Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 18, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/NIGERIA/THAILAND/SOMALIA
FRANCE/ISIL/SYRIA
SAUDI ARABIA
FRANCE/RUSSIA/ISIL/REGION
EGYPT
RUSSIA/ISIL/SYRIA
FRANCE
DEPARTMENT/SYRIA
CHINA/NORWAY
CHINA/ISIL
NORTH KOREA
DEPARTMENT/SYRIA
IRAN
SYRIA/REGION
TRANSCRIPT:
2:34 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. A couple of things here at the top. The United States condemns the horrific bombings on November 17th and 18th in the northern Nigeria cities of Yola and Kano that killed more than 30 people and injured dozens more. We denounce the callous terrorist acts that have taken place repeatedly in Nigeria and other countries in the Lake Chad Basin and offer our condolences to the victims and their families. Of course, those responsible for these crimes must be held accountable. The United States renews its commitment to work with Nigeria and its neighbors to defeat Boko Haram and to address violent extremism in the region, countering these attacks on our common humanity.
On Thailand: We are deeply concerned that Thailand has sent two UNHCR-registered Chinese refugees back to China where they could face harsh treatment, arbitrary detention, and the lack of due process. We join the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees in expressing our grave disappointment with this decision by Thai authorities, and we urge Thailand to abide by its international obligations and commitments as well as its longstanding practice of providing safe haven to vulnerable persons.
Finally, the United States welcomes the reopening of the Somali embassy here in Washington, D.C. The opening of the embassy is an important step, we believe, toward normalizing the relationship between or two countries, and we look forward to working closely with the new Somali embassy to bring stability, security, and prosperity to the Somali people.
With that, Brad.
QUESTION: Yeah, I think we'll get back to some of those. I just wanted to start with a couple of things left over from the Secretary's trip. Firstly, he received quite substantial criticism for comments he made comparing the recent attacks to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and I saw your tweet last evening. Can you just say what the Secretary was trying to convey by that statement?
MR KIRBY: I think I'd point you to what he said today in his speech earlier this morning, the 30th anniversary of OSAC, where he talked about the fact that no act of terrorism is justified, and there can be no rationale for the senseless indiscriminate killing of innocent people. And he said that in Paris yesterday and he said it in Paris right after the Hebdo attacks as a matter of fact.
As I said in my tweet last night, all he was simply doing was proffering forth the rationale used by the terrorists in their attempt to justify it and reflecting, I think, the notion that in the Hebdo attack, not that it's justified but that they justified it based on a certain act by publishers. That's how they justified it. Whereas, the attacks in Paris in just the last few days were not – there was no rationale provided by ISIL for them other than the fact that they're just brutal murderers and indiscriminate killers. So he was simply reflecting the justification that they themselves put on that. That's it. But I think he's – I think, again, he was very, very eloquent and very clear today about the fact that there's no rationale for this kind of violence.
QUESTION: He wasn't suggesting one was worse than the other or one was --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely not, no. And he didn't at the time. If you remember, he went to Paris shortly after the Hebdo attacks and spoke rather forcefully about how devastating and how terrible those attacks were because they spoke to a larger hatred by groups like ISIL.
QUESTION: And then from the trip, he also said that he believed we were only weeks away perhaps from a ceasefire. What does he know that we don't that leads him to that conclusion? Has the Syrian opposition told him they accept this plan and that they're willing to lay down their arms? Has he heard from Russia or anyone else that the Assad government similarly is ready to stop fighting?
MR KIRBY: On any given day I just assume that the Secretary knows a lot of things that we don't, certainly things I don't. But he did speak about a general sense that we could be a matter of weeks away from a ceasefire. He caveated that, obviously. That's a – we'd like to see it be that soon. And I wouldn't get into – I don't think it would be wise to get into the details of diplomatic conversations that he's had coming out of Vienna – actually there and then coming out of Vienna that give him cause to be optimistic about it, but he does feel that in general – and you could see this at the press conference he did in Vienna that much progress was made, a lot of specificity on the process moving forward for political transition.
We talked about the framework of what that could look like, and you saw much of that framework revealed coming out of this last round in Vienna. And he believes that that momentum will continue to propel forward.
Now, obviously, he also was very honest about the fact that in order for us to be able to get to a ceasefire in a short period of time there's got to still be a lot of pressure applied. There has to be – that momentum has to be continued. And everybody who has made commitments there in Vienna need to keep those commitments. And again, without getting into the specifics of what gives him reason for that, I can tell you that he continues to believe we can get there. But he'd be the first to tell you that in order to get there, everybody has to maintain the same sense of urgency and pressure that they had on themselves and on each other coming out of Vienna.
QUESTION: Can you lay out the next steps in the process, then, how you will get there; how that urgency will be conveyed?
MR KIRBY: Well, it – I think he believes everybody does have a common sense of urgency now coming out of Vienna. There needs to be work now at the U.N. specifically on the ceasefire since the U.N. will be – as stated in the communique, the ceasefire will be UN-sponsored. So there's some work I think that needs to happen at the UN to start to move the process forward. The Secretary, I can tell you, will, in bilateral and multilateral sessions going forward, continue to work through the specifics of how we get to a ceasefire, the physical mechanics of it. I can't lay that out for you right now but I can tell you that he's working hard on that.
QUESTION: Is there any sense of bringing in the government and the opposition, or choosing the terrorist groups (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think a large part of that will come from UN leadership, as it should, because in order for the ceasefire to have the international legitimacy to hold, it's going to have to be UN-sponsored. So some of this initial work is really going to be for the UN to pursue. That said, I think you can count on Secretary Kerry to keep his foot on the pedal, too, and the pressure applied to all the players to move that process forward. He's not going to let go of this. But I can't tell you exactly each step – each next step in the process to getting to what we think will be a sustainable ceasefire. And obviously, it's going to require those who have influence on the sides, not just the Assad regime but the opposition groups – it's going to require those who have influence to exercise that influence diligently and to hold those – to the degree they can, to hold those parties accountable once a ceasefire is in place, to keep it in place.
So it's going to – it doesn't require just an honest effort by the – all the sides in the Syrian conflict; it's going to require an honest, diligent effort by all those with influence on those parties. Does that make sense? And that's where a lot of the diplomacy I think will come in.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: How would be the implementation of Vienna statement different than the implementation of Geneva communique, since the difference between the U.S. and Russia is still there regarding the future of President Assad?
MR KIRBY: A couple of things on that. I mean, first of all, the Geneva communique really has served as the foundational document for the last two sessions in Vienna and the communiques that came out of them. I think the 2012 Geneva communique is still very relevant – in fact, provided the basis, the sort of connective tissue for us to get to the communique of just last week in terms of basic core principles.
And implementation is still a work in progress, to be honest with you, Michel. I mean, there's – right now there's a focus, as Brad asked about the ceasefire; I think there's a keen focus now on trying to get at that. The Secretary said that all the parties agreed to a target date – target date – of January 1st to get negotiations started between the regime and opposition groups. Now, there's a lot of – January 1st is coming, and so there's a lot of work that has to be done to help – and we talked about this after Doha – to help unify the opposition groups and to get them in a position where they can sit down and start to have those negotiations.
Once that starts, I mean, that's about a six-month process, as you saw in the communique, to work through building a framework to get to the drafting of a constitution. And then the work continues from there.
So the communique coming out of Vienna laid forward very specific milestones and goals tied to timeframes, not dates except for January 1st, and tied to processes. And that's what everybody's focused on right now.
QUESTION: But we had two experiences happened in Geneva between the regime and the opposition, when they came to the table, and they haven't achieved anything. What's the difference now between the past two experiences and now?
MR KIRBY: I think the difference is you have, first of all, a much more concerted interest and effort by more international players than you did back in 2012. I mean, there were 20-some participants at the meeting in Vienna last week; there were 10 in 2012. So we've doubled the amount of international participation and international community leadership just in terms of participants. So there's much more effort on this. We've also – in 2012, we weren't dealing with the threat by ISIL inside Syria, which has obviously drastically changed the situation on the ground and has contributed to the flow of refugees out of Syria as well as the violence. And you saw coming out of Vienna last – not just this last one but the one before it, the very firm, stated commitment by all participants that groups like ISIL and al-Nusrah were not going to be part of the ceasefire and that they – and that international efforts to defeat them needed to continue.
So the situation is different in Syria than it was in 2012. There are – it is more dire. There is much more international community recognition of those dire circumstances. We didn't have the refugee problem in 2012 that we have right now in Europe. So there is a sense of urgency here that I think has been building over the last couple of years, and I think given that there are more nations now involved and more international organizations – the Arab League was represented, the EU was represented – that there's a renewed sense of energy and effort that's going to be applied on this. I can tell you that the Secretary believes, and I think he's joined in this by the other ministers that were represented there, that there is a sense of momentum here, perhaps more so than what we've been able to achieve in the past.
And then to your specific questions about the opposition and the regime, that's why – and this is what – unlike 2012, that's why we've got this process that we laid out last week of working on a target date of January 1st to get the opposition groups properly identified and unified to sit down and have a negotiation with the Assad regime. And we have – post January 1st, you've got a six-month process there that's laid out for a Syrian-led process to develop the drafting of a constitution. So there's specifics now in terms of what a political framework can look like going forward that we just didn't have in 2012. I can't tell you exactly why things fell apart then, and nobody's guaranteeing that there's not going to still be obstacles and challenges going forward now. But there is a renewed sense of urgency; there are more specifics now applied. As you look at the communique, you can see it – it is much different than what we had, than what we were looking at in 2012.
And thirdly, there is a much larger consensus of international community support for moving forward. And one of the things that the opposition groups said just a few weeks ago – because people were asking, "Well, why aren't they sitting down now? Why aren't they coming to Vienna?" And even they would tell you – or they – they had a couple of weeks ago said, "We need more international community consensus about moving forward before we're going to be able to start to organize ourselves and move forward." And now you have that momentum now. You do have more international community consensus.
QUESTION: But does the – does the Secretary believe that the opposition is fully bought in at the moment, or does he still have to do some work on that?
MR KIRBY: There's more work to be done on that. I think the Secretary would tell you that, as well as the foreign ministers that were at that meeting. They all realize that there needs to be more work now. And now's the time – we talked about this a while ago – when, when, when? Well, now is the when. Now is the time that we need to start bringing the opposition groups into the process. But there is – but there's still work to be done in terms of – and the Secretary talked about this in Paris – in terms of getting them separately together at a table to sort through some of their own differences and to unify their own negotiating positions so that when – in early next year when they sit down with the regime, they've got common, unified negotiating principles to take forward.
QUESTION: Do you think you can get that done by January deadline?
MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary, again, said that that's the target date. It wasn't just the Secretary; it was in the communique. All participants set that as a target date. And I would emphasize that it's a target date, and I think we all need to keep that in mind – I mean, that it – that's what we're shooting for. And could it change? It might, but that's the target date that we're all shooting for.
QUESTION: Are you aware of the opposition meeting in Saudi Arabia next month?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything specific to say on that, but as the Secretary pointed out yesterday, that there is going to be a meeting of the opposition groups and that Saudi Arabia was going to take a leading role in helping fashion that, but I don't have any more detail than that.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead, Dave.
QUESTION: On the other half of the Syria effort, the campaign against Daesh, yesterday Mark explained that when the Russians launched their attack on Raqqa, you had a warning and were able to keep U.S. personnel safely out of the way, but that it wasn't a coordinated operation in that sense. It was de-confliction.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: But when the French speak about it and when Vladimir Putin speaks about it, they speak increasingly of cooperation between the French and the Russians. And the French themselves say they're cooperating with America; they're very glad for the intelligence support and so forth, but they --
MR KIRBY: Well, they're part of the coalition.
QUESTION: Yeah, they're part of your coalition, but they also now speak more openly about also being in cooperation and – with Russia, and Vladimir Putin described the Eastern Mediterranean where the Moskva and the Charles de Gaulle will soon be – as being an alliance. Is there a kind of Venn diagram of overlapping coalitions? Do you feel – also, I believe the French are calling for a broader coalition.
MR KIRBY: Well, I'd let the French speak for themselves in terms of what they're calling for. The Secretary had a terrific meeting yesterday with President Hollande. They talked a lot about going forward against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria. They talked about France's terrific contributions to the coalition. And the president reiterated what he has said publicly, that they very much intend to intensify their efforts against ISIL in the wake of these deadly attacks. And we certainly welcome additional contributions by France in the coalition. There is a coalition – a coalition – and it's of 65 nations that has been fashioned over the course of the last year that the United States has led the way in terms of coordinating and assembling, and that coalition has had, as the Secretary said, progress against ISIL.
On Russia, we are not cooperating with Russia militarily against ISIL. What we've said – and I'll repeat it again – that we – if Russia is serious about going after ISIL and wants to make that their focus, then that's a conversation that we're still willing to have. And neither President Obama nor Secretary Kerry has ruled out the possibility of cooperation in the future if, in fact, that's where Russia wants to take things militarily.
Now, we've seen some strikes in the last few days in al-Raqqa by Russian aircraft in what we consider to be ISIL-dominated areas, and that's welcome. But I think it's too soon to tell whether this is indicative of a strategy shift by Russia in terms of their military activities in Syria. I mean, actions speak louder than words, and I think we're just not ready to make a call right now that would say they've changed their calculus in terms of what they're hitting.
You mentioned the prior warning that we had, and that's what it was. It was a notification – a military notification that they were going to be conducting these strikes. I would not read from that nor would I interpret that to indicate some sort of coordination or cooperation militarily at all. It was nothing more than a notification.
QUESTION: On a similar note, the Russians now have said that they're sure that the – their airliner was brought down by a bomb, probably a Daesh bomb. The – Mark told us that America is also waiting for the results of the Egyptian inquiry since they presumably have the lead on this. It seems like the Egyptians aren't going to say that.
MR KIRBY: Well, I'd point you to the Egyptian leadership in Cairo for what they will or they won't say.
QUESTION: But will America make a determination if --
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: -- Egypt never gets around to it?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that we believe, based on information that we have now, that it was likely that Metrojet was brought down by terrorist activity. We do believe that. But I'd let the Egyptians speak for themselves.
QUESTION: But have you been able to make a determination on the credibility of those specific claims in Dabiq magazine, the ISIS magazine, which they printed a photograph of a bomb in a Schweppes can?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I've seen those photographs, as I'm sure you have. I don't believe we're in a position right now to authenticate the veracity of that as the bomb and the – and what brought it down, but, I mean – but we do believe that terrorist activity was likely the reason, yes. And we have no reason to – no indications now and no reason to doubt ISIL's claim of responsibility.
QUESTION: Can we go back to the coordination with Russia? The Secretary has said today, in the last few days, we have seen Russia and France increase the bombing level against Raqqa and we will see greater coordination on this effort. What did he mean by that? Are you able to --
MR KIRBY: He meant exactly what I just said, that if this represents a change in calculus by the Russians and if this is indicative of a concerted, concentrated focus against ISIL, as we've said from the very beginning, that is a conversation that we are very willing to have with Russia. And if that's what – if that's what we're on the cusp of, then there could be opportunities for cooperation. There is no cooperation right now.
QUESTION: And are you able to expand, do you think, the coalition to include Russia and others?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to hypothesize now on coalition membership. I think when it gets to cooperation and coordination, the ball really is in Russia's court here in terms of what they're willing to contribute, what they're willing to do against ISIL, but I wouldn't speculate about membership in or out of the coalition. There's a 65-member – nation-member coalition that's in place that has been effective, that will continue to be effective against ISIL. And as we've said, we would welcome contributions – meaningful contributions by Russia to that end.
QUESTION: Sorry, I'm – isn't Russia doing a lot more against ISIL than a lot of the members of your coalition?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't say that, no. You --
QUESTION: You wouldn't say – you wouldn't say that Russia's doing more than Andora right now to defeat the Islamic State?
MR KIRBY: Every nation contributes what they can. I'm not – wait, Brad, I know where you're going. Look, I'm not going to – every nation – it's a coalition of the willing, which means every nation has to be willing to contribute what they can. Not every nation can, for various reasons, participate in airstrikes against ISIL. And so it's a minority of members in the coalition that are actually flying kinetic airstrikes, but that doesn't mean that other nations' contributions aren't important. Some of them are based – some of them are more financial, for instance. But to say that – they've had, what, one or two days of strikes in Raqqa, that all of a sudden they're doing more against ISIL than the coalition --
QUESTION: Its members. Not than the coalition. I said than some of the members of the coalition.
MR KIRBY: I'd have to run down the list of what every nation's contributing.
QUESTION: I think it's pretty easy.
MR KIRBY: But – but – but those activities, though they may be – though they may not be as major in terms of airstrikes or resources as every other member – I mean, some nations just don't have the capacity – they have been consistently at it, Brad, and loyally at it. The Russians have just now started to hit a couple of ISIL targets. So let's keep it in perspective.
QUESTION: Well, my point is that can't Russia join your coalition even if it doesn't do all that you want it to do against – I mean, plenty of countries are not doing everything within their power. So why can't Russia join even if it doesn't do everything you want it to do?
MR KIRBY: Well, you should talk to Russia about their interest in joining the 65-member coalition that exists right now. It's not like there's a signing bonus, okay? And --
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: And --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And what we've said was if they show an interest in going after ISIL. There was never any in my statement or anybody's statement that it had to be more airstrikes or airstrikes in this place over that. It was if they're willing – as I've said before, if they're willing to make a concerted effort to go after ISIL and they're going to change the calculus of their activities in Syria, then that's a conversation we'd be willing to have.
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: And if those activities are military and they're willing to focus on ISIL, hey, that's great. If they're financial – if they're willing to put the squeeze on ISIL's financing, oil smuggling revenues, we'd be open to having that discussion, too.
QUESTION: Right. But what I'm getting at is they are going – I mean you're confirming they have hit Raqqa. There are plenty of countries in your coalition who are doing less than that. Do they need – is it the other things they're doing that prevents them from being in the coalition? You're saying if they --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. What I said before was every member of the coalition is focused on the ISIL threat. What we've seen in the recent past by Russia is a focus on the opposition groups and on bolstering the Assad regime. And as we've said, you can't – that is completely inconsistent with the goal of trying to eradicate ISIL in Syria if you're propping up the Assad regime.
QUESTION: Okay. That's --
MR KIRBY: So it is a matter of focus and perspective.
QUESTION: -- what I was – so you can't be giving support to the Assad regime and fight in your coalition against the Islamic State?
MR KIRBY: I – we've said that before. Propping up the Assad regime is a non-starter in terms of contributing to coalition efforts against ISIL.
QUESTION: On this, John – sorry. After Vienna statement, did you see any change in Russian behavior in Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, it was after Vienna that they struck al-Raqqa. Now whether that's a result of Vienna, you'd have to talk to Russian authorities. I don't know what made them – what changed their calculus. But yeah, they're – I mean, it was post Vienna where they struck al-Raqqa.
QUESTION: How would you be convinced that they have changed strategy? This is just an initial --
MR KIRBY: I think you'd have to – I think you'd have to see that over time. Over – and again, we're going to judge actions, not words. I think you'd have to see concerted effort over time not just to go after ISIL but to stop propping up the Assad regime and allow Assad more opportunities and more capabilities, more freedom, more space to kill his own people and his opposition.
QUESTION: Before I – can I just get back to this Paris stuff, today's news on a raid in Paris? Do you have any confirmation that the leader, suspected leader has been killed?
MR KIRBY: I don't. I would refer you to French authorities for that. That's – this is their investigation and their operation.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria refugee? John, I heard that after the Paris attack, there are a lot of discussion here in the United States about the Syrian refugees and several governors, they refuse to accept Syrian refugees. And yesterday there was a – U.S. officials on background, they talked about the screening. But my question is about – it's also about the same thing, but today, the – Dr. Ben Carson, one of the GOP presidential candidate, he said he – actually in his op-ed to TIME, he said, "I sent a letter to Senate Majority McConnell and also the Speaker Paul Ryan, urging Congress to terminate all public funds for the ongoing federal programs that seek the resettlement for refugees from Syria into the U.S." Is that possible that the Congress can stop the funding for them for this fiscal year?
MR KIRBY: The refugee program that the State Department administers, I would just say, has benefited over the years by strong bipartisan support. And I would also say that we fervently hope that support will continue. We believe this program is a strong means of demonstrating our commitment to helping the world's most vulnerable, including many that have been persecuted by groups like ISIL.
So like all federal programs, it is certainly contingent upon funding from Congress. There is no question about that. It is also contingent on the support of the American people and who we are as a nation and who they are as citizens. But yes, it is a federally-funded program that Congress controls the purse for.
QUESTION: Right. But for this fiscal year that you're expecting to get – up to 10,000 of Syrian refugees, applicants --
MR KIRBY: We still intend to pursue our goal --
QUESTION: You already have the fund.
MR KIRBY: -- of – pardon?
QUESTION: You already have the fund for this year, right?
MR KIRBY: The program's funded for this fiscal year which just started.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And nothing's changed about our goal of admitting 10,000.
QUESTION: Have you been able to get any Syrians after you start the program? Because the fiscal year is starting in October, right? It's been – according to the numbers --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I thought I had some stats in here. I think since October it's more than 5,000? No?
QUESTION: Overall.
MR KIRBY: Overall more than 5,000. But there has been some – I'll have to check. I don't know exactly how many have been admitted since --
QUESTION: 187 Syrians.
MR KIRBY: Say that – 187 since the beginning of the fiscal year.
QUESTION: Okay. So does the Paris attack – that – does that mean that this is going to continue, but does the Paris attack makes you to increase your screening process for the – especially for the Syrians?
MR KIRBY: That it makes --
QUESTION: The screening process for when you getting them to the United States, it will go through the security procedure. So does the Paris attack made – became a wakeup call for you to make – increase your screening process and security procedures when you bring Syrians to the U.S.?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any changes to the screening process as a specific result of the Paris attacks. I will tell you, though, that the screening process already is very rigorous for all refugees. And as I've said from this podium before, months ago, that particularly for Syrian refugees there are added screening procedures put in place because we recognize the potential threat. And we understand that the government's first role is to do what it needs to do to protect and defend our citizens and the American people. And we have always taken the screening process for this program very, very seriously, and in fact, as I said, put additional measures in place specifically for Syrian refugees. Has there been any changes to it since the Paris attacks? I'm not aware of any.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: And last one – lastly on that one. When the governors saying that, "We are not accepting them," is it possible that you are not going to be resettle – relocate them --
MR KIRBY: I think Mark handled this before. This is a federal program, and that once they – once the refugees are resettled here in the United States and are going through a legal process towards citizenship, they are protected by the constitution and they're allowed to move about the country freely. Now, in certain states, they – there could be state funding issues that might make it harder for them to live in a certain state. But the Constitution protects their ability to move about the country.
Obviously, we don't want for a refugee who comes here in good faith to the United States to be in a place where they're not welcome. But they are allowed to move about freely. That's federal law.
QUESTION: Mark, there were a couple reports today --
MR KIRBY: I'm John. Mark's the good-looking one. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: There were a couple reports today with some – one, a GOP lawmaker in Tennessee who talked about rounding up refugees who are in his state. Do you have any reaction to that?
And then there was a report about a refugee – or refugee family that was going to go to Indianapolis but then --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- it was decided to reroute them to Connecticut.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, right.
QUESTION: Can you explain why that was taken?
MR KIRBY: So let me take the second one --
QUESTION: Are you concerned about this becoming a growing trend?
MR KIRBY: Let me take the second one first. You're right, there was – we know of one refugee family that the – the resettlement agency, who, as you know, are nongovernment organizations, made a decision – as is their responsibility – made a decision to reroute them to Connecticut from Indiana because of concerns about their ability to live there in Indiana. And that's what these resettlement agencies are supposed to do. They have to make these final calls, and oftentimes, it does come down to sort of the endgame as a family is arriving. So the right – that was a decision we respect. We want this particular family, as we want all the families, to be welcome and to have an opportunity to live in safety and peace here in the United States. So that was a decision they made, and again, under the program, is their responsibility to make.
On your second one, I've seen the reports. I don't know if they're true. Obviously, if they are, this idea of using the National Guard to round up Syrian refugees – deeply troubling, deeply concerning. And as Secretary Kerry, I thought, made very clear today and then in just recent days, certainly not in keeping with the best of American values.
And my answer to that would be this, if you don't mind. I'd like to read something: "The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges if, by decency and propriety of conduct, they appear to merit the enjoyment." George Washington, December 1783. That's who we are.
QUESTION: John, so is that why --
QUESTION: I had one more. Hold up, I had one – just one more.
MR KIRBY: That was really loud, though. (Laughter.) You got my attention.
QUESTION: One last one on the refugee. It's something from yesterday. I asked Mark if he knew of any Syrian refugee applicant who was denied resettlement because of terrorist sympathies, links, intentions, or other, and he said he didn't know. I was wondering if you got an answer to that.
MR KIRBY: There have been – I don't – see, I lost my place now – that we – what I can tell you is, yes, there have been some refugees not allowed to settle because of concerns about the potential for terrorist activities. I don't know of any specific Syrians that have been denied that opportunity. That's information that we're not actually able to share with specificity, but I'm not aware of any Syrians that were.
But yes, the government screens refugees in a process that's rigorous and deliberate, and we have, in fact, rejected people from this program for terrorist sympathies or tendencies.
QUESTION: Okay. But with Syrians – with Syrians, you haven't, that you know of?
MR KIRBY: I have no information that any Syrians were rejected.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I would add, though, though – the program has admitted 785,000 refugees in the 14 years since 9/11. Of those, only about a dozen have been arrested or removed from the United States due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the United States. And I can tell you that none of them were Syrian.
QUESTION: John, to follow up on refugee, so --
QUESTION: The same topic.
MR KIRBY: Okay. We'll get it.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, so is rerouting now the – what happened to refugees who are rejected to --
MR KIRBY: It is not uncommon for rerouting to occur, I mean, even before this incident here in Indiana, because sometimes, those kinds of decisions aren't made until the endgame of a refugee's arrival. And sometimes it's based on medical needs. Maybe they need to go somewhere different because of certain medical facilities that aren't available where they originally wanted to settle, or family locations – they want to go to a certain place because they've got a lot of family there. And so some of those decisions aren't made till the endgame, so I don't know how common it is, but it's not atypical that decisions made in the endgame of a refugee's arrival could change in terms of where they're going to settle.
I'm aware of this one case that Brad asked about. I don't think anybody's looking at that as sort of the policy solution. And we don't administer, we don't manage, we don't dictate those decisions. It's done by the resettlement agencies based on the best information they have and the best judgment that they can demonstrate in terms of whether it's appropriate and proper and safe for a refugee family to settle somewhere.
QUESTION: What are other potential scenarios besides rerouting?
MR KIRBY: What's that?
QUESTION: Other scenarios. Besides rerouting them to different states, what other possible things could happen?
MR KIRBY: What other possible things --
QUESTION: Scenarios.
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I mean, our job is to do the screening, right – bring them to this country. And states are informed about the numbers of refugees that are going to be brought into their states, but the decisions about where they go at the very end is not determined until the very end. And the resettlement agency, working with the state coordinator, makes those decisions. But I couldn't lay out for you other different scenarios.
Obviously, we want – as I said, we want to uphold our values as an immigrant nation, and we want to see communities around the country – and there are some 180 that routinely welcome refugees – we want to see that continue. So is it optimal to reroute based on concerns expressed by one or other states? No, that's not, and as the Secretary said, it's not in keeping with who we are as a nation. But we rely and we trust on these resettlement agencies to make those final decisions at the endgame.
QUESTION: The humanitarian groups are saying that the extra layer put on the security screening on Syrian refugees is actually a tactic to postpone or to delay the process. I wonder if you have any --
MR KIRBY: I find it interesting that just a few weeks ago, if you look at some of the transcripts – back in September when that little toddler washed up on that beach, and how the questions I was getting up here and government officials were getting about how slow this is and how we're not doing enough and we have to open up our doors more and we have to speed up the process. And now it's exactly the opposite. Now the questions that we're getting are, well, you got to pause it. You got to stop it. You can't do this.
We said back then, and for consistency's sake, I'll say it again today: There's a rigorous screening process in place. We take national security to be a prime responsibility for the United States Government. That has never changed. And back when you guys were screaming at us because we weren't doing enough and going fast enough, we said it then: There has to be a balance struck between protecting the national security of the American people and living up to our democratic values. And so the system works the way it works to achieve that balance. You have to do both. You can do both. You must do both as a nation, and we're doing that. Nobody wants to rush to judgment; nobody wants to rush to failure, obviously. But we also have a responsibility to be an open society.
I mean, you want to hand ISIL a great victory? You want to give them – you want to give them what they want? Then shut down refugee resettlement in this country. Make it impossible for people to come here, people that are victims of this violence and brutality themselves. Make it impossible for them to come here. Tell them they're not welcome, shut them out, and then you give the terrorists the ultimate victory --
QUESTION: How is that --
MR KIRBY: -- because that is what they want. They want fear; they want to change the way Western societies act and behave and conduct themselves. That is exactly what they're after.
QUESTION: How is that a great victory for ISIL --
MR KIRBY: I didn't say it was a great victory for --
QUESTION: -- if – I mean, look, whether this is completely bonkers or not, the notion of shutting down U.S. resettlement isn't going to affect a whole lot of Syrians, true? I mean, there's 12 million who are uprooted and you've resettled 2,500, so we're talking about one in every 5,000. So out of 5,000, 4,999 are completely unaffected by this entire debate, correct? So how is that a great victory for ISIS if this one person – I mean, it may not be very fair or ethical to shut down the program, but that's not going to radically change anything in Syria, is it?
MR KIRBY: It's a – it's absolutely of propaganda value to them, and when we change the way we behave as a nation and fundamentally alter our own characteristics – I mean, I just read you a quote from George Washington. You don't get more American than that. And to change – to change that concept, that principle, I think that would be a great propaganda victory for them. I absolutely do.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: Return to ISIL?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) that refugee family was rerouted because of concerns for their own security?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I'd have to refer you to the resettlement agency who made the decision, but they made the decision based on concerns expressed by authorities there in Indiana, and that's – again, that's their responsibility to do that.
QUESTION: And then – and how did the call – yesterday, senior Administration officials said there was going to be a call with governors and mayors. How did that call go? And did you feel that you were actually convincing them to step back from the position that they're taking?
MR KIRBY: I think the intent for the call was to provide them the information. And as the Secretary said yesterday in Paris, he understands that state government and governors have concerns, that that's their responsibility too. He respects that. And that we need to work with the states to answer their concerns and to – and their questions, and to make sure they understand the very rigorous screening process that goes into place, and the value of this program not just to the United States of America but to their states when these people settle there and grow and prosper and educate their children there, that there's value.
So we believe the call was important to provide that context and that perspective. Now, whether it was effective or not, I think you'd have to talk to each and every of the governors that participated. Obviously, if you look at press reporting today, not all of them are convinced, so maybe there's more spadework to be done to try to allay their concerns and their fears.
Everybody shares the same concern, as I said, over national security, but so too must we all share the obligation and the responsibility we have as a democracy to helping those who are the most vulnerable and who are most in need. And that's what this program is about. The great majority of Syrian refugees that have been brought in – and I take Brad's point that the whole numbers may not be high at this point – but three-quarters of them are women and children.
QUESTION: Is there any fear that the – that this kind of threat against the refugees, like families wanting to – not feeling safe going to a specific area – will dissuade refugees from coming to the United States, that they might elect then rather to go somewhere else?
MR KIRBY: We certainly hope not.
QUESTION: Have you seen any signs of that yet?
MR KIRBY: Not yet. I think it's too soon to tell. I mean, we're just a couple of days into this very strident and in some cases hyperbolic reaction to the Paris attacks, so it's too soon to tell. But we certainly hope that's not the case.
QUESTION: On ISIL --
MR KIRBY: And I think it just – to go back to the Paris attacks, I mean, let's, again, keep it in perspective. So eight attackers, right, one of which – one – may have been – no final proof here – may have been a Syrian refugee. One. So I think it's important to keep it in perspective.
QUESTION: Masquerading --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Syrian --
MR KIRBY: What's that?
QUESTION: He may have been masquerading as a refugee.
MR KIRBY: And maybe even masquerading. That's why I say "may have." We don't know. We don't know. So it's an awful, broad, big old brush that they're painting a whole population with based on these very deadly, terrible attacks.
QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports that five Syrian young men have just been arrested in Honduras on fake Greek passports?
MR KIRBY: I am not. The first I've heard of it.
QUESTION: On ISIL?
QUESTION: ISIL, China?
MR KIRBY: Oh, I got you. Go ahead.
QUESTION: ISIL claim to have executed a Norwegian national and a Chinese hostage. Are you aware of the report and --
MR KIRBY: We've seen the reports. I'm not in a position to confirm it, and I'd point you to Chinese and Norwegian authorities to speak to this. But if it's true – and I'm not saying that it is – but if it's true, I think it's just yet one more example why this group needs to be defeated.
QUESTION: And what do you make of the conclusion that their execution was a consequence of their governments' refusal to pay the ransoms?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'd point you to Chinese and Norwegian authorities. I can't confirm the veracity of these reports and I wouldn't speak to causation or anything like that. This is for the Norwegian and the Chinese Government to speak to.
QUESTION: It's been the Chinese policy not to send troops to join the fight there. So could you please update us, what is the efforts from the United States to persuade China into this U.S.-led coalition to combat ISIL?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any efforts by the United States to persuade China to contribute militarily to the coalition. It is, as I mentioned to Brad, a coalition of the willing. We're not in the business of cajoling or forcing or trying to convince members to join or to do any specific things in support of the coalition. That's what a coalition of the willing is all about. Everybody has to be willing to participate – what they can, where they can, when they can, and with whatever resources they can. And it's been successful as a coalition. Sixty-five nations for the better part of a year all focused on trying to eliminate this very deadly enemy.
China has terrorism concerns as well, and as I said about Russia, I would say about China. If there's a willingness to contribute against – in efforts against ISIL, well, that's certainly a conversation we'd be willing to have.
Yeah, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, John. On North Korea, on North Korea violations of UNSCR sanctions against North Korea. And in this regard, recently U.S. Treasury Department has made special sanctions against North Korea. And once North Korea regard arms deal with Myanmar or Burma – we call Myanmar, anyway. Do you have any detail of this?
MR KIRBY: I'm afraid I do not. I'm going to have to take your question.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Another one – and recently reported that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will visit North Korea --
MR KIRBY: I would refer you to the UN. I think that they've denied that report.
QUESTION: I understand that, but --
MR KIRBY: I think they denied that report.
QUESTION: -- if he visit to North Korea, do you think that he will be helpful at the denuclearization --
MR KIRBY: So you want me to speculate on a trip that he hasn't taken?
QUESTION: Yes. Maybe he can do --
MR KIRBY: And they – I can't do that. I can't.
QUESTION: If he visit North Korea. It's not --
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speculate on the ramifications of travel.
QUESTION: -- big speculations.
MR KIRBY: What's that? "Please speculate?"
QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.) Yeah. Will be true.
MR KIRBY: I've been asked a lot of things before, but I've never been asked to speculate so directly. I'm not going to do that. I'd refer you to --
QUESTION: Well, you can make it true or not true. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: No, I don't think I can. I don't think I can.
QUESTION: John, can we go back to the refugees issue?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: One question: Why do you rely on the UNHCR to refer refugees to the UN – to the U.S. agencies to resettle them in the U.S.? Why don't --
MR KIRBY: Because that's the way the program is set up, and that's why the UNHCR exists – to do those referrals. You want there to be – back to when we talked about this in September when that young toddler showed up on the beach, right? We talked about there's a process here, and the process begins with the UNHCR and their referrals, and our respect of that process. We want our resettlement – you okay? I'm not interrupting anything, am I?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Tell him I said hi.
We want that process to be respected, and we want it to be done through UN auspices. That's the way it should be done.
QUESTION: And to what extent do you trust the work of UNHCR?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, as I said, 785,000 refugees brought in to this country through the UNHCR auspices, and a dozen or so – only a dozen or so – were sent away because of terrorist concerns. So I think the process works really well. And I think it's also important to keep it in perspective. So as of the end of 2014, the UNHCR was working with nearly 20 million refugees. Of those – because resettlement, as we talked about before, is only one piece of it. Obviously, the main goal here is to get these people to return home and to be able to go back to where they're from. That's what they want in most cases. Less than 1 percent of that 20 million at the end of 2014 – less than 1 percent – were referred for resettlement somewhere else. And of that 1 percent, 50 percent of that 1 percent – so half of that 1 percent – were resettled here in the United States.
QUESTION: John, can I change the subject to Iran please?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: You probably saw today the report on Iran starting to dismantle its nuclear equipment.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, the IAEA report?
QUESTION: That's correct.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: In it it says that the stockpiles of low-enriched uranium have increased by 460.2 kilograms in the past three months. Is – why is it going up? Is it not meant to be going down? And is that a violation in any way?
MR KIRBY: So a couple things. I'm not going to comment on an IAEA report that hasn't yet been publicly released by the agency. These reports, as you know, are important to track Iran's progress towards meeting its obligations and commitments under the JCPOA. And as I've also said before, we're not going to get to implementation day until the IAEA has confirmed that Iran has met all of its required commitments as specified in the text of the deal. So I'm not going to get into too much detail with that.
QUESTION: But you can't explain why that it's gone up?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – I'm just not in a position to comment publicly on this particular report. Iran knows what it needs to do to get to implementation day. The report – well, I'm not going to comment on the report, but Iran knows what it needs to do to get to implementation day --
QUESTION: You're not concerned by that specific --
MR KIRBY: I can't comment on the specifics of the report that the IAEA hasn't talked about publicly.
QUESTION: And then on a different subject. Something that just broke, and I don't know if you knew about it before, but a local 15-day ceasefire between the Syrian rebels and government forces in an area near Damascus is expected to be announced in coming hours. Is this something that you knew about before? Is it true? And what is your reading of such local ceasefires – I mean, that it could be expanded into something more?
MR KIRBY: Well, I haven't seen that report, Leslie. So I'm not in a position to comment on the veracity of it. The ceasefire that – obviously, look, I mean in a perfect world there'd be no violence in Syria, and there would be no refugees because Syria would be whole and pluralistic and unified and peaceful. And so there'd be no reason for even locally inspired ceasefires. So if there's a ceasefire in place locally and it can hold and people can refrain from killing one another, well, that's a good thing. But I can't confirm those reports. What we're after – because it isn't a perfect world, and because Syria is still a chaotic place, a dangerous place, and a violent place – what we're after is a UN-sponsored ceasefire. And again, that the Secretary said he is very hopeful can be found – can be achieved and sustained, and relatively – relatively soon. So --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay everybody. Thanks everybody. Appreciate it.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:27 p.m.)
DPB # 192
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
