Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 13, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
TUNISIA
SYRIA/IRAQ
ISIL
SYRIA
IRAQ
RUSSIA
VENEZUELA
UKRAINE
TURKEY
CHINA
RUSSIA
BURMA
CAMBODIA
BURMA
TRANSCRIPT:
2:06 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Wow, sparsely-populated briefing room today. I like it. No, I'm fine with it. I do want to give a brief shout-out – though I don't see Ryan here, but Ryan Jones in our office, his parents are here, all the way from Idaho. Welcome.
QUESTION: We love your son. (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Indeed, that's on the record.
Just very briefly at the top, I did want to talk to – a little bit about the Secretary's day in Tunis, where the United States and the Government of Tunisia held their second Strategic Dialogue, during which Foreign Minister Taieb Baccouche and Secretary of State John Kerry discussed their mutual goal of expanding security, economic, and governance partnerships between the United States and Tunisia. They discussed Tunisia's important economic reform agenda, its commitment to its democratic ideals, and its efforts to address the ongoing security threats from terrorism.
The minister and Secretary endorsed the continuing role for civil society in Tunisia's political life, building on the work of the National Dialogue Quartet, which, as we all know, was recently recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize. And in Viennathis evening, the Secretary will hold bilateral meetings with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, Turkish Foreign Minister Sinirlioglu, as well as UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura to discuss the ongoing crisis in Syria in advance of tomorrow's larger multilateral ministerial.
Brad, you want to hit us off here?
QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to start with what seemed to be a confluence of events today regarding the fight against the Islamic State: one, your belief that you've killed the militant known as Jihadi John; the retaking of Sinjar; and then also some advance by Syrian rebels in the north of Syria. Do you feel that you're starting to see the benefits of what has been a somewhat maligned strategy to defeat the Islamic State?
MR TONER: Well, thanks for the question. You saw yesterday – or all of you watched, I hope – the Secretary's speech at the U.S. Institute for Peace, where he kind of laid out the various components, all of which you all know very well so I won't go into them. But essentially, it's a broad, varied effort both to degrade and defeat ISIL in Syria and in Iraq, as well as to bring about a political transition in Syria and end that conflict as well.
We recognize, and the Secretary spoke to the fact, that these efforts are mutually reinforcing. The more progress we make on one, the more likely we are to succeed on others.
In respect – with respect to the hit against – or the strike, rather, against Mohammed Emwazi, who is also known as Jihadi John, others have spoken to this, but we don't have a confirmation yet. But as the Secretary said in Tunisia, that terrorists and Daesh need to know that their days are numbered and that we're going to continue to take the fight to them.
This guy, this person, was a brutal murderer. He participated in the videos showing the murders of U.S. journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley, USAID worker Abdul-Rahman Kassig, British aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning, Japanese journalist Kenji Goto, and a number of other hostages. So, of course, we are assessing the results of today's – or last night's operation. And as we get additional information, we will provide that for you.
And you also spoke a little bit about – or you asked, rather, about the Sinjar – the effort to – by Kurdish Peshmerga forces to retake that town from ISIL. Again, all these elements fit together. I don't want to necessarily – because I don't want to say this is a confluence of events that shows that we're making quick progress, but we are making progress. We are learning from what works and what doesn't work. We are reorienting our efforts into what works. We've talked a lot about this over the last several weeks, and we are beginning to see some progress.
But we always bear in mind the fact that this is a long haul, that it's – we're looking at a long fight to degrade and defeat ISIL. And it's a fight that's going to be carried out most effectively, as you mentioned in your question, by those forces on the ground, whether it's Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga forces, Iraqi – other Iraqi forces, or whether in northern Syria, some of the different groups that are battling ISIL there.
QUESTION: So, much has been made about Sinjar, its geographic position between Mosul and Raqqa.
MR TONER: Right, Raqqa.
QUESTION: How important is it to hold and even expand control over this area so as to isolate the two from one another?
MR TONER: Well, as you said, it's a vital supply line, and various experts far more knowledgeable than I am about this have cited that, that this is – it's key to disrupt the logistics between – that ISIL has been counting on. It's a logistical route as well as line of communication for Daesh or ISIL.
I think this is – without getting too operational or too into the weeds here, this is part of efforts by Iraqi Security Forces to pressure ISIL on multiple fronts, and we're going to – they're going to continue to do that. We're going to continue to support them, both with equipment, supplies, and – as well as airstrikes.
QUESTION: And I just want to ask one last one --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- back on –
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: -- Emwazi. There has been some comments, even from family members of those who were killed by him, and even the British opposition leader that we shouldn't really get too excited about killing, essentially, this militant, and a trial would have been preferable. How do you respond to that? Do you think that was – that's unrealistic, or do you think that you too would have preferred that, but you couldn't do that? Or what's your response?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, we have seen, obviously, some of the comments by the families of some of his victims. We certainly are very respectful of their opinions and their viewpoints. Obviously, as many of them commented, this doesn't bring back their loved ones.
All that said, we've been very clear that we're going to operate within the national security – or in the national security interests of the United States. And part of that involves taking the fight to ISIL where it is operating, and trying to take out those key individuals who are within the ISIL's leadership. I can't assess where Jihadi John or Mohammed Emwazi sat within the leadership, but he was certainly a very public face, and put himself out there to be the public face of this brutal organization. And as I said, we've been very clear that we're going to continue to – when we see – have opportunities to take these people off the battlefield, we're going to do it.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR TONER: Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: What makes you think that the benefits of drone strikes that kill an individual outweigh the potential negative effects of the use of drones, particularly in cases where they kill innocents, including U.S. citizen Warren Weinsten this past January? What makes you think that the benefits that you are actually winning when you kill one person when the very way in which you're killing that person could simply engender more animus toward the United States?
MR TONER: So that was – okay, you came at that from several different angles, which I – is fine. Talking about the possible – I don't want to put it – we obviously in any kind of strike, airstrike that we carry out, we want to be very careful to minimize civilian casualties. And we're very clear about that and we make every effort – our armed forces do – and certainly, my colleagues over at Department of Defense can speak more fluently about that.
Bearing that in mind, as I said to Brad, we're going to look at opportunities where we have to, as strategically and surgically as possible, take some of these players off the battlefield. We are – let's remember our goal here is to defeat and destroy ISIL, and we're going to carry that out. This is a broad coalition that we're part of. But that's going to involve taking these people's – people off and key players off of the battlefield as we have these opportunities, but certainly bearing in mind that we need to minimize any civilian casualties on any end – on either side.
QUESTION: Two questions on that.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, one, you clearly cannot eliminate civilian casualties. The fact that a U.S. strike killed one of its own citizens accidentally this year shows that.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Right. So the fundamental question is – Rumsfeld once famously said the question is: Are you killing more terrorists – these are his words – than you're creating? And the question that I'm asking is: What makes the U.S. Government convinced that it is advancing in its battle against ISIL by killing one individual when it is conceivable that by killing that person you may spawn another dozen, half dozen, however many, other people who bear animus toward the United States?
MR TONER: Sure. And it's a fair question, Arshad. A couple of points to make. One is, just again looking at this strategically, this individual was a murderer. I mean, he put himself out there as one – a brutal murderer who killed U.S. citizens as well as British citizens, Japanese citizens. These were aid workers. These were journalists. He carried out their deaths on camera for the world to see. And we've been very clear that we're going to hold these individuals accountable.
Now, to speak to your larger question, which is does this have a detrimental effect or does this attract more people to ISIL's cause, that's something we're trying to address, frankly, through the various lines of efforts that the coalition is carrying out against ISIL. And one of that is in, however you want to put it, the messaging front or the battle for hearts and minds, however you want to frame that debate. And that's something we're continuing with our coalition partners to address.
We believe and we believe it's apparent that ISIL has a pretty nihilistic strategy or philosophy that they're selling to people, and not just within the region but around the world, and we've got to work hard to counter that philosophy in every way we can. But that's a different piece to this – and I understand how they're interconnected – than what we're talking about today, which is taking off – taking out these senior leaders and operators out of the battlefield. We've got to be able to do both, frankly.
QUESTION: Mark, can we --
MR TONER: Please. Oh yeah, go ahead. Sorry, yeah.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MR TONER: Yeah, please. Syria, we are on – yeah.
QUESTION: Iraq.
QUESTION: Okay. I wanted to ask about Operation Tidal Wave. The Secretary referenced this in the prepared remarks of his speech yesterday about increased efforts to strike ISIL's oil and gas revenue. And Colonel Steve Warren briefed about this earlier today. He said that the decision was made to strike at infrastructure to do greater damage than in the past because ISIS was repairing damage from strikes against the oil facilities quickly – 24 hours, 48 hours.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: I'm wondering, beyond that fact, the desire to do greater and more – and longer-term damage, what were the other factors that led to the decision to target the energy and gas facilities more intensely?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, obviously, my colleague Steve Warren is more knowledgeable about the details of this operation. But we've long spoken about the need to take out – and in fact, one of our lines of effort is to take out the financing of ISIL. And I think that's in the – that realm, that we need to cut off – I touched – talked a little bit about it with Brad as well, is taking out its logistical network, of which oil and gas is part of that; taking out its sources of funding, of which oil and gas is part of that; taking out its infrastructure. Those are all elements, I think, of waging a successful campaign against ISIL in addition to retaking territory and driving out, going after its senior leadership. I think they're all of a single piece, if I could put it that way.
QUESTION: I was just wondering, I mean, it's --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- you guys have been striking their facilities since --
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: -- the beginning. And you escalated in October. Does it have anything to do with Russia entering the battlefield? I mean, why --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: No, but you've watching for a year the fact that they could repair these – the damage from these strikes within 24 and 48 hours, and for a year you've – or more you've continued.
MR TONER: I mean, as to the – sure. As to the timing, Nicole, I would say – and we've been, frankly, pretty transparent about this – is in recent months, and indeed weeks, we've been looking at how we can accelerate our efforts. And again, I spoke a little bit about that with Brad, is what's working, what's not working. We talked about the train and equip that we were doing in Syria. Well, that wasn't, frankly, performing up to par. We were very honest in that assessment, and we talked about then we – putting in special soft forces into Syria to help with targeting and putting more effort into that, that element or line of effort. And again, similarly, I think we're looking at across the board, how can we effectively more – how can we effectively take the fight to ISIL? And one of those is increasing our ability to strike their infrastructure.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Please. Iraq.
QUESTION: On Sinjar, Mark.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: You mentioned that you're looking at what is working and what's not working. What do you think that worked today well in Sinjar? Because that was very quick and very fast. It's – Sinjar's in fact a big city compared to Kobani, and it took like a few days to retake it from ISIS. What is your assessment? What really worked very well there?
MR TONER: Well, I think, frankly – again, without – what's the word I'm looking for – without being too optimistic, because I don't think the fight is necessarily over, but they have made tremendous progress in the last 48 hours, even. But it speaks to the fact that a coordinated effort, where we're providing airstrikes to a very capable, well-trained and well-equipped force on the ground – and by this, I mean the Kurdish Peshmerga, who are very well known to be that – that it can really overwhelm ISIL and drive it out of its – some of its key strongholds. And I think that Sinjar is or was considered to be a key stronghold for ISIL.
QUESTION: Do you think that having your special forces on – very close to the front lines on the Mount Sinjar was also an add to the operation, compared to the other operations? You had them only in Erbil, maybe, or in Baghdad. But this time you had them on the Mount Sinjar. Do you think that had an effect on --
MR TONER: Well, I'll let DOD speak to where they were operationally. But certainly, I think that that's one element – we've talked to this before – is having those individuals on the ground to help bring in close air support is constructive.
QUESTION: And since we are talking about Sinjar and Yezidi case, yesterday there was a press conference at the Holocaust Museum. They have – they published a report that they prepared on the possible of the genocide. They actually called the genocide as a independent institution. And they called the United States Government and the UN and the National Security Council – the National Security Council, U.S. security council – to call a genocide and to work on that case. What is your response for that? And I think the report was really shared with the high officials in the Administration and the Congress.
MR TONER: Sure. Well, we've seen the report published by the Holocaust Museum, which, as you note, includes a finding that ISIL committed genocide against the Yezidis living in Nineveh in August 2014. Broadly speaking, without getting into specifics, I think the world and we, the United States, are horrified and continue to be horrified by ISIL's atrocities against the Yezidi people. At this point in time, though, we have not made a formal finding of genocide. I'm not going to get into the details of our internal discussions, but we certainly welcome the museum's report. We think it's an important piece of work. We thank them for their outstanding work in advancing the cause of atrocity prevention.
But this doesn't – this doesn't – it only adds, I guess, to our efforts to take the fight to ISIL, to defeat and destroy them, as I've talked about, to degrade their capabilities because these people, such as the Yezidi, are under such constant and continuing threat by ISIL. ISIL's atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Syria are well-known, and it's the reason why not just the United States but, indeed, the region and the world is seized with defeating them.
QUESTION: Right. One last --
QUESTION: But Mark, you don't --
MR TONER: Yeah, please, go – go ahead, Brad.
QUESTION: -- consider it genocide, right? You – I mean, you said you're not going to get in – it's not about – genocide is not a policy decision. You said you wouldn't get into internal discussions. But you either think it's a genocide or you don't think it's a genocide, and you don't for a certain reason. Is that correct?
MR TONER: Well, again, I'm not – we are – we're looking at the report. We have not made that determination, but it doesn't – like I said, it doesn't change the calculus here, which is that regardless of whether – we recognize the atrocities that have been committed against the Yezidi people, and we also recognize the absolute urgency in defeating ISIL.
QUESTION: Right, but why haven't you made that – I'm just trying --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- to get to why you haven't made that – what was lacking that doesn't make this a genocide?
MR TONER: We're just – again, we're continuing to have internal discussions about it, but --
QUESTION: But, I mean, are you gathering evidence to make a – I mean, I don't – I don't quite understand how it's a discussion issue.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, it's not like, "Should we do this or should we not; it's a genocide but we don't really want to talk about" – I mean --
MR TONER: No, no, no, I would just --
QUESTION: What are you missing?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Is it – are you missing evidence or you just think it doesn't fulfill the criteria, or what?
MR TONER: I would just say we're looking at the report that the Holocaust Museum has issued, and we haven't made a determination. That's – I'll leave it at there. I'm not going to try to characterize our internal discussions about it.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: A couple things about this. Just because you haven't made that determination doesn't preclude the possibility that you could at some point make such a determination, correct?
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: And you are still weighing the evidence on this question, correct?
MR TONER: I'd just say, yeah, we're still having – yes, we're still having internal discussions about it. But again, pivoting back to the point that's important here, which is whether that determination is eventually made or not, it doesn't deter us from the focus here, which is destroying, degrading ISIL.
QUESTION: Yeah. But I think the reason you get so many questions about this is that there's a history here over the State Department and one of your predecessors not playing straight with the question of whether or not a genocide had occurred and where the spokesperson at the time said that acts of genocide had been committed, but would not say that genocide had been committed.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And it was – it has been viewed by historians as a transparent dodge, that phrasing, "acts of genocide," and by the end of the day, Warren Christopher acknowledged that he would use the word "genocide."
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: So I think the reason you get pressed on it --
MR TONER: Understood.
QUESTION: -- is because people want to know whether it is the U.S. Government's considered view that something is or is not genocide. And if I understand you correctly, you haven't made that determination and you're still considering that matter.
MR TONER: Correct, we have not – we have not made a formal finding of genocide. Right.
QUESTION: And you are still considering that question?
MR TONER: Well, I – yeah, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: You keep saying "discussing," which makes me think maybe you're not even considering it, and maybe that's appropriate given the facts, but you won't even say whether you're considering whether it's genocide?
MR TONER: Well, I think we're continuing to have – I'm not going to comment on the content of our internal discussions, but we continue to discuss it.
QUESTION: So the problem I have with this as well is that saying you're discussing it or considering it, in the end, may not mean anything. And I'll cite even more recent history, which was after al-Sisi came to power in Egypt, you said you were thinking about whether it was a coup or not and then you just said we've decided not to think about it anymore and we won't say it was a coup or not a coup. So are you – could you conceivably decide this was not not a genocide but not necessarily a genocide, and you just won't decide if it's a genocide or not?
MR TONER: I'm just not – we're just not in a position today to say that it was a genocide or not a genocide.
QUESTION: And what – when you are having these discussions, what are the criteria you are weighing?
MR TONER: What are the criteria that we're weighing?
QUESTION: Yeah. I don't quite understand the whole – I mean, it's been a year. As you said, their atrocities are well known – the level, the scope, the direction. What is it that you need? What do these discussions talk about? Is it about strategic timing of a release of announcement that it was a genocide or – I mean, I don't get it, frankly.
MR TONER: Anyway, your questions are all well founded. I'm just not going to get into the details of the internal discussions that we're having.
QUESTION: You – just to be clear, you haven't even said whether you're considering whether it's genocide. You're just still talking about stuff, right?
MR TONER: Well, again, we're – I just – the Holocaust Museum put out their report. We accept that; we think it's an important piece of work. We're looking at it, studying it closely. We have not made that determination yet. But again, I think it's important to not lose sight of the basic fact or the fundamental fact – and frankly, this happened last year in August 2014, when President Obama authorized military, humanitarian assistance to save the Iraqi Yezidis who were trapped on Mount Sinjar. And that support for the Yezidi people continues as we take the fight to ISIL.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up one more on that?
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Beside the Administration, there is also three resolutions at the Congress about the same issue, and they are discussing the possible of the genocide.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Have you ever shown any kind of support for their resolution or objection that you don't want Congress to call this a genocide or anything?
MR TONER: You're talking about Iraq and our relations with the – with Congress?
QUESTION: The Yezidis – the Yezidi – right. There are three resolutions about that.
MR TONER: I'm not privy to some of the discussions we've had on the Hill and --
QUESTION: With the draft. Right.
MR TONER: But we consult with Congress, obviously, as they need us to consult with them, and we're certainly engaged with them as they look at all these issues.
QUESTION: Just one more on --
MR TONER: Please, on this, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on President Putin's statement saying that he's ready to work with the U.S. to defeat ISIS? Any update?
MR TONER: He's ready to – I didn't hear the last part.
QUESTION: His statement that he's ready to work with the U.S. to defeat ISIS.
MR TONER: Without having seen the statement itself, we've said all along that we would welcome Russia's constructive role in taking the fight to ISIL. Up to this juncture, we've not seen that in some of their targeting. But certainly, President Putin's words taken at face value are important, but we'd like to see that carried out through action.
Please, in the back. Oh, go ahead. Finish up, please.
QUESTION: So you are saying that Russians are targeting people or the groups?
MR TONER: We've talked about this at length over the last --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: -- several weeks, which is that we've seen the majority – and I don't have the latest numbers or statistics in front of me, but the majority of airstrikes they've carried out have been against Syrian opposition forces in support of Bashar al-Assad and not against ISIL necessarily.
In the back, please.
QUESTION: Have you guys --
MR TONER: Can we switch away from Syria? Go ahead. All right.
QUESTION: Regarding the charges brought against two relatives of President Maduro's – two relatives of President Maduro on drug trafficking, I was wondering if you guys have received any notification from the Venezuelan Government, any – I don't know, condemning the fact that they claim they had diplomatic immunity, however they were charged here in the U.S. Now, I understand it was an operative of the DEA and that the investigation is with the Department of Justice, but wouldn't this question of the diplomatic immunity deal with you guys? Have you received any comments from the Venezuelan Government?
MR TONER: Sure. You're talking about – just so I'm clear – the relatives of the – the indictments of --
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR TONER: -- Antonio Campo Flores and Francisco Flores de Freitas – Freitas – is that right?
QUESTION: Yes. Yes, Freitas, exactly.
MR TONER: So first of all, their indictments are a matter of public record. And upon their detention and arrival in New York City, U.S. law enforcement authorities contacted the Venezuelan consulate per – as per normal practice. The Venezuelan consul general has been in further communication with our law enforcement officials. And I would defer you to the Department of Justice for more information on the matter.
You asked a specific question about their diplomatic immunity?
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. At the moment of their arrest, they said they had diplomatic immunity, however --
MR TONER: That's not our understanding. We don't believe these individuals have diplomatic immunity.
Please.
QUESTION: One question on the diplomacy regarding this.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Did the U.S. Government – other than consular notification, did the U.S. Government contact the Venezuelan Government regarding the arrests?
MR TONER: Good question. I do not know the answer to that other than, obviously, as you said, consular notification. You're asking whether we gave them a heads-up or --
QUESTION: No. Well, to be precise, not a heads-up, which would imply that you did it before the arrest --
MR TONER: Right, right.
QUESTION: -- which I don't think U.S. law enforcement would do. But it's my understanding that a senior U.S. Government contacted the Venezuelan Government on Wednesday --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the day after the --
MR TONER: After the – okay, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what you were asking.
QUESTION: And then the second question related to that is did you – there have been – there's been commentary in Venezuela and elsewhere suggesting that this was an effort to tarnish Maduro's government ahead of their elections. And it's my understanding that at least one of the purposes of the call was to explain that this was a strictly law enforcement matter and not any kind of an effort to interfere in Venezuela's election or anything else.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So have you tried to convey that message to the Venezuelans with whom we've been trying to initiate a dialogue?
MR TONER: So I'm not aware of the call. I can take that question and try to confirm it for you. But I would obviously dispel that idea here from the podium. This was strictly a law enforcement matter. It had nothing to do with the politics of Venezuela. As we've said multiple times from this podium and elsewhere, we don't want to interfere with the internal politics of Venezuela.
QUESTION: Mark, could I just ask quick --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: On diplomatic immunity, who does it apply to beyond diplomats? Anybody? Like the family of – the extended family or the godson of a president doesn't seem likely, but I just would like to know.
MR TONER: It's very complicated, and frankly, I'm not a legal expert on it. We do have folks here who do look at all this stuff and vet it. So I'm weary of wading too far into it, but obviously, it is – those diplomats and their families, immediate families, who are registered here within the embassies in Washington. Now, that doesn't necessarily apply to, as I understand it, the family of, say, consul generals and consulates elsewhere in the United States.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: So it's a little bit – so it's a little bit of a --
QUESTION: It's a distinction.
MR TONER: -- nuanced distinction. But we obviously – we vet these and look at them very closely with folks who understand all the legal aspects of it. But I can get more information for you offline if we need to.
QUESTION: That's good, that's good.
MR TONER: You and then back – yeah. Please, sir.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on Ukrainian lawmakers yesterday passing an amendment to the labor code that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? And then as a follow-up to that, do you think that this move will further reduce Russia's sphere of influence in Ukraine, another former Soviet republic, in terms of propaganda laws and other anti-LGBT measures we've seen in the region recently?
MR TONER: Well, we are aware, and obviously, we commend the Ukrainian Rada for passing legislation that bans discrimination against LGBTI persons in the workplace. This is part of a series of bills that was passed in support of Ukraine's efforts to comply with the EU's visa liberalization requirements. We welcome the addition of these protections to the current labor code and urge the quick integration of these measures into the draft version of the new labor code that is under consideration in the Rada as part of its commitment to international human rights standards. We – obviously, we continue to stand with Ukraine as it presses forward on critical reforms such as these, and we want to see Ukraine continue to demonstrate its strong commitment to European values and to protecting its citizens and defending human rights of all of its citizens.
As to your second question, this is about Ukraine deciding – the Ukraine Government and the Ukrainian people deciding that they want a closer relationship with Europe. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game. We've said this all along. But they clearly want closer ties with Europe. They want more democratic values and standards in their own country, and they're pursuing those. And we certainly support them in that process.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up to that.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Do you know if the U.S. embassy in Kyiv had any specific role working with the advocates pushing this proposed – proposal forward?
MR TONER: Sure. I mean, I can't – beyond the fact that we – our embassies around the world, but certainly in Kyiv, have close contacts and close relationship with civil society in Ukraine, and are certainly offering whatever expertise and advice that we can on some of these issues.
Please.
QUESTION: On Turkey and G20.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is there any way you can tell us what will be the ideal outcome for the U.S. side in terms of Syrian situation there, things – is there a specific plan or strategy you have in your mind when you're talking to Turks or other --
MR TONER: Sure. I refer you to the Secretary's speech yesterday at the U.S. Institute for Peace.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: I'm slightly joking, but seriously, he laid out our strategy, and among which – actually, I think Josh Earnest over at the White House spoke to the fact that certainly, coming out of Vienna, hopefully the Secretary will be able to report on progress that's been made in our pursuit of this dual track, but more importantly this political process or political transition that we're looking to put in play or put in process to lead to a political transition in Syria.
The other really pressing need that will be discussed at the G20 – and the Secretary spoke a little bit about our efforts – is to address the humanitarian crisis that all this conflict in Syria has wrought: the refugee crisis that now is reaching into Europe, but certainly countries like Turkey, Jordan, and others – Lebanon – as well have been dealing with for years; as well as this crisis within Syria itself, and so how can all the nations of the G20 pull together to address this crisis – ongoing crisis. Even in our most optimistic days, I think none of us see this as the conflict in Syria ending any day soon, and we're certainly going to be dealing with internally displaced as well as externally displaced people going forward for a long time to come, so we need to all do our utmost to address their needs.
Please.
QUESTION: Since the G20's going to be in Turkey, is there any thought to any inclusion in the statement concerning freedom of the press?
MR TONER: I can't speak to what may or may not go into the statement. That's obviously something that we – a principle, if I could put it that way, that we always value and – yeah, I mean --
QUESTION: Well, you just said you're going – it's – a major focus will be on the things that are negatively affecting Turkey, like the humanitarian crisis --
MR TONER: Right. I was speaking about Syria and the overflow of refugees, but you're talking about freedom of the press now in Turkey or --
QUESTION: No, freedom of the press anywhere.
MR TONER: Oh, I'm sorry. I totally misunderstood.
QUESTION: Is that going to be in – is that going to be referenced in any way at the summit – fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the press – given your criticism of Turkey recently and actually long term for its freedom of the press?
MR TONER: Well, the second part of your question first. We continue to have discussions all the time with Turkey, and we're very public in our viewpoint that we want to see and urge the Turkish authorities to ensure their actions uphold universal democratic values, and that includes freedom of the press. I can't speak to whether or what is going to actually be contained in the final statement coming out of the G20, but we consider freedom of the press, broadly speaking, to be one of the fundamental rights around the world.
QUESTION: Same question, Mark.
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: On the G20 and on the press, even for this summit, worldwide summit, there will be media from Turkey being excluded to follow the event. So how do you handle such a challenge that you are going to country and going to speak to people, and the press – but part of the press, opposition press, will not be there? And as you know, the bigger part of the opposition media in Turkey under the crackdown – it looks like increasing since the elections.
MR TONER: Well, a couple points. We've said this before but I'll say it again: We're concerned by a troubling pattern in Turkey of targeting media outlets and their organizations that are critical of the government. In a democratic society, critical opinions should be encouraged, not silenced. Look at this room right now or on any given day as we get a wide swath of opinions and questions from all sides, and we take seriously all of the viewpoints of the journalists in the room and try to answer their questions as best we can. That's part of a democratic society and it's part of any government's responsibility.
Just to pivot back to what I said to Brad, we want to see and urge Turkish authorities to uphold democratic values that are enshrined in Turkey's constitution.
QUESTION: Since many of the Westerns leaders will be also in Antalya and speaking to Turkish leaders, would you call on your allies, especially Western allies who claim to value the universal values, should they raise these issues when they talk to their Turkish counterparts?
MR TONER: Many of our Western allies don't need us necessarily to call on them to raise these issues. They raise them themselves. Many of our democratic allies around the world will raise these issues. Look, NATO is – or Turkey is a valued partner, it's a NATO ally, it's a longstanding democracy. We want to see it live up to its democratic values.
QUESTION: Final question.
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Will the U.S. President raise these issues when he's in Turkey?
MR TONER: I would not attempt to preview what the President may or may not raise in his meetings in Turkey, simply to say that human rights issues, fundamental freedom issues are always on the agenda and always possible for discussion.
Please, in the back.
QUESTION: Can I ask about the South China Sea?
QUESTION: On Turkey?
MR TONER: Let's stay on Turkey, and then I swear I'll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Okay? I apologize. I just want to finish out the --
QUESTION: And just a quick clarification. Are you asking the Turkish Government from this podium or have you reached out to them after the events when the TV station was raided and the opposition's media is being --
MR TONER: I'd just say we – whether it's within our dealings or – within our dealings with the – or conversations, rather, with the Turkish Government through our embassy in Ankara, we convey these same messages that we convey from the podium. So I would say it's a dual-tracked approach.
QUESTION: Turkey?
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR TONER: Turkey? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: And Turkey, Turkey, and then --
QUESTION: Yeah, sure.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Mark, since this is – the Turkish Government is preparing the areas for the G20, and it seems that also in that stage is just so focusing on the G20 and nothing else in Turkey because there is conflict in Silvan for seven – more than seven days, like, it's been eight days. It's been curfew and conflict, fighting, killing civilians, and media completely banned from those conflict areas in the southeast of Turkey. So there's nothing, no statement, no word from the United States Government what's going on there. But there were some pictures by some leaked from there that it showed it is – it was --
MR TONER: Well, we --
QUESTION: It seemed like Syria, not Turkey.
MR TONER: Well, we are aware about the – and have seen reports of the curfews – about the curfews in effect in Diyarbakir, which is the Silvan area. We understand that Turkey needs to take security measures, but it should also take all feasible precautions to protect civilians and act consistently with its legal obligations. As to the specifics about the curfews, I'd refer you to the Turkish authorities.
QUESTION: Do you have any way, any mechanism – and you have your diplomats there, but is there any way that United States Government can make sure that there were no war crimes conducted in those places?
MR TONER: No what? War crimes within --
QUESTION: In the conflict areas by Turkish forces or by guerillas, whatever. But do you have any way that – to confirm there were no war crimes, any kind of a targeting civilian – what do you – how can you confirm this --
MR TONER: Sure. I don't know specifically if we have eyes on the ground in the Silvan area, and I'm not going to address your questions about whether there's war crimes or anything like that. This is obviously Turkish security forces operating in the interest of their national security. They have a right to defend themselves against – and the country and Turkish citizens against violence that's carried out by the PKK. Our concern is that they take, in conducting these security measures, into full consideration and take every feasible precaution to avoid hurting, injuring civilians, and act consistently within their legal obligations.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR TONER: Please, in the back, Turkey.
QUESTION: Yeah. Today – thanks. Today, the State Department designated an individual which was arrested in Turkey last July and which was sentenced by the Turkish court to --
MR TONER: What's the name? I apologize.
QUESTION: Maghomed Abdurakhmanov. Maghomed Abdurakhmanov is --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I'm wondering – you were involved with the arrest of these people – this individual?
MR TONER: You're too far away from me. I can't hear you. (Laughter.) I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Were the U.S. and U.S. officials, law enforcement in Turkey involved with the --
MR TONER: Oh, perfect, thank you.
QUESTION: -- with the arrest of this individual in Turkey?
MR TONER: I'll take the question. I'm not sure if we were involved in his arrest. But I can take the question and find out what I can tell you.
QUESTION: And I'm wondering, what is the consequence of this designation? Because he's in jail and he will be staying in jail at least for a couple of years, I don't know. The sentence is seven years and a half, but probably he will be free after five years. And he was accused, by the way, of beheading of three individuals. So you can behead three people and, I don't know, you can be member of the terrorist organization and you can be free in five years, maybe. This is your concern? Why you make this announcement? Why – what is the consequence of this designation?
MR TONER: Of his designation?
QUESTION: Yes. He's in jail.
MR TONER: Sure, I mean, and that's a good thing. But I can't speak – I can try to get you more information about the designation itself and what it entails, but broadly speaking, these designations are, frankly, to identify these individuals, to cut off any ways to finance their operations or any actions they may continue to take, even from prison, to conduct terrorist activities; and it's a way to freeze assets, to reach out and to really clamp down, if you will, on the financing of terrorist operations.
QUESTION: If at some point he will be free, you will have an extradition request from Turkey?
MR TONER: We don't talk about extradition requests.
QUESTION: Go to G20?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Mark, as far as this meeting of G20 in Turkey is concerned, they're also going to – the issues include IMF reforms and also corruption around the globe. My question is as far as IMF reform, what reforms are you talking about? And second, as far as corruption is concerned, is this going to be an issue discussed, which I have been asking, black market money from the corrupt politicians and from around the globe, including from India? How – what U.S. is doing now to curb all those black market money?
MR TONER: Sure. I mean, corruption – Goyal, so I'd refer you to the White House, who will give background briefings about the goals and the agenda for the G20. Speaking more broadly about corruption or to your question about corruption, it's not just a scourge in specific places; it's a worldwide and global problem, and certainly every democracy – and every democracy that wants to be economically prosperous and a place where investors seek to invest has to have zero tolerance for corruption. It is insidious and it creates climates where, frankly, foreign investors don't want to place their money or invest their money in.
Please, let's get to the South China Sea.
QUESTION: I'm taking you back.
MR TONER: That's okay, I didn't forget.
QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, Department of Defense verified that there was a flight operation conducted in South China Sea airspace. Susan Rice also said yesterday that South China Sea issue will be the central issue of discussion in President Obama's upcoming Asia visit. But China said it shouldn't have to have any discussion of South China Sea in APEC meetings. From U.S. side, will you have any response to that in terms of reaching a code of conduct and settle those maritime issues in South China Sea?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, again, I want to be cautious from the State Department to speak to what the President's agenda may be in South China Sea – or in his trip to Asia. I apologize. But that said, and we've spoken to this before, is without saying it's necessarily going to be on the agenda at APEC, we're going to continue to talk to our partners and allies, as well as with China, and be very clear about our concerns about the South China Sea and our position and belief that – and freedom of navigation.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR TONER: Yes, sir. Michael.
QUESTION: On Russia – this is a different topic – Foreign Minister Lavrov said Russia is waiting to hear back from the State Department on a request to look into and intervene regarding the health of jailed pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- who is suffering from severe heart pains. How are you handling this request?
MR TONER: So we have had – you're talking about Konstantin Yaroshenko, right?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Exactly. He was – just for the benefit of the room, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for conspiring to import more than $100 million worth of cocaine into the United States. We're obviously committed to meeting our obligations under both international and domestic law for proper treatment of persons detained or incarcerated in the criminal justice system, and that certainly includes the provision of adequate medical care. We also ensure regular consular access for jailed foreigners under the Vienna Convention. I know Russian consular officials have been in to see Mr. Yaroshenko a number of times. I don't have the most recent date. I can try to get that for you. I would refer you to the Department of Justice, but certainly we would – we'll respond to Foreign Minister Lavrov's concerns.
QUESTION: Did you get his request?
MR TONER: I don't know yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I would have to check on that. But this is – he is a foreigner held in the U.S. justice system, but we'll obviously continue to provide whatever consular access is needed to him going forward.
QUESTION: Burma?
QUESTION: Burma.
MR TONER: Burma. Agreement on Burma?
QUESTION: (Laughter.)
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up question regarding this individual? Is there anyone that – individual that he beheaded – was any American citizen among them? He says --
MR TONER: Who are you talking about again?
QUESTION: The guy that you designated.
MR TONER: Okay. Sorry.
QUESTION: According to the announcement --
MR TONER: Okay, sorry. Okay.
QUESTION: -- it says that he was accused of beheading three individuals in Syria. Any one of them is American citizen?
MR TONER: You're not talking – so you're not talking about Jihadi John, the person who --
QUESTION: No, it's someone else.
MR TONER: You're talking about the person who was designated --
QUESTION: No, Maghomed --
MR TONER: I know – somewhere in this huge book in front of me I've got information about him, I just can't find it. So let me try to look for it after the briefing and I'll give you whatever details I can, okay?
QUESTION: I wanted to ask, if I may – thank you.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: With the NLD victory in Burma, I realize it's very early days, but is there any discussion in this building or within the Administration about further easing of sanctions?
MR TONER: So first of all, congratulate – we congratulate the people of Burma on the election. We commend all the people and institutions in the country who worked together to hold a peaceful and historic poll that allowed the people's voices to be heard. We understand that the national – or rather the Union Election Commission is still releasing results, but as early results trickle in, we would congratulate the National League for Democracy on winning an absolute majority of seats in the union parliament and in state and regional parliaments.
With respect to your specific question about easing of sanctions, this is a good and positive step we're going to look for and continue to assess as Burma makes additional steps towards democratic reforms. So nothing, certainly, to announce today, but this is a step in the right direction.
Please.
QUESTION: Question about a neighboring country, Cambodia.
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you --
QUESTION: Sorry, one quick thing.
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: This is a step in the right direction in terms of the potential easing of sanctions, or just generally?
MR TONER: I just would say on the road to democratic reforms, additional democratic reforms that we're looking for, and I'm – but not previewing any decision we may make on easing sanctions.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: But go ahead. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Cambodia – there was an arrest order for a opposition leader.
MR TONER: Right, yes.
QUESTION: Sam Rainsy.
MR TONER: Sam Rainsy, thank you.
QUESTION: Exactly. If you had a – I was wondering if you had a response, either in praise or in condemnation of this.
MR TONER: We're – the United States is deeply concerned about the deteriorating political climate in Cambodia in recent weeks. That includes assaults against two opposition lawmakers, and now, as you noted, the arrest of – a warrant against opposition leader Sam Rainsy. The timing of these charges gives the appearance of undue political influence in the judicial process. More broadly, the pattern of actions against the opposition suggests a return to the harsh political practices and tactics of the – that the Cambodian people have made clear they no longer want. So we're obviously monitoring the situation closely and calling on the Cambodian authorities to drop the charges against Sam Rainsy.
QUESTION: On Burma, going back --
MR TONER: Going back to Burma – go ahead.
QUESTION: You said the timing of these arrests, or this --
MR TONER: Timing of these charges.
QUESTION: These charges. Okay, thank you.
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. As far as this historic election is concerned in Burma, going back to 1990 – 25 years ago – her party, Aung San Suu Kyi, had a landslide victory, but military stepped in and she was on and off in jail for 25 years. Don't you think now – what this election means – democracy in limbo? Because after military came in, they changed the constitution and they put certain restrictions that it will be very difficult for her to rule, and it might go back the same 25 years ago. So what U.S. is doing as far as to bring full democracy so she can rule as a prime minister or president of the country, which she does not have to see those cells or prisons again?
MR TONER: So – yeah. So Goyal – so we were, and even leading up to the election, very clear that we had very – that we had concerns, rather, about some of the preconditions or some of the restrictions put on, for example, as you noted, Aung San Suu Kyi's ability to run as a candidate and – or apply for the presidency, rather. Those concerns remain. This is not a definitive step into democracy in Burma, but it's a step forward, we believe, and we're going to continue to urge the Government of Burma to make continued progress with democratic reforms, with strengthening respect for and protection of human rights and other fundamental freedoms, and addressing, obviously, the situation in Rakhine State. So we're by no means crossing the finish line, and Burma has a long way to go, but we do view the elections as a positive step forward.
QUESTION: Thanks, Mark.
MR TONER: Yep. Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
