. Egyptian authorities are investigating. And we believe that it will not be – would not be helpful for us at this time, and certainly from this podium, to inject any views or opinions of our own while the investigation is ongoing. I think you can understand, I mean, the importance of making sure that this investigation leads to real results here, and again, we believe it'd be premature to inject ourselves into that.
QUESTION: Well, then, are you saying it's premature and unhelpful for the British to be injecting themselves in the way they have?
MR KIRBY: No. I'm not making a judgment of any other entity or organization or nation as they comment on it. I've seen the comments. We are simply going to refrain from commenting while an investigation is ongoing.
QUESTION: Have they offered, whether privately, on an intelligence level, anything that would back up these claims, which have – are rather alarming to – and some view as irresponsible to suggest that there was an explosive device, an act of terrorism, with literally nothing to back it up?
MR KIRBY: Well, I won't comment on intelligence matters one way or the other, Justin. Again, I would just say that we need to – we believe it's important to let the investigators do their work. As you know, the Secretary called Foreign Minister Lavrov after the crash offering our condolences and thoughts and prayers to all those affected, as well as offering any potential U.S. help in the investigation. And that's where we think the emphasis needs to be now, is on proper investigation of this.
QUESTION: Have you not injected your own cynicism and sort of perhaps opinion about what may have happened by directing embassy staff not to travel to the region? I mean, what's that based on, then, if there's no suspicion of terrorism?
MR KIRBY: It's based on prudence, quite frankly, and it's not uncommon. First of all, it wasn't, "Don't travel to the region." It was, "Don't travel to" – it was a restriction on U.S. Government employees from traveling to the Sinai specifically. A couple of reasons for that. I mean, first of all, it's very prudent. It's about security and safety. We have an obligation to make sure our people are safe. And it's also parts of the Sinai now are wrapped up in this investigation, and I think it's the prudent thing to do, the safe thing to do, the responsible thing to do, to not – to preclude our employees from going there. And it's also, Justin, not uncommon for us to issue those kinds of messages to our employees all around the world when there is – when there are incidents like this, whether they're accidents or acts of violence. Whatever they may be, it's absolutely common for us to do this and it's the appropriate thing to do.
QUESTION: John, on this point, CNN just quoted U.S. intelligence suggesting a ISIS bomb was on Russia – or Russian plane.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters from here, and I think there's been press reporting of some sort of ISIS claim to this as well. We've seen that. I have nothing new to share with respect to what may have brought this aircraft down. And again, I think we should all – I think the responsible thing for all of us to do right now is to let investigators do their job and not jump to conclusions and not act on rumor and speculation. I think it's also important for us to just take a step back and remember that there's a whole lot of families right now that are going through a tough time. They just lost loved ones and friends, and they have a right to get answers to why and what happened. And I think we all need to let investigators go get those answers, and then when they do and when they report it out, then we can have a discussion about accountability if there needs to be a discussion about accountability.
Yes, Goyal.
QUESTION: Another question. As far as freedom of the press is concerned in Pakistan, the Committee to Protect Journalists, they are calling that press freedom is not – that journalists are being killed. And another issue is now that as far as showing the terrorists on the TV or radio, Pakistani Government have banned now media. They will not show any more images of the terrorists in Pakistan wanted by the U.S., including Hafiz Saeed and others. So we're talking about freedom of press. And also at the same time General Musharraf is saying that Usama bin Ladin is his and Pakistan's hero. Any comments on that?
MR KIRBY: Well, we've talked about these comments by Musharraf before, Goyal. I mean, I'll let Mr. Musharraf speak for himself about how he feels about Usama bin Ladin. I think it's certainly no secret how we felt about him, and he's no longer walking the earth, and that's a good thing. And the top leadership of his organization, many of them are no longer walking the earth, and that's a good thing. So I mean, al-Qaida is absolutely not the same organization it was under Usama bin Ladin.
On your other question about the media ban or the media restrictions that Pakistan put in place, we're certainly aware of those reports, and I would refer you to the Government of Pakistan for information on its decision. We obviously continue to urge steps to constrain militant groups operating in the region, including these two in particular – JUD and LET. LET, as you know, is a designated foreign terrorist organization. We absolutely believe that taking actions against them are fundamental to addressing the scourge of terrorism. There's no question where we are on that.
On the actual ban itself, I'm – I have no additional comment other than to say that as a general matter we regularly discuss with all our partners the importance of balancing this fight against terrorism, and there's a need there, with the imperative to preserve civil liberties, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press. And I mean, just in the six months I've been in this job, I don't know how many times I've stood here and talked about how important we hold freedom of the press and freedom of expression and how many times I've stood up here and talked about a government's responsibility to ensure that freedom.
So there's a balance here to be struck, to be sure. And what I can tell you is we continue to have these discussions with leaders in Pakistan.
QUESTION: Well, if freedom of the press is that important to you, why do you not think that this is a bad thing?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm going to refer you to Pakistan for the reasoning behind its decisions. What I can tell you is we recognize there's a balance to be struck here between the fight against terrorism and media freedom. It's a balance that every nation has to strike. Pakistan should speak for itself and for why it made this decision and how it's going to execute this decision. What I can tell you is we continue to discuss this issue with leaders in Pakistan, and we'll do that.
QUESTION: But it's not – there – this is not a vacuum. The only two things in this equation are not media freedom and fighting extremism. There's a broader issue here and I'm – I'm not sure I understand where – why the – this is not like telling these groups that – they are banning these groups from having their own media outlet.
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no.
QUESTION: This is banning all --
MR KIRBY: That's right.
QUESTION: -- press from reporting about these groups.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I didn't – that's right.
QUESTION: That's – that – if you really think that press freedom is a good thing, that should be a problem for you.
MR KIRBY: Media freedom and ensuring media freedom around the world is always a concern for us, Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR KIRBY: And I'm not – hang on a second, now. I'm not soft-pedaling this. We understand – we understand that – the importance of an independent media and of the media's ability to report news to their audiences. Nobody respects that more than this institution in this country. We also understand that a proper balance has to be struck between fighting terrorism and making sure that – because, I mean, obviously, terrorism is one of the things that – the extremist ideology is obviously not in favor of freedom of expression.
QUESTION: Do you think the proper balance is being struck here?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to comment further about Pakistan's decision.
QUESTION: No, we're not asking you to comment on what – on their rationale behind their decision. We're asking whether you approve the decision or not, and that should be a simple answer.
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is we have talked about this with Pakistani leaders, and I'm going to let them speak for themselves on the scope of their decision. We're aware of the reports of this. We're looking into that. I just don't have more information.
QUESTION: Well, if you're looking into it and asking for more --
MR KIRBY: I just --
QUESTION: -- well, if you're looking into it and asking for more clarity, then that would suggest that you do not approve of the decision.
MR KIRBY: I'm not in a position to make that call right now. What I can tell you is we're aware of them, we're looking into them. We're talking about this with Pakistani leaders.
QUESTION: Well, it obviously raised enough concern that you're raising it with them.
MR KIRBY: I'll just let our actions speak for themselves. I mean, obviously, media freedom's important to us. And you know that. And we're not bashful about talking about that. But I'm --
QUESTION: Well, you're kind of being bashful right now.
MR KIRBY: No. All I'm saying is we just got these reports, we're monitoring it, we're talking to Pakistani leaders about it.
QUESTION: Can I move back to the plane --
QUESTION: No, hold on a second. I'm struck by this, and I don't understand why – so you're saying that despite your great support for the freedom of the press – and no one's saying that you don't – you think that some kind of censorship is okay in certain --
MR KIRBY: No, no, Matt. I did not – no. Now don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. I never said that. I said there --
QUESTION: No. You just said there has to be a balance and you're refusing to say this is a bad thing.
MR KIRBY: We have these reports. We just got these reports, okay? We're just trying to digest them.
QUESTION: So does that mean that the Administration --
MR KIRBY: And we're going to talk to Pakistani leaders. We're going to continue to talk to leaders around the world about this issue. We recognize there's a balance that should be struck, and we want to make sure that the proper balance is struck.
QUESTION: But I don't understand, though, how there is any balance here at all. They've told media in Pakistan that they are not allowed to report on certain groups. If those groups go and commit an attack or something, then they can't report on them without breaking the law. That should be a bad thing to the – that should be a --
QUESTION: Are you seeking greater clarification? Is that what you're trying to --
QUESTION: Excuse me, Elise. That should be a bad thing to the United States. And a blanket ban like this should be an even worse thing.
MR KIRBY: We just got these reports, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: You're asking me to speak about them as if I can confirm every aspect of them. I can't, okay? We just became aware of them. We are monitoring it. We're going to talk to the – to leaders in Pakistan about it. I think – and frankly, I don't care for the lecture here that I'm getting about media freedom. Because no other country – no other country – more than the United States protects and supports and speaks out vocally for media freedom than this one. And if it needs to be spoken out in this case, you can bet by God that we will.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But we are – but we're just in receipt of these reports. We're just checking into them. And we're going to talk to Pakistani leaders about it and we'll see where this goes.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Can I move back to the plane? So you said that this is a very routine procedure that you prevent --
MR KIRBY: Which one? What are we talking about?
QUESTION: -- that you prevent employees from traveling into an area where there was a plane crash. But you're cautioning everybody not to jump to conclusions. I mean, I think that it's – and as Justin said, we have some reporting that says that there is reason to believe that regardless of who was responsible, that there was some – and the British have said that there was some type of explosive device on the plane. So can you say that that is why you instructed personnel not to travel to the Sinai?
MR KIRBY: There were – I think there were several reasons why. And again, it's not uncommon for us to --
QUESTION: It's pretty common – uncommon.
MR KIRBY: No, it's not.
QUESTION: It's pretty uncommon just because there is a plane crash to suggest to personnel not to travel to that area unless you have reason to believe that there was some type of malevolence involved.
MR KIRBY: There have been over time, and you know, Elise, there have been over time extremist concerns in the Sinai. It's not new that there have been concerns about extremist activities in and around the Sinai. That's not a new development. In light of this plane crash, our embassy made the decision, as it is their responsibility, to limit – to restrict, in this case – U.S. Government employees from traveling to the Sinai. And I think until we know more, I think that's the prudent thing to do. I mean, why wouldn't you do that? I mean, the opposite --
QUESTION: Well, I think it's the prudent thing to do too, but you're – then you're saying not to jump to conclusions. But it sounds as if even though you haven't reached an actual, final conclusion and the investigation is still going on, that you are leaning into the idea that extremism could've been involved.
MR KIRBY: No, absolutely wrong.
QUESTION: Otherwise you would not – that is very uncommon, John, to instruct personnel not to go to an area of a plane crash.
MR KIRBY: I can appreciate that you don't agree with me, Elise, but I'm telling you --
QUESTION: I've been covering the State Department for 15 years. I know every time you instruct employees not to go somewhere, and I assure you that it's very uncommon.
MR KIRBY: I'm not disputing your vastly higher intelligence than mine. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I didn't say it was a higher intelligence, but I have a very long institutional memory.
MR KIRBY: And I'm not disputing – I'm not disputing your long institutional memory or the fact that you've got more experience here at the State Department than me. What I am disputing is your contention that we issued this security warning because we strongly believe that there was a certain cause to this crash a la some sort of terrorist activity.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Just not the case – hang on a second. Just not the case. They did the prudent thing. They do what our posts do around the world every time when there is some security concerns, even when – especially when – we don't know exactly why something happened. And that's even more reason to restrict movement. You don't want people going into potential harm's way because, God forbid, you're wrong and you let them go and there is something more to it than you thought.
QUESTION: It sounds as if you think that there is something more to it.
MR KIRBY: We don't know, and because we don't know we're doing the safe thing.
QUESTION: You do know, but I just don't --
MR KIRBY: No, how do you – how do you know we know?
QUESTION: Is it perhaps – is the reasoning perhaps that, look, there were – there have been concerns about extremist activity in the Sinai before? Those – and the NOTAM exists since March for U.S. airlines not to fly over it, and then something like this happens --
MR KIRBY: And there's a floor.
QUESTION: -- and you don't know the reason why. Is that not a combination of existing threat --
MR KIRBY: Yes, that's exactly right.
QUESTION: -- and an unknown led to this? Is that not possible?
MR KIRBY: I think that, yes, that's exactly right. There's a lot of unknown here, a lot of uncertainty. There have been longstanding security concerns about the Sinai, and it's precisely because we don't know what happened that we're exercising (inaudible) caution.
QUESTION: Well, the uncertainty seems to be waning, because the British are now saying new information has come to light that suggests an explosive device. There is a report out now from CNN quoting multiple officials – U.S. intelligence officials – saying they believe this was most likely caused by a bomb, okay. And that – and your – the idea that we're supposed to believe that your travel warning is not based on that is – that's sort of secondary. My question is what do you believe actually happened? I mean, there are increasing reports now that this was a terrorist attack. Where do you stand on that?
MR KIRBY: So I'll just go back and tell you what I said before, Justin. I can appreciate and understand that you all want this wrapped up in a nice little bow today because somebody came out and said they thought it could've been an explosive device and everybody --
QUESTION: Not just somebody.
QUESTION: Not just somebody. The British Government on the record --
MR KIRBY: Everybody wants to just go ahead and jump to that conclusion, and I'm not going to do it, and this government's not going to do it. I can appreciate that you want an answer to this crash right now. Everybody would like to have answers as soon as possible, most especially the families that are grieving. But the investigators are still at it, and we've got to give them the time and the space to do their job. That's the responsible thing to do here.
And in the meantime, it's also the responsible thing to do for the United States Government to tell its workers don't go to the Sinai right now until things settle out, until we know a little bit more about what happened.
QUESTION: My last one, then I'll let Nicolas – has – the last basic assessment from the U.S was from Clapper that you can't rule it out. Has it – have you upgraded that assessment even one iota? I mean, are you still saying we can't rule it out, or are you just in the dark to intelligence that it appears others, like the Brits, now have?
MR KIRBY: I don't think we're in a position right now to rule anything in or out, and we're not in a position to make a call on what happened. And the investigators are still at their work. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Related to that, do you know if the U.S. has commercial flights flying from Sharm el-Sheikh to the U.S. or to Europe, and if so, if the U.S. Government has asked U.S. companies not to fly over Sinai?
MR KIRBY: I know the FAA issued some advisory. I'd refer you to them about the details on that. As far as I know, there are no U.S. carriers flying out of Sharm el-Sheikh, but I would refer you to the FAA for more details.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: The British are sending an aviation team as part of international protocols for their own airlines that fly in and over to investigate not only the attack, but whether proper security measures are in place at the airport and to see how – well, in their words, how a bomb could have gotten on the plane. Now, accepting that you're not willing to go that far, is the U.S. sending a team of aviation experts to investigate the – to examine the airport security measures?
MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of, but again, I'd refer you to the FAA for that.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the embassy notice just for a second? What's the date of it? Do you have it in front of you?
QUESTION: November 2nd.
QUESTION: That would be Monday, I believe. Are you aware of any of these – any reports that came out prior to Monday, prior to this embassy notice coming out, that suggested strongly or even weakly that this was a terrorist attack or a bomb?
MR KIRBY: There had been --
QUESTION: Aside from the claim of responsibility. What I'm getting at is that this embassy notice came out two days ago, or Monday --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- not today, when – the day that the British Government has come out and said this.
MR KIRBY: Yes, you're right. It was dated --
QUESTION: Correct?
MR KIRBY: -- November 2nd, and it was alerting U.S. citizens that as a precautionary measure, embassy employees may not travel anywhere in the Sinai Peninsula pending the outcome of an investigation into this crash.
QUESTION: Okay. So it was before anyone had said anything even remotely close to this --
MR KIRBY: That's right, it was on the second of November, which I guess was Monday.
QUESTION: Monday. And the other thing about this is the – some in the Egyptian Government were not particularly thrilled that this notice was posted to the embassy website. In fact, the spokesman for the foreign ministry was – took to Twitter, essentially to complain about it, saying, "Is it normal practice for U.S. embassies to publicize a travel warning or travel advice for its own employees?" Do you know if that complaint was made through formal channels or just in social media? And if it was, have you responded to them and explained to them what the situation is?
MR KIRBY: No, Matt. I don't know. I'll have to check on that. I don't.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Can I – I mean, on this. I mean, again, I know you don't want to make any definitive conclusions, but since the British have already pretty much done so and let's just assume for a minute that maybe some type of extremist activity was involved, do you think that that kind of bolsters your argument that Russia's involvement, its military intervention in Syria, could backfire on it and could invite – in the words of Secretary Kerry, invite more extremism and more attacks on Russia by jihadists?
MR KIRBY: I don't – again, because we don't know what brought this airplane down, I think it wouldn't be prudent for me to try to make any kind of connections to that. Again, I think we need to let investigators do their work and then we'll see where it takes them, but I – separate and distinct from that and from this terrible crash, the Secretary, as other U.S. Government officials have said, and I think we continue to believe, that Russia's military intervention in Syria will only and has only emboldened the Assad regime and does run the risk of increasing sectarian tensions, inviting jihadis to Syria, and as we've said before, could put Russia into a difficult position with respect to extremist activity. We've said that many, many times. But I am in no way suggesting that that's what we're seeing here with this particular crash. We need to let investigators do their work. But we stand by the concerns that we've long expressed about Russia's military intervention in Syria.
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: Well, ISIS, in their – I mean, in their claim of responsibility, ISIS specifically says to Russia that it was a result of their military intervention.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. No, I mean, I've seen press reports about that too. I think, again, we just need to let investigators finish their work.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, on Syria, the Russian foreign minister has said today that it's necessary to decide who to consider terrorist groups and to legitimate groups in Syria before next round of Vienna talks. Who will decide who are the good guys and the bad guys? And who will pick the opposition groups that they will participate in Vienna talks?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, Michel, there's been no final decision made about the next round of meetings, multilateral discussions, on Syria. So I'm not going to get ahead of either the location or the date or the participants. What – I would just point you back to what Secretary Kerry said last week when they wrapped up in Vienna the last time as well as Mr. de Mistura – who was asked point blank about this – and he said very clearly that not only did he not believe we were at the point now where we could have opposition groups represented, but they themselves didn't believe that we were at the point where they should be at the table talking about a political transition in Syria, that they had work to do on their own to become a little bit more unified.
So I don't know the answer to your question. I don't know when they will be brought to the table, and how that's going to look like, and who would be representing them. I simply don't know that. I don't think other international leaders know the answer to that question right now. Eventually, of course, they have to be, they will be, and we'll get to that point. But we are in a process now. More and more stakeholders are in these discussions. I think you're going to continue to see additional multilateral discussions moving forward. I suspect you'll also continue to see a series of bilateral discussions between various participants happening as we go forward. That's all to the good. The more discussion, the more dialogue, hopefully the more progress to getting at some real answers.
QUESTION: But who will decide who are the terrorist groups and who are the legitimate opposition groups in Syria?
MR KIRBY: As I said before, decisions about participation in these discussions is done in a collaborative, collegial way. It's not like there's one person or one country or one entity that makes final decisions about who's going to be in the room. It's done through a collaborative effort. And when you have that many participants at the table, as we did in Vienna – as I said last week when we have the same question about Iran – and I said I think if Iran's at the table, and they were, you can assume that it was a consensus decision. And when – it's not if but when – opposition groups are represented at that table, you can also then assume that it was a consensus decision to have them there, that everybody is in agreement.
QUESTION: Iran is fighting some of these groups, too. How are you able to find a consensus between all the parties who are participating?
MR KIRBY: Well, you just pointed out one reason why we're not at the point where we can start to have opposition groups represented there. Just one factor is the one you just mentioned. We'll get there. We have to get there. Now again, how and when and what the modality of that is going to look like, we don't know.
QUESTION: And one more for me on this. U.S. sources said that Russia's Syria force grows to 4,000 today. Can you confirm this information?
MR KIRBY: No, I'm not in a position to confirm Russian boots on the ground. You'd have to talk to Moscow about that.
QUESTION: I've got just two brief things. You said that this decision will be done in a collaborative, collegial way?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: "Collegial" is meaning some other definition of the word that I'm familiar with?
MR KIRBY: Well, maybe I used the word wrong. What I meant was --
QUESTION: Well, I don't know. It just seems that there are lots of reports about the rancor – and I realize you weren't there – that was going on around the table in Vienna, particularly between the Saudis and the Iranians, but also the --
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: But I'm not asking you to talk about that. It's just that I suspect that "collegial" might be a bit of an exaggeration in terms of how this is going to be arrived at.
MR KIRBY: That's --
QUESTION: Anyway, my real question is, there is a report or several reports that the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov again today. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: They did have a short discussion today by phone.
QUESTION: And was that – was the issue that Michel was asking about, was that one of the subjects that was raised or can you be that specific?
MR KIRBY: As I understand it, the discussion was – it was very short and mostly about the logistics concerning the next round of meetings.
But look, I want to go back on there because on this one, I don't necessarily want to give you the last word. I mean, when – you're going to have a lot of participants at the table and you can expect – we've said this all along – that they're not all going to agree on every little piece. Now, I won't get into rancor expressed by one party or another, but I think you can expect that there's going to continue to be differences of opinion on what a political transition should look like going forward. Now, obviously, we want to narrow those differences and we want to get at a consensus view that the international community can support that opposition groups can then have a vote and a voice in and also can support.
There's a lot of work to get there. I think you can obviously expect differences to persist as we go forward, but that doesn't mean that in the aggregate, particularly in decisions made about who is in the room, that there won't be some collegiality around this and a proper effort to be diplomatic about who needs to be having these discussions, even if the discussions --
QUESTION: Okay. I would just point out --
MR KIRBY: -- may not be all in agreement.
QUESTION: Okay. And I'm not asking for the last word, but I'd just point out that in Montreux, the last time the Syrians were actually at the table, "collegial" was about the least – I mean, it was an antonym of what was going on.
MR KIRBY: Well, I understand that. I got it.
QUESTION: One more on Secretary Kerry's call with Minister Lavrov. Did they discuss the upcoming meeting that Russia called for – between the opposition and the Syrian regime?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry, say that again.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss with the Foreign Minister Lavrov the upcoming meeting that Russia called for between the regime – the Syrian regime and the opposition?
MR KIRBY: I don't have – I don't have additional details to read out of his call with Foreign Minister Lavrov today. It was a short call, and as I told Matt, it was largely, if not solely, about discussing logistics for the next meeting that's going to occur, the very next meeting that's going to occur. And when we have more details about that to give you, we certainly will.
QUESTION: So they didn't decide anything?
MR KIRBY: It was a logistical discussion. I don't have any --
QUESTION: But they didn't come to any conclusion?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any decisions to read out as a result.
QUESTION: And do you think that the upcoming meeting in Moscow will help the Vienna process?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, the Russians are free to meet with whoever they want to meet with. And as I said to you before, we can expect other bilateral discussions – even perhaps other smaller multilateral discussions – as we continue to move forward towards getting a political transition in place.
The Secretary believes that we have nothing to fear from talking about this.
QUESTION: But fear itself.
MR KIRBY: No. That's nice, but there's nothing to fear from discussion itself. No part of this process is so dangerous, so treacherous, that there can't be discussions and dialogue about it by others in various settings. So I don't have any more detail to read out to you in terms of the call they had today, but if you're asking me are we concerned by reports – and I'd have the Russians to confirm what they're doing or not doing – but are we concerned by reports that they may be looking to have a meeting with opposition groups, the short answer to that is no. And if it can – if it can – help lead us along a productive path to a transition, well, that's all to the good.
QUESTION: But yesterday Elizabeth considered this meeting as premature.
MR KIRBY: Well, we have said – we have said, for our part, we think it is premature to bring in opposition groups. And even the opposition groups have said they're not ready to have those kinds of discussions. But if the Russians are going to do it, they're going to do it. And we're not going to be in a position to, nor do we find ourselves responsible to be in a position, to tell them who to meet with or who not to meet with. We do believe it's premature at this stage, but if they're going to do it, they're going to do it. And they should speak to why and how and when they're going to do it. That's for them to speak to. And again, if it can lead to progress towards a political transition, that's all to the good. We don't believe that the international community is in that kind of position right now.
QUESTION: Well, but part of it – part of the reason that they're not really invited to the table is because they're still kind of disorganized among themselves, and you've talked to them about the need to kind of get themselves organized. And I know that Michael Ratney was out there kind of meeting with them and filling them in on the diplomacy, but like --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- how do you get them ready? Is there some kind of plan for more intensive engagement with the opposition to try and help them organize? I know that you've done this in fits and starts over the years and there's a lot of – there's been frustration with them. But is there anything new, like a new – redoubling efforts to try and get them to coalesce?
MR KIRBY: The – I guess the short answer is yes. And you've kind of answered it in your question itself. I mean, Special Envoy Ratney has been very busy and has been consistently meeting with various opposition groups for quite a while now. And one of the reasons he's doing so is to try to help get them better unified and more organized in terms of being able to meaningfully contribute to political discussions about a transition. So yes, I think it's fair to say that there is more energy being applied here at the State Department to that end, and that Special Envoy Ratney, that's in his wheelhouse and that's what he's doing.
Yes. Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Yes, I have a couple questions on different parts of the globe. First is Cuba. Could you please confirm, is there any plan from the United States Government it might take more steps to relax Cuba – trade sanctions against Cuba? If yes, what kind of additional measures are we – could we expect?
MR KIRBY: There's a lot in that question. First of all, you properly referred to sanctions as trade embargo. That is congressionally mandated. That is law. It's the law of the land and we have to obey it. The President and the Secretary have made it clear that we'd like to see it lifted and we'll continue to discuss and work with Congress, hopefully to that end. But it is the law of the land and we have to obey it. That's point one.
Point two, the President has – within his authorities has relaxed some trade activities that he can under his executive power relax. And I don't have anything to read out with you in the future in terms of what he would do. I would point you to my colleagues at the White House to speak to anything that may come in the future. I won't speculate, but he has done that and I know that he continues to pursue and look at and review future options. What they would be and when, I just don't know. But that's kind of where that stands.
And then thirdly, obviously, what we're focused on here at the State Department is moving along the process of normalizing diplomatic relations. You know we've got the embassy now up and running. There is a lot of work that we need to continue to try to pursue here.
QUESTION: The information come from David Thorne. He is advisor for Secretary Kerry, and then there was a report from in Havana saying that he was telling the media that there is discussions and there are plans to relax more embargoes. Can you confirm that?
MR KIRBY: I just told you that we're going to – that we're going to continue. I just said the President is going to continue to review his options and opportunities that he has under his existing authorities to relax. What I won't do is speculate about what they may be and when they might come. I would point you to the White House for that. But I've already acknowledged that as well as Mr. Thorne, that the President will continue to review his options.
QUESTION: Could you please at least have a readout of his meeting with the Cuban officials over there?
MR KIRBY: I can check and see if we're going to do a readout. I'm not aware of one. I can check and see.
QUESTION: Right. May I have the next question on Georgia? It's also on the press freedom. I understand the U.S. just had the Strategic Dialogue with Georgia earlier this week. And Deputy Secretary Blinken emphasized that the diversity of political parties and the media is one of the most important pillars to the democracy in Georgia. I wonder if you could elaborate more on what's being discussed regarding freedom of media in that meeting, especially in particular on the case of the TV station, Rustavi 2.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, you're right, the Deputy Secretary did bring up press freedom issues during our Strategic Partnership Commission Plenary Session on Monday. What I can tell you is that we've been closely observing the deliberations in this particular case, the Rustavi case. We will continue to monitor developments in any appeals process in the future following this initial ruling by the Tbilisi city court. I can also tell you that, recognizing the considerable public interest in this case, the United States welcomes the calm and restraint of all parties' reactions to the initial ruling. As we've said many times throughout this case and as I've said many times from this podium, freedom of the media and independence of the judiciary are essential foundations of any democracy, and in particular remain critical to Georgia's successful Euro-Atlantic integration. And again, this was discussed at the plenary session Monday, and I think you can fully expect that it will continue to be something we raise repeatedly.
Okay?
QUESTION: Another question on Africa, Tanzania.
MR KIRBY: Well, you're just going all around the world here, aren't you?
QUESTION: We have 40-something language service --
MR KIRBY: About who?
QUESTION: -- they are interested in the world affairs. But anyway, on Tanzania, regarding the tensions in Zanzibar after the presidential elections – and I wonder if there's any efforts – diplomatic efforts from this building to calm the tension after the elections?
MR KIRBY: Well, we were alarmed by the statement by the chairman of the Zanzibar Electoral Commission in which he announced his intent to nullify the results of the Zanzibari presidential election. This action halted an orderly and peaceful election and a tabulation process nearing completion. We continue to urge all parties to maintain a commitment to a transparent and peaceful democratic process, and that the electoral process in Zanzibar be concluded in a prompt, fair, and peaceful manner. And I think, again, you can expect us to believe that that's in the best interests of the people of Zanzibar too.
Okay. I got time for just one more. Yeah.
QUESTION: Have you seen reports that came out of Zambia today that a transgender woman was sentenced to 15 years in prison for having committed sodomy? Have you seen that report and if so --
MR KIRBY: I have not. I have not. Let me go look at this a little bit deeper. Obviously, if it's true, it would be deeply concerning to the United States, and obviously, not at all in keeping with the – what we'd like to see. But I just don't have anything more on that.
Okay. Thank you, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:59 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
