• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 11, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

JORDAN
RUSSIA
JORDAN
NORTH KOREA
IRAQ
SYRIA/RUSSIA
IRAN/SAUDI ARABIA
INDIA
PAKISTAN
MEXICO
PAKISTAN
IRAN
MEXICO
MACEDONIA
DEPARTMENT
PHILIPPINES
FRANCE

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:13 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR KIRBY: Happy Monday to you. I've just got a couple of things at the top, one of which I think you've seen. We put out a notice today following the Secretary's meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan. It was a good discussion of bilateral issues facing both the United States and Jordan as well as our regional partners. As you can imagine, high on the list was, of course, the coalition campaign against ISIL, the need for the continued progress on a political solution in Syria and, of course, counterterrorism concerns writ large.

But also, following the meeting, the Secretary and Foreign Minister Judeh signed a Joint Action Plan to combat nuclear terrorism and improve efforts against nuclear and radiological smuggling. This Joint Action Plan expresses the intention of the two governments to work together to enhance Jordan's capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear smuggling incidents.

Today's signing reflects the common conviction of the United States and of Jordan that nuclear smuggling is a critical and ongoing threat that requires a coordinated global response. And this Joint Action Plan, which is not dissimilar to those that we have with other countries around the world, strengthens an already excellent partnership that will make the United States, Jordan, and the region more secure. I think we put out a media note about that, too, that gave you a little bit more detail on what's in there. But so – it's all in our media note, the details of it.

Also, I want to note that the Secretary did speak over the phone this morning with Foreign Minister Lavrov – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. They discussed a range of issues including the Syria political process, the fight against ISIL, of course, Middle East regional issues, Ukraine, North Korea's recent nuclear test as well as, of course, the U.S.-Russia bilateral relationship. They agreed to stay in close touch and to look for an opportunity to meet in the days ahead – meet face-to-face in the days ahead. I don't have any particular travel or schedule to announce today, but they did talk about trying to get together sometime soon.

Matt.

QUESTION: Right. So in his meeting with the king – this will be brief.

MR KIRBY: Really?

QUESTION: Yes. Did they discuss the --

MR KIRBY: We're all going to hold you to it.

QUESTION: -- the plan to – last year's plan to install cameras on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif or is that no longer an option? Is that no longer going to happen because we don't seem to hear about it anymore. The only time I seem to hear about now is when I ask you about it.

QUESTION: That's true.

MR KIRBY: And you do ask about it a lot.

QUESTION: And – yeah, and I never get --

MR KIRBY: I don't know that we could beat your frequency of talking about it, Matt. They talked about – certainly they talked about continued tensions between some Israelis and some Palestinians and a shared conviction that the violence needs to stop. As I said the other day, we know that technical experts on both sides are having discussions. I don't have an update on what those discussions are. And there was no resolution of the matter in today's meeting. But broadly speaking, they spoke certainly to the tensions that remain there on the Temple Mount.

QUESTION: But you don't know if they specifically talked about this plan which was hailed by the Secretary as King Abdullah's idea and the – was the main feature of the agreement that the Secretary said he got to reduce the tension?

MR KIRBY: I don't have a particular bit to read out on that issue. As I said, they spoke in broad terms about the continued violence and the instability and both their shared conviction that it needs to stop.

QUESTION: If no one has a – I just want to ask --

QUESTION: I have one on this.

QUESTION: I have a follow-on?

QUESTION: Can you please take the question as to – and the reason I'm asking you and not just the Israelis and the Jordanians is that the Secretary himself announced this idea. Can you check on when was the last time the technical committee or technical experts met?

MR KIRBY: I will take the question, Arshad, but it is really not a question for us. It's a question for them to speak to. But if we have visibility – I'm not – and we have information that we're comfortable sharing, I'll certainly do that – or that we believe is accurate enough. But this is really – so I'll do that, I will. But I do also urge you to reach out to authorities there.

QUESTION: You don't have visibility. You also don't have live video.

MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not disputing that there isn't live video right now, Matt. But it doesn't mean that it isn't still worth pursuing.

QUESTION: On a directly related note, there's a report in the Jordanian newspaper Al Ra'i, which I can't read but I've read it through translations that appeared in the Israeli press, suggesting that Jordan is setting up a committee to mount a – a judicial committee to mount a criminal prosecution of Israel for alleged violations of the sovereignty of the Temple Mount. Are you aware of those reports? And did that come up in the meeting today?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of those reports. And I do not recall that being discussed in today's meeting, no.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: Said.

QUESTION: I just want a quick follow-up. Back in October this seemed to be the issue, the most volatile issue, the flashpoint, the Temple Mount --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and Masjid al-Aqsa. So does that mean that it's ceased to be so, that it is no longer the flashpoint, the conflict is not really based on that anymore?

MR KIRBY: What's the flashpoint, the – Temple Mount or --

QUESTION: Well, everybody was saying that the confrontation was sparked basically by the contention over the Temple Mount and the al-Aqsa Mosque. So is that no longer the case? I mean, the conflict has evolved beyond that?

MR KIRBY: I'm not in a position to be able to characterize the evolution of it. I mean, Said, you know better than most people in this room that the violence still continues.

QUESTION: That's --

MR KIRBY: So nobody's taking a look at this and saying, okay, we're done, it's over. And there's still innocent people being injured and being killed. There's still violence happening. So it is true – I think it's a matter of fact that violence at the mosque on Temple Mount has decreased on the site. But that doesn't mean taken that for granted, and certainly, nobody is looking away at the continued violence which still – which is still occurring.

So I mean, it's still very much on everybody's mind.

QUESTION: Can we go real brief, because I'm sure this --

QUESTION: Can we stay with Jordan for a second?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Is there anything significant about the timing of today's signing with Jordan on the Joint Plan of Action with the nuclear smuggling? For example, was there an effort to get this in place before implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement takes place?

MR KIRBY: No, I wouldn't link today's signing to the JCPOA in any way. Remember, the – first of all, we have a similar – similar agreements with some 13 other countries. This was in – long in the works with Jordan, and we were just able to get it signed today with the king's visit. It just was a great opportunity to do this. But it's something that our teams on both sides have been working for quite some time. It has absolutely nothing to do with the looming implementation of the Iran deal. And again, this was really about smuggling and proliferation, not tied to a nuclear weapons program by a state.

QUESTION: What would take so long, and why do you only have such agreements with 13 or now 14 countries? I mean, the President has held two not just meetings, but summits on nuclear security. One was here; one was in South Korea. It's kind of surprising to me that you would only have reached agreements with 14 countries.

MR KIRBY: Well, I don't know how many more countries are in the works. I can check on that. These are not issues that you want to take lightly, and you want to take the time that you need to get it right and to work out all the permutations of it. That's what we do. You want to be thorough about it. I don't – but I don't have the – I don't have the forensics on when it started and when we got to completion. So I don't know that – when you say why it took so long, I don't know that it took any longer than any other agreement with any other country. So let me get a little bit more data on that and get back to you. But it doesn't mean that it's not an important agreement to have signed, nor does it mean that there aren't potentially others in the works.

QUESTION: All right, I expect this is going to be a very short answer. I'm wondering --

QUESTION: Sorry, Matt. One more on Jordan, please. Is there any update on the terrorist groups list that Jordan has been working on after this meeting?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to update you. I would point you to Jordanian authorities.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what, if anything, you know about reports of this alleged American being held by the North Koreans. Have you heard anything from the Swedes about whether or not this person is in fact who the North Koreans claim he is?

MR KIRBY: You're right, it's going to be a short answer.

QUESTION: That's what I thought.

MR KIRBY: I have nothing to confirm those reports, and I'm just not in a position to do so right now.

QUESTION: Yeah, but do you know – have you heard from the Swedes at all?

MR KIRBY: I'm not in a position to confirm the reports or discuss the issue further.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you to – I'm asking you have you been in touch with the Swedes? It seems to me that if the United States Government is aware of information from whatever source that an American might be being held by North Korea, it would be – the first thing that you would do would be to get in touch with the people that protect your interests in North Korea and that there is no reason that that should be covered by any kind of privacy issue ever.

MR KIRBY: Oh, you're right, Matt. I did not mean to imply that discussions with Sweden were covered by the Privacy Act. What I did mean to say is that I'm not going to comment any further on these reports. I understand the interest in them. I can appreciate that. I can tell you that we are looking into the matter, and when we have more that we can say – if we have more that we can say – we will.

QUESTION: So you're --

MR KIRBY: But I'm not going to talk about --

QUESTION: You're – when you say you're looking into the matter, considering you don't have anyone on the ground in North Korea to look into it, have you asked your diplomatic partner there for any information that they can find out from the North Koreans about what's going on?

MR KIRBY: We're looking into the matter.

Janne.

QUESTION: John, this morning, Pentagon said that Pentagon consider strategic weapons into South Korea such as a B-52 bomb and aircraft carriers. What diplomatic actions does State Department take – immediately take to the North Korea? Do you have anything in your mind or next scheduled?

MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I understand the question. I certainly can't speak to military matters. I think we all saw the --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) background (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I know. I know. Thank you for once again reminding me of my background. But I'm not really at liberty to talk about that stuff from here. Obviously, from a diplomatic perspective, our ambassador to Seoul, Mark Lippert, has obviously been in constant communication with South Korean leaders throughout all this. Our assistant secretary, Danny Russel, has also been in touch with counterparts. And of course, as I read out last week, the Secretary himself made some calls on this.

So from a diplomatic perspective, we've been engaged. I think it's safe to say that we will stay engaged. Do I have any new diplomatic initiatives or actions to announce today? I don't. Nothing's changed about what we said last week. We want to continue to work with the international community through the UN to try to get at a robust set of measures to continue to hold the North accountable for its provocative actions.

QUESTION: So you don't have – immediately take any actions to North Korea? So you don't have anything on --

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to announce here today, Janne, in terms of diplomatic movement. We're going to continue to work with the international community and with the UN to look at what the appropriate response is going to be.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Can I have one more on North Korea, actually? Sorry, just before we move on – if there was any update on the efforts to determine exactly the nature of the testing last week. I know that there were some initial conclusions, but if U.S. intelligence had revealed anything additional.

MR KIRBY: As far as I know, the analysis is continuing and there hasn't been any definitive conclusions reached. But nothing that we've – no additional information that we've gained since last week have led us to a different conclusion than we had last week, which is that there's no evidence that this was the hydrogen bomb test that the North claimed it was. But we're still doing a lot of spadework on this, and I don't know how much longer that's going to take. But nothing's changed about our initial sense of it after it happened.

QUESTION: Your initial – if I'm correct, the initial report was that there – you didn't – there was nothing consistent or was inconsistent with the reports. You just said there was --

MR KIRBY: Nothing – we didn't say there's --

QUESTION: There was no evidence.

QUESTION: You just said there was --

QUESTION: You just said --

QUESTION: You said there's no evidence, which is different from what the initial report was. The initial report --

QUESTION: The initial comment --

MR KIRBY: So --

QUESTION: -- as you'll remember, was that the --

MR KIRBY: Nothing we saw at the early stages would lead us to conclude that the North Korean claims were accurate. That still stands – I didn't mean to be confusing with the phrasing "no evidence."

QUESTION: No, no, I was just wondering if there --

MR KIRBY: But we are – but, well, we are through the analysis obviously collecting additional evidence. I mean, that's what analysis does. It's just that none of that – none of the analysis that we've done since then has led us to a different conclusion. Does that make sense?

QUESTION: Yep.

MR KIRBY: Okay, sorry.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Sorry if I was not --

QUESTION: No, no, no.

QUESTION: Iraq.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. So there have been some media reports about Mosul Dam being – facing the imminent risk of collapse. Do you have anything on that? Is the State Department involved in helping prevent that from happening?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that we continue to support Iraqi-led efforts to help take measures to repair the dam to prevent a potential humanitarian crisis and educate the Iraqi people about the potential damages of a dam breach. Sorry. We have provided some equipment to monitor the stability of the dam and we've sent some technical experts to assess the dam's structural integrity, and we're going to continue to work with Iraqi leaders on that.

I'm not at liberty to make any predictions about the fate of the dam right now. Obviously, we all have a shared interest in making sure that its integrity is preserved.

QUESTION: But since you provided some equipment, does that suggest you are – your assessment is that the dam is in danger of collapsing anytime soon?

MR KIRBY: The data that we have from the dam indicates that it has experienced additional stress since ISIL captured it in the summer of '14. Since Iraqi and Kurdish forces have liberated the dam – since they liberated the dam in August of '14, we've been working closely with Iraqi partners to help them monitor the integrity and make necessary repairs. It's just – it's impossible right now for us to make a prediction about if or even when the dam might break.

QUESTION: Has Iraq sought financial assistance from the U.S.? Because its economy apparently is struggling because of the drop in oil prices.

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any financial assistance that they asked for. Obviously, as I said, we provided some equipment and some technical expertise.

QUESTION: John, could I ask a question about the aid to Ramadi?

QUESTION: Sorry, could I ask just one more on the dam, then? The expertise – does that involve U.S. engineers at the site, or of the dam itself?

MR KIRBY: Well, we sent technical experts to assess the dam's structural integrity.

QUESTION: But they are not based at the dam? They were visiting recently?

MR KIRBY: I believe whatever access they had to the dam was temporary, I mean, just in order to do their job.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The governorate council of Anbar say that Ramadi was left in ruins after its liberation and they say it needs billions of dollars. But they also say that the United States pledged $50 million for the repair of the city of Ramadi. Could you confirm that you guys put about $50 million to aid Ramadi?

MR KIRBY: I don't know if I have – I don't know if I have that. I don't know if I have that, Said. Hang on a second. So, yeah. So the UN established a funding facility for immediate stabilization in June of last year, so this past summer, to provide assistance for immediate needs in areas liberated from ISIL. Over a dozen coalition partners have contributed or pledged more than 50 million. That's where the number comes from. This included an initial U.S. contribution of $8.3 million followed recently by an additional pledge of another $7 million for a total of, obviously, 15.3. This money will support four categories: public works and light infrastructure rehabilitation, livelihoods support to jumpstart the local economy, capacity building of local governments, and community reconciliation.

So our share of the 50 million pledged by the coalition was 15.

QUESTION: Do you have any sort of independent assessment of what kind of damage was inflicted on Ramadi during the occupation of ISIS?

MR KIRBY: I don't have – I simply don't have that level of detail, but we absolutely would not dispute the reports that there was damage. And we know very specifically even through just the use of overhead imagery that lots of infrastructure and buildings were destroyed during ISIL's occupation of Ramadi. I'm not able to give you sort of a number figure, metrics on that. But I tell you what, I'm going to – I think that's a fair question. I'd like to take that and see if we can get you back a little bit more fidelity on it because it's a very fair question. We know that there was damage, some of it significant. I'm just not at liberty to sort of give you a more specific metric of that.

QUESTION: John, on Iraq. Two news reports said that 20 ISIS fighters have stormed a shopping center in Baghdad and killed 17 people and injured others. Do you have anything on this?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. We certainly condemn the attack on the mall in Baghdad in the strongest possible terms, and as well, we express our deep condolences to all those that were affected, including the family and friends. I'd refer you to the Government of Iraq right now for further details. Information is still coming in and I'm – I just don't have much more on that. We obviously know what happened. As I said, we certainly condemn it. But in terms of responsibility or a further scope and a motivation behind it, we're just not able to say right now.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Go ahead. You.

QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MR KIRBY: You're the one who had your hand up, right? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thank you. There are some reports that Russian airplanes today targeted a school in Aleppo and killed tens of children. I was wondering if you have any comment on that. And Russia's targeting civilians have by any chance came on conversation between Lavrov and Kerry?

MR KIRBY: Say that last one again.

QUESTION: The Russians targeting civilians in Syria has came to conversation between Kerry and Lavrov on today's phone?

MR KIRBY: Oh, I see. Okay. Well, we've certainly seen the reports. I – they're deeply concerning to us. I think it's – obviously, you should talk to Russian authorities about what they're hitting and what they're not hitting and the degree of precision with which they think they're going after them. But we continue to remain concerned about reports of civilian casualties caused by Russian airstrikes and collateral damage, damage done to facilities that are used or – primarily for innocent civilians, whether it's schools, hospitals, or homes. This is not a new concern and it's a concern that I can assure you we routinely raise with Russian counterparts all up and down the chain of command here at the State Department.

I don't have additional detail to read out from the call this morning with Foreign Minister Lavrov, but it is not a topic that we – that the Secretary has shied away from mentioning to Foreign Minister Lavrov. But this remains a concern – what they're hitting, and just as importantly, what they're not hitting. And we still maintain that some 70 percent of their strikes are being conducted against either opposition groups or innocent targets, civilian targets. But I just don't have more detail on this particular strike. Again, we've seen the reports. And if they're true, they're certainly deeply, deeply concerning, and they're not – those reports are not inconsistent with other credible reports we've received about hitting or – and striking innocent civilian targets.

QUESTION: Do you --

QUESTION: One more question on Madaya, actually. I was wondering if you have any update on --

QUESTION: So sorry, on this one.

QUESTION: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You condemn these attacks, and why don't you raise them in the UN Security Council?

MR KIRBY: We raise them all the time with the Russians, and not unlike other issues that we've talked about from here. I mean, we believe that it's one of the reasons why you have bilateral discussions and dialogue, is to raise these kinds of concerns. And I'm sure that we're not the only nation that is raising those concerns with the Russians. So we believe that we're – the right forum right now, the right approach, is to raise them directly with the Russians, and we'll continue to do that.

Look, I mean, this – we're just getting these reports same as you. So I'm not in a position to independently confirm its accuracy. What I'd say is, if it's true, it's obviously deeply concerning. And if it was deliberate, hitting an innocent civilian target, well yes, that would be worthy of condemnation. But we are just getting the reports and we're looking into them. And again, this is not something that we haven't been willing to address with Russian counterparts, and we've not shied away from talking about it and we'll continue to do so.

QUESTION: So – but you said at the – you said in part of your answer to the previous question you should talk to the Russians about what they're hitting and – or – and not hitting.

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: But you accuse the Russians of lying all the time about what they're hitting and not hitting. Why would you refer us to them?

MR KIRBY: You're asking me for a --

QUESTION: Well, that doesn't make any sense.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no. Wait a second. Now, come on now. You're asking me to assess the accuracy of their strikes. Nobody is asking them to assess the accuracy of their own strikes.

QUESTION: That – okay, so that's what you would like --

MR KIRBY: I won't even speak to U.S. military strikes from this podium --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- as much as I know you guys would like me to. And I'm not going to get into a blow-by-blow tactical discussion of every bomb that Russia drops. They should speak to that. They should be asked those questions. They should be held to account for the progress and the success or failure of their military targeting in Syria. It's their responsibility to answer for what they're hitting, what they're not hitting. That said, we're not going to shy away from discussing our concerns. We're not going to be bashful about expressing it, certainly when we see them come from credible reports. Now, this one's fresh. We're looking into this, and we'll see where it goes.

QUESTION: On Madaya, I was wondering if you have any update. There are reports that humanitarian aid convoys started to enter the town in Syria.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And I'm also wondering if – what can be done to ensure a regular humanitarian access to towns like Madaya, which is – was blocked by the Syrian regime, in future, in order to not to see any children starving?

MR KIRBY: What needs to be done is – what needs to be done, quite simply, is the Assad regime has to continue to allow this access. So we've seen the reports of this convoy that was able to get to Madaya, and I think a couple of other towns today. That's good. It needs to continue, unfettered, every day, so that these people can stop starving. What needs to be done is the Assad regime needs to continue to allow this access.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: New subject? India.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Syria?

MR KIRBY: They want to stay in Syria. We'll get to you, Goyal, I promise.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, Syria's foreign minister confirmed that his government would be participating in the Geneva talks later this month, but he also again made a call for this list of opposition groups. You mentioned from the earlier question that the U.S. is not aware if Jordan has completed this list yet, but is there U.S. concern that possible objections on this list when it does come out – Syrian objections – could stall the process? And then if so, how is the U.S. addressing those concerns?

MR KIRBY: So a couple of things. It's not – the initial work on, as you call it, the list was discussed at the UN before the holidays, and it was discussed in the meeting of the ISSG, more specifically in the morning before the session in the UN. It's not as if Jordan hasn't done anything. It's not as if they've put no thought in this. They have. But we said at the outset that it's going to be an iterative process and it's going to require more discussions and, frankly, more debate, because not everybody still agrees on every group. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. So their work continues. We're grateful to Jordan for the leadership and for making the effort.

Your second question, are we concerned that a lack of unanimity might derail the process: Obviously, we don't want anything to derail the process. We don't think right now that that's going to happen, that we're going to be able to – we believe we're going to be able to continue to work through this problem and that the initial meeting between the opposition and the Assad regime that is scheduled for later this month will happen. Now, that's certainly our hope. It's certainly our expectation. We've seen no indication that it isn't going to happen. And I'd point you back to what the Secretary said last week: Leaders in Saudi Arabia and in Iran have both pledged that they want to see the process move forward.

So I can't be perfectly predictive about what tensions may arise over the constant and continuous development of that list, but I can tell you everybody is focused on it, everybody realizes its importance, and everybody wants to continue to see the process move forward.

QUESTION: How many groups are on the list now?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't have a number for you.

QUESTION: Has it grown beyond the two that were originally set to be the – everyone agreed on, ISIS and al-Nusrah? Is there any indication that there are more than those two groups that are actually on the list?

MR KIRBY: I do not have the latest drumbeat on this. It's an iterative process. They've been working on it – worked on it before the holidays. They've been working on it since the holidays. I don't have an updated status for you.

QUESTION: I know, but you said – you gave the Jordanians credit. You said it's not as if they haven't been doing any work on it and that they may have been doing work on it. But if you could find out how many groups are on the list – who have people agreed to put on this list other than ISIS and al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: I'll take the question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on Saudi-Iranian tensions and their impact on these talks toward the end of the month. I wonder if you saw the op-ed piece by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif today.

MR KIRBY: I did. Yeah, I saw that.

QUESTION: And I mean, he says that their prudence is not sustainable. I mean, he's calling – he calls Saudi Arabia as reckless extremism and so on – very, very strong words. So my question really is: What are you doing in terms of sort of to calm down the Saudis so this does not snowball out of control?

MR KIRBY: It's not about calming down the Saudis, Said. It's about making it clear that the United States view is that this is the time for both sides to participate in a meaningful dialogue and a conversation about how to ratchet down these tensions and to work on constructive ways to move the process forward, the peace process in Syria forward, to not let these tensions get in the way of that or any other larger issues in the region. And the Secretary has been nothing but consistent, I can assure you, in his conversations with leaders across the region, Sunni and Shia alike, about our expectations in that regard. And as he told you himself last week, at least as regards Syria, he got assurances from both sides that they weren't going to let the current tensions derail that process.

Does that mean that they assured him that the tensions were fixed and solved and all the problems gone away? No, of course not, and we recognize that. But our view is the same and it's about – it's about encouraging both sides here to maintain some level of diplomatic engagement and dialogue so that they can work through this.

QUESTION: Since you brought up the column and that one, the one line --

MR KIRBY: Said brought it up.

QUESTION: Yeah, he brought up Zarif's column. I was going to wait until later to ask about this. But Zarif makes the claim, as Said said, that Iran has been showing or demonstrating unilateral prudence toward Saudi Arabia and that that unilateral prudence is not sustainable. Does the United States believe that Iran has in fact been showing – demonstrating unilateral prudence in its dealings with Saudi Arabia?

MR KIRBY: I'll let Foreign Minister Zarif talk to or characterize what they view as their approach to this. I'm not going to characterize it any more than that, except to say, again, that we believe since the tensions exist on both sides, both sides need to do what they can to ratchet down those tensions.

More broadly speaking, we – I would note that Iran has moved forward to try to get at implementation day of the Iran deal. They continue to take the appropriate steps to get implementation of the deal. But they have not halted or stopped some of the other provocative activities in the region. And they're not just provocative activities to the United States. They're provocative to other regional players and other countries. The – firing the rockets near the aircraft carrier not long ago, the continued work on a ballistic missile program, the continued support to terrorist networks – all of that is still happening. So as – from the United States perspective, we certainly believe there are lots of things that Iran can do to continue to try to contribute to regional stability when they have not proven willing to do that.

QUESTION: Does that mean that you would agree with the sentiments expressed by the Arab League foreign ministers over the weekend, who condemned Iranian "meddling," quote-unquote, in Arab countries?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I saw the press reports. I mean, I'll let the GCC countries speak for – again, for how they want to characterize this. It's --

QUESTION: Not only the – not only the GCC – I'm sorry – but all the Arab League, all 22 countries.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don't – you're right, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Except for Lebanon.

QUESTION: Except for Lebanon, yes.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, you're right. You asked about the Arab League, but my mind went right to the GCC meeting that happened over the weekend. I'll let those nations in the Arab League speak for itself.

I would just again reiterate what we've said here. We – as I said last week, nobody's understating the depth of the tension caused by the executions. And we understand the source of the tension here. We understand the source of the – and in some ways it's historical, the source of the conflict between particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran, which is why – all the more why the Secretary has been urging those two countries, as well as every other country in the region, to continue to try to find ways diplomatically through this. Okay?

QUESTION: So you – but you said that – you said before that Iran, although they're making progress on the implementation of the nuclear deal, they are continuing to do the other – this other bad stuff. So what is it – back during the negotiations for the nuclear deal, the Administration was very firm in the fact that it was going to double down – it was going to do more to stop the other bad actions by or negative actions that Iran was doing in the region. What is the Administration doing to encourage or discourage – to encourage Iran to stop or to discourage them from doing what they are doing? I mean, can you point to anything?

MR KIRBY: Well, we've talked about this quite a bit. I mean, we have at our disposal unilateral sanctions that we continue to --

QUESTION: But you haven't used them yet.

MR KIRBY: There are sanctions in place, unilateral sanctions in place, and we're going to continue to hold Iran to account, and that is one tool we can do it. We have a very robust military presence in the region – air, maritime, and land – and I think if you just look at the past couple of years, you can see where that presence has continued and in some cases increased. So there's obviously plenty of military capabilities at our disposal for deterrence or defense if required.

And I think the Iran deal itself, by being able to cut off the pathways to a nuclear bomb by Iran – I think we can all agree an Iran without nuclear capabilities – nuclear weapons capabilities – is safer and better for the region, everybody in the region, than one with it. So I don't think anybody can take a look at the past couple years and say that we're turning a blind eye or not doing anything or not proving willing to ratchet up the pressure. And I think you're going to continue to see that over time.

Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you, sir. Quick question: Going back to this Pathankot, India attack, so much has gone up now. It's been over a week. The victims of Pathankot are still asking that – if they will ever get justice or it will go like Mumbai, victims are still waiting for justice. My question here is that Prime Minister Modi gave Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif seven days, which has already gone past. But Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said that no, I need only 72 hours and result will be there and we will go after those who are attacking India from my soil, which will not be in the future; I will not allow any terrorist to use Pakistan soil to attack India. But now my question is that problem is after talking to so many Pakistanis and commentators and also the community, that the civilian government in Pakistan always want peace. They're always for peace between the two countries.

But problem is Nawaz Sharif was prime minister in '93 and his government was overthrown by the military when he partnered for peace with India. And now the same problem is there, that he wants peace. But the military and ISI is there, which some elements are there who doesn't want peace between the two countries because they have opened the shops and they are making money in the name of conflict between the two countries. Where do we stand? What's the future? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Boy, if I knew the answer to that question, I would not be here.

QUESTION: Sorry to interrupt you --

QUESTION: Or what numbers to take on Wednesday's drawing. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Would you like predictions about the NFL playoffs as well? I mean, I'm --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: But even Secretary spoke – of course, he called, he made a phone call. I saw that, everything there. People want peace between both countries. People are there for peace. But people in both countries are asking, "When will we have peace?"

MR KIRBY: I honestly wish I knew the answer to that. I couldn't – I don't. But I can tell you that we're committed to that end, to that goal, and we have been for a long time. These are tough issues, and these are some very complicated relationships. You noted the Secretary's call on the 9th of January, Saturday, with Prime Minister Sharif. He was grateful for that time they had to talk. They talked a lot about this issue of the pressing need to stay focused on terrorism not just in Pakistan but in the region. And then he stressed that it – it's obviously United States interest that India and Pakistan continue to look for ways to work better together to reduce the tensions – to obviously to work better together on terrorism concerns but to reduce the tensions between the two countries.

We're mindful of the stress that this has on local populations. We're mindful of the insecurity that many people are faced with and dealing with every day, not just in that region but elsewhere around the world, which is why we here at the State Department remain so focused and committed to working bilaterally and multilaterally on counterterrorism challenges. I don't know how better to answer the question than that.

QUESTION: And quickly, as far as the talks are concerned, which are supposed to happen on the 16th of January between – in Islamabad between India's national security – foreign secretary level. So what do you think now? If Secretary has spoken when he made a phone call that these talks should continue despite all these terrorism activities going on?

MR KIRBY: He certainly, as I said, encouraged India and Pakistan to work bilaterally to continue discussions and to try to work through these problems. I don't think they spoke with any great detail or specificity about the next round of talks and what's on the calendar. But writ large, yes, this was a topic of discussion with the prime minister.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: A follow-up.

MR KIRBY: And it's one we're having --

QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan.

MR KIRBY: And it's one we're having at multiple levels here, as you might imagine, at the State Department diplomatically, not just at the Secretary's level.

QUESTION: A follow-up on Pakistan. When Secretary spoke to Pakistani prime minister or subsequently, have you got any feedback from Pakistan on the state of investigation or where Pakistan wants to take it?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional detail to read out from the call. As I said last week, we note and we're encouraged by the fact that the Pakistani Government condemned the attack and said that they would investigate. And as I said again on Friday, our expectation is that investigation will be thorough and complete and as transparent as possible. But in terms of its progress and where they are, you'd have to talk to Pakistani authorities on it.

QUESTION: Mexican Government has already --

MR KIRBY: Who?

QUESTION: Mexican Government has already informed the legal team of Joaquin Guzman, also known as El Chapo, that the extradition process has been started. Do you have any comment about that, and do you expect the extradition to be soon?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to speak to with respect to extradition. That's really a matter for the Justice Department to speak to, not for the State Department. I'd point you to them.

QUESTION: In the previous process of extradition that was not started, the Government of the United States was very angry with the Mexican Government. And now it seems that Enrique Pena Nieto is willing to expedite this process. The relation between Mexico and the U.S. has changed between then and now in order to allow the president to expedite this process.

MR KIRBY: Are you asking me if it's changed?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Look, we value our relationship with Mexico very, very much, and we want to continue to deepen that relationship. It's been complicated in the past. You're right about that. But more and more we're finding common ground and common cause to continue to try to deepen the cooperation, the communication, and the bilateral relationship across a host of issues. Law enforcement, and certainly law enforcement and it's related to the drug trade, is just but one of them. So without speaking to this case, which is – would be inappropriate for me to do from this podium, I can tell you we're constantly looking for ways, again, to make this – to make this relationship broader and deeper and more cooperative. It would be easier if we had an ambassador to Mexico confirmed by the Senate. Assistant Secretary Jacobson is supremely qualified for this job and is still waiting because of a hold on her confirmation. So working towards getting this relationship in even better shape would be easier if we had a Senate-confirmed ambassador in Mexico City.

Yeah.

QUESTION: If we can go back to Pakistan for a second. Ambassador Olson traveled there to Islamabad today to participate in the quadrilateral meeting. How important is that for the United States to do, to talk with other countries regarding that?

MR KIRBY: Very. Very important. We're glad that Ambassador Olson is there for the meeting. He expressed U.S. support for an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process as the surest way to end the violence and to ensure long and lasting stability in Afghanistan. He also met with senior Pakistani Government officials to discuss bilateral and regional issues as well.

So yeah, very important for us to be a part of that and, as I said to Goyal's question, remains important for us to have bilateral dialogue and for these nations to have bilateral dialogue and cooperation going forward.

I got you guys. Yeah. Barbara, yeah.

QUESTION: Just to go back to Iran, the White House has said it needs more time to prepare sanctions on ballistic missiles. Is that related in any way to the timetable for implementation day; in other words, you want to get implementation of the nuclear deal done before opening another file, let's say, on sanctions with Iran?

MR KIRBY: As we've said, there's still some technical issues that we're working through right now, and I'm not at liberty to go into additional greater detail. But when we have things that we can talk about with respect to holding them to account for a ballistic missile program, we'll do that. And as I said separately and distinct from that, the Iranians continue to make progress on implementation. And you heard the Secretary himself last week talk about the fact that we believe that it could happen very soon. But with respect to these sanctions, the issues are of a technical nature, and when we're at liberty to discuss more about it, we will.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the report today that Iran has sealed off the core of Arak?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I've seen the reports, Matt. We're not able to confirm them right now. I mean, we just saw these reports roughly around the same time you did. This is really also for the IAEA to confirm, and I note that they have not confirmed that on their own.

QUESTION: So the Iranians have also responded to the closing of the – to the final report, the final IAEA report on the PMD issue, saying that basically it's all wrong, they were never working on nuclear weapons stuff prior to 2003, and they certainly – and they say they certainly didn't continue any of it or didn't have any up to 2009, which is also what the IAEA said. Just doesn't seem to have closed the book on this whole thing. They are still rejecting your allegation and the IAEA's questions about it. So I'm not sure I understand that this is a closed book. You – I mean, how is it? I mean, are – is your – are you disappointed in the fact that they're not willing to accept the findings of the IAEA report?

MR KIRBY: I can't speak – I mean, all I can tell you is what we believe, and I can't speak for their views about the report and why they're articulating what they are. I mean, we have been exceedingly clear that from our perspective – from the United States perspective, we knew that they were pursuing a nuclear weapons program. But under the deal, the IAEA had to have their issues and questions addressed. They submitted the report that said that they had enough to confirm what we already knew in the United States. But as for the Iranian reaction to it, I wouldn't say that we're particularly surprised by that reaction. But I wouldn't be able to speak to why they maintain that.

QUESTION: For years and years and years the demand had been for the Iranians to come clean – using those words, come clean – on its past nuclear work, weapons or otherwise. They – have they done that in your estimation?

MR KIRBY: Have they what? Come --

QUESTION: Have they come clean on their past work?

MR KIRBY: We just – we would point you to what the IAEA found, which --

QUESTION: The IAEA is not Iran. I mean, the whole point of – one of the main points of the negotiations and the reason the sanctions were imposed in the first place was because Iran was refusing to come clean or admit what it had done before. Now you've got a situation where the IAEA has come out and said okay, they were doing this and this, and Iran says no. And I don't see how that amounts to coming clean about their past work.

MR KIRBY: We --

QUESTION: Maybe it does somehow and I just don't see it.

MR KIRBY: We didn't need them to come clean for our sake. We --

QUESTION: Well, you did for years and years and years.

MR KIRBY: We made our assessment. We knew what they were doing. That hasn't changed. But as part of the deal – so that's separate and distinct. The United States didn't need them to quote/unquote "come clean," because we'd already made our judgment.

QUESTION: But that was the demand of the UN Security Council.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Well, I'm talking for the United States Government right now.

QUESTION: All right. So what – okay.

MR KIRBY: Secondly – secondly, in the Iran deal, in order to get through the process of the deal itself, the IAEA, as we said before, needed to be able to address the international concerns about prior potential military components of the program, and that a key milestone in getting to implementation was having those questions addressed. The IAEA submitted a report. You're right; they had their questions addressed enough to know – enough to say that – to confirm what we already knew about --

QUESTION: I don't see how that resolves the international concerns, though.

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: I guess I just --

MR KIRBY: -- the IAEA – I mean, we've been around and around on this.

QUESTION: I know.

MR KIRBY: The IAEA submitted their report. It reinforced what we had long believed about PMD in Iran. We're satisfied that the process of implementation can and should move forward. It is and we're going through there.

Barbara, on your question, I just want to make it clear, because I don't think I did, that any timeline for applications of sanctions against Iran related to ballistic missiles would have nothing to do with the ongoing process of implementation. My answer to Matt got me thinking about my answer to you, and I don't think I was as complete as I should have been. There's no connection. It's not – there's – any timeline on holding them accountable for a ballistic missile program would have nothing to do with the process of implementation of the Iran deal, okay? I just want to make sure I was succinct on that.

QUESTION: John, on this point that you – on implementation, what does it look like? What does implementation look like? I mean, they shipped enriched uranium, so what comes next? What do you need --

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, to Matt's question, I mean, a key part of their steps in implementation is to cement over the Arak reactor. I can't confirm those reports. There's other steps. I can get you the list of things they need to do to get to implementation, but – I thought I actually had that here. Maybe I don't have it anymore. But we can get you a list of the things that they're supposed to do to get to implementation, but obviously, the key factor is the IAEA's being satisfied and reporting as being satisfied that they have taken all those steps. And then and only then will sanctions relief occur.

QUESTION: So what would be an official statement from the IAEA?

MR KIRBY: You'd have to ask them. I would assume so, but I mean, I can't speak for them. I don't know. Obviously – though look, I mean, if we get to implementation, clearly that's a significant enough milestone here that you won't have to go looking for it. I mean, you'll be – it'll be made very apparent and it'll be announced. But at what level and by whom, I just don't have that level of detail.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Mexico and the Guzman case? I recognize that DOJ is handling the lead on the extradition process.

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm, yeah.

QUESTION: But given the sensitivity surrounding this particular individual and his tendency to escape Mexican jails, I mean is there a concern in this building that the Mexicans can't be trusted to hold on to him for the – potentially up to a year that it might take for him to get to extradition?

MR KIRBY: I think certainly given what happened with him, I think it's safe to assume that Mexican authorities know what they need to do to make sure he stays behind bars, and we want to see him behind bars. But I think – I'm not an expert on Mexican prisons, but again, I think it's safe to assume they understand what this gentleman is capable of and will do what they need to do to keep him behind bars.

QUESTION: Well, how can you say that now? The guy's escaped twice. They know what not do, that's for sure. Do they know – how do you know they know what to do to keep him in?

MR KIRBY: It's certainly our hope and our expectation that he will remain behind bars. And I won't speak for Mexican authorities and what – and how they're going to ensure that that remains the case.

QUESTION: But are there diplomatic conversations to reinforce – to emphasize this to them?

MR KIRBY: Is there what?

QUESTION: Are there diplomatic conversations going on that are emphasizing to them the importance of this person making it to extradition?

MR KIRBY: I think it's – certainly we've made our concerns known to Mexican authorities about the dangers posed by this particular individual. And I think it's safe to assume, and for me to tell you, that they understand that the world is watching how this case moves forward and that this individual needs to stay behind bars.

QUESTION: And then last one on this: Does the State Department have any concerns about American citizens who are in the public arena meeting in secret with felons or escapees of the justice system in Mexico?

MR KIRBY: Well, I'm just – I think I'm going to let the Justice Department speak to that. Where our concern here is that, again, that he stays behind bars, that he's not able to wreak the havoc that's he's been able to wreak in terms of the drug trade. And we're going to continue to work closely with our Mexican counterparts and colleagues to that end. I won't get into specifics. I just can't get ahead of the judicial process and on any potential American citizen involvement of it. That's really something for the Justice Department to speak to.

Pam. Pam.

QUESTION: Can I ask you one on Macedonia? There are reports that Macedonia's prime minister in addition to meeting with Vice President Biden today also either has met or is meeting with Assistant Secretary Nuland. First of all, can you confirm? And then secondly, if he did indeed meet with Nuland, what was the purpose of that meeting, especially it's coming at a time when he's due to step down?

MR KIRBY: As far as I know, the Government of Macedonia requested the prime minister's meeting with Vice President Biden predominantly to discuss the implementation of the Przino agreement, security issues, and other matters of mutual interest. I don't have any specifics on Assistant Secretary Nuland's schedule to announce, but if we can or if I get more detail on that, I'll pass it on to you.

Yeah. I've got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: John, I'd like to know if any country contacted the State Department regarding the anti-Muslim rhetoric on U.S. Presidential election campaign that's going on?

MR KIRBY: If who has contacted?

QUESTION: Any country contacted State Department or if you have any concern that the rhetoric – anti-Muslim rhetoric somehow affects U.S. influence on the Muslim countries.

MR KIRBY: I don't have any – I don't have the call logs here. I mean --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR KIRBY: -- I couldn't begin to tell you who might have called here in terms of concern of the – over rhetoric, and we're not getting ourselves involved in campaign rhetoric. We have enough on our plate here at the State Department than to bother ourselves with – hang on a second, now let me just finish – to bother ourselves or be overly concerned. Now, that doesn't mean that there haven't been occasions where we felt it was important to articulate a view or position, but we're not getting overly concerned with that.

That said, broadly speaking, I won't talk about specific rhetoric by specific candidates. But the Secretary's been clear that there's not a religious test here in the United States, nor should there be when it comes to bringing in immigrants or refugees – those seeking asylum here in the United States – and that all of us need to be mindful of how what we say is perceived around the world. It doesn't mean that you back away from being honest or candid. And every day I'm up here and I talk very candidly about our concerns all around the world, in all manner of different places, on all manner of different issues. But we're mindful of the effect that those comments have, and that saying things or doing things that embolden one's enemies or reinforce for that enemy their warped and twisted narrative is clearly not going to be helpful to eventually defeating, in this case, terrorist organizations that crave that kind of attention and use that kind of focus on religion to generate recruits and to generate propaganda value.

So I think it's important for everybody to be mindful of that. It is not – it's not who we are as a country, and I think it's – again, I think it's important to be mindful of the effect of what's being said and how it's being perceived around the world.

QUESTION: What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that political candidates should not say anything that might be found --

MR KIRBY: No. I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Well, what do you – "be mindful of" means what?

MR KIRBY: I said --

QUESTION: What does that mean to you?

MR KIRBY: I don't think I can say it any better than I did, Matt. I mean, we've not been bashful about making it known that there's not a religious test here in the United States nor should there be.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: And that comments to the contrary can be perceived by those extremists themselves as fodder for why their narrative is correct and why people should join their group, and I just think I'm not – look, it's obviously a free country and people can say whatever they want, but they should be mindful of how those comments are perceived.

Now, if they choose to ignore that perception, that's certainly their right. We're not going to get into debating and discussing each and every bit of campaign rhetoric.

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, one more.

QUESTION: Well, do you believe that campaign rhetoric to date from some candidate, without naming names, has caused this problem that you just – you say they should be mindful of?

MR KIRBY: I think simply by virtue of the fact that at least one such candidate's comments were used in a recruiting video for an extremist group proves my point exactly.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, a Philippine official is saying that a possible topic for tomorrow's meeting is a joint freedom of navigation operation by the United States and its Asia allies in the South China Sea. Do you – what is the position of U.S. regarding such proposal?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that – you're saying that there's a meeting tomorrow to discuss --

QUESTION: On 2+2, the ministerial between the United States and Philippines.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: The 2+2 meeting, and that one of the focal point might be discussed is South China Sea.

MR KIRBY: We're looking forward to the meeting tomorrow and I'll have more to talk about that tomorrow afternoon.

QUESTION: Do you --

MR KIRBY: I won't get ahead of the agenda. Clearly, though, you can safely assume that security issues in the South China Sea will come up. There's no question about that. But I won't talk about – certainly I won't talk about specific military operations, especially ones that haven't occurred. But I can assure you that tensions in the Asia Pacific region, particularly the South China Sea, will be on the agenda. It's a concern that we and our Philippine friends and allies share, and I suspect they'll have a pretty robust discussion about it tomorrow.

QUESTION: Are you --

QUESTION: What's your position of a joint operation to ensure --

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to --

QUESTION: -- freedom of navigation? Because in the past, the U.S. has conducted unilateral FO – freedom of navigation operation in the past, but never been done jointly with other allies. What's your position on that?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of discussions tomorrow, and I am certainly not going to get ahead of any military operations, whether they're proposed or planned or about to be implemented. That simply wouldn't be appropriate for me. Okay?

QUESTION: I got one more really brief one. Last week, last Thursday, the Secretary put out a statement on the anniversary of the Paris attacks.

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm. The Charlie Hebdo attacks, yeah.

QUESTION: Well, it was inclusive of both the attack on the 7th on Charlie Hebdo and the attack on the 9th, which was on the kosher supermarket. But it has come to the attention of people who pay particularly close attention to the Secretary's comments on terrorism and terrorist attacks that this statement, which covered both the 7th and the 9th, mentioned only the Charlie Hebdo attack specifically and did not mention or take – did not discuss specifically the attack on the kosher deli. And I'm wondering – kosher supermarket, which was on the 9th, two days later. I mean, I can understand – anyway, what was the --

MR KIRBY: I think --

QUESTION: Why was – do you know why there was no specific reference to the kosher – the attack on the kosher supermarket?

MR KIRBY: Well, but you rightly pointed out the purpose of the statement was to observe the anniversary of both attacks. Here --

QUESTION: Right, but it mentions only the Charlie Hebdo. And so --

MR KIRBY: But you're asking specifically why it was not --

QUESTION: Well, I – other people have raised this point, and I think it's worth asking. Was it intentionally left out or --

MR KIRBY: Of course – no. Look, the purpose of the statement was to observe the anniversary of a series of terrible attacks that the Secretary spoke very powerfully and forcefully to when it happened, and he felt it was important to note the anniversary of both, and that's what he did in his statement. That that – the deli itself wasn't mentioned specifically or by name doesn't take away from the fact that the statement itself was referring to both the attacks on the 7th and the 9th of January.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:16 p.m.)

DPB # 6