Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 15, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY TRAVEL
RUSSIA/UKRAINE/REGION
SOMALIA/REGION
TURKEY
SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAN
SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAN
INDIA/PAKISTAN
TURKEY
CHINA/REGION/SECRETARY TRAVEL
MACEDONIA
RUSSIA/UKRAINE/REGION
IRAQ/SYRIA/REGION
IRAN
SYRIA/REGION
MEXICO
NIGERIA
CHINA/REGION
SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA/REGION
TRANSCRIPT:
2:05 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Okay, everybody. Happy Friday to you all. I've got a few things at the top. First, on scheduling – a scheduling matter, and you'll see us – we'll put out a note here shortly, but I can announce that the Secretary will be traveling to Zurich, Switzerland, on the 20th of January where he'll meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss Syria and Ukraine. I think we talked about this the other day. Right on the heels of that, he will travel to Davos, Switzerland, from the 21st to the 22nd to attend the World Economic Forum, and then from there to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia where he will meet with senior Saudi Arabian leaders as well as foreign ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council states to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues.
After that stop, he will go to the Asia Pacific region where he will visit leaders in Laos, Cambodia, and China, again, to reaffirm our firm and strong commitment to the Asia Pacific rebalance, to our interests in the region, and to discuss, as you might imagine, a whole host of bilateral and regional issues with those leaders. He very much looks forward to that trip.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, where is that one? I missed it.
MR KIRBY: Right after Riyadh.
QUESTION: Did you specify the countries?
MR KIRBY: Laos, Cambodia, and then China.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: On Russia, as a follow-up Secretary Kerry's December 15th meetings in Moscow with President Putin and with Foreign Minister Lavrov, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland met today with Russian Presidential Advisor Vladislav Surkov in Kaliningrad, Russia, and there they discussed the situation in eastern Ukraine and the need for full implementation of the Minsk agreements. The talks were constructive and designed to support the ongoing work of the Normandy countries and the Trilateral Contact Group.
On Somalia, the United States strongly condemns the al-Shabaab terrorist attack today against Kenyan troops that were operating under the African Union Mission in Somalia – AMISOM as you guys know it – and Somali national army troops that were stationed in el-Ade, the Gedo region of Somalia. We extend our deepest condolences to the families of all the soldiers killed. And of course, we wish a speedy and quick recovery to those who were injured.
The United States remains fully committed to providing assistance to the Government of Kenya, the Government of Somalia, and our AMISOM – and AMISOM partners to combat terrorism, violent extremism, and to enhance security within Somalia, Kenya, and the region.
And finally, on Turkey – if I can keep this page from falling off. We've seen reports of Turkish academics being investigated and detained for expressing their opinions about the conflict in southeast Turkey. We see this action as part of a troubling trend in Turkey, whereby official bodies, law enforcement, and judicial authorities are being used to discourage legitimate political discourse. As our ambassador to Turkey, John Bass, has already stated in a statement today, "Expressions of concern about violence do not equal support for terrorism. Criticism of the government does not equal treason. Turkish democracy is strong enough and resilient enough to embrace free expression of uncomfortable ideas." As Turkey's friend and NATO ally, we urge Turkish authorities to ensure that their actions uphold the universal democratic values that are enshrined in their constitution including freedom of expression.
With that, we'll go to questions. Arshad.
QUESTION: Can we start with the Secretary's current travel? Where is he now, and where might he be going next?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) He remains in London, Arshad. I don't have any updates on his follow-on travel. As soon as we do, we'll certainly let you know.
QUESTION: Is he staying the night in London, or is it possible that he might fly home or go elsewhere today?
MR KIRBY: Again, I don't have any updates for his travel. I can tell you that he remains in London right now, and as soon as we know what his follow-on travel plans are, we'll certainly keep you apprised.
QUESTION: Okay. And then I'm sure you've seen that there are reports that the IAEA's JCPOA compliance report on – or verification report on Iran is expected to be released tomorrow; that is, Saturday in Vienna. Can you confirm that?
MR KIRBY: I cannot. I'd have to refer you to the IAEA. I've seen the same press reports, but I'm in no position to confirm how – the status of the report and where it is and how far along it is.
QUESTION: Okay. So but to your knowledge – and I'm sure you saw what your colleague at the White House said, which made it sound like Iran has done much, if not all, of what it needed to do. To your knowledge, has Iran taken – even if it has yet to be verified by the IAEA, has Iran take all the steps that it needs to under the JCPOA for implementation to occur?
MR KIRBY: As I understand it, they have worked very, very hard at completing all their steps. I do not know, as you and I talk here right now, whether they have completed everything. And I do not know the status of the verification of the steps that they might have completed. Again, that's all for the IAEA to determine and then to issue their report, and I just don't have an update on the timing or status of that.
QUESTION: Could we stay on the Secretary's travel some?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Now he is in London. Would you say that the focus remains Syria for his presence in London? Is that what be – would that be the case?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, the primary reason for going to London was to meet with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, and there's lots – I mean, there's lots of topics that they discussed, but obviously, Syria was right at the top of that list in terms of the political process moving forward. But there's other issues. I mean, one of the reasons he wanted to meet with the foreign minister was also to discuss the recent tensions with Iran that you and I have all – we've all been talking about for the past week or so.
QUESTION: Yeah, I understand. But the meeting is done. I mean, the meeting was yesterday, and I'm sure they discussed the situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. But what is the reason for his continued presence in London? Is it basically to – maybe to organize the process forward for Syria?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary has been very busy in London, even after completion of his meeting with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, speaking numerous times with various leaders around the world about lots of topics going on around the world, not the least of which is his continued progress towards implementation of the Iran deal. So I mean, there's been plenty of work for him to do in London, and I just don't have anything to report in terms of any follow-on travel.
QUESTION: Iran?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry, Said. You weren't done?
QUESTION: I'll follow up on Syria later.
QUESTION: Okay, I just wanted – you said yesterday that the administration would be ready to go with sanctions relief once the announcement was made. But can you tell us – of implementation day, I mean. But what does – what's going to happen when implementation day happens? The sanctions – there'll be an announcement that they're lifted? And will there be some kind of guidance issued to businesses right away? Or how – what's going to – what can we expect to happen?
MR KIRBY: I'm not entirely clear what the mechanics of it is, but clearly, once we get to implementation there'll be an official announcement about that and we'll do what we need to do here in the United States to make the proper notifications. I don't know what the mechanics of that look like. I mean, we can try to get you one of our experts to kind of walk you through that. I just don't have that level of detail. But yes, our major requirement on implementation day is sanctions relief.
QUESTION: John, is there a concern that the efforts to get to implementation day might be rushed, that the IAEA may not have enough time to do all the double-checking that it needs to do in order to make certain that Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA?
MR KIRBY: No, there's no rush here. There's no rush. And the IAEA is an independent agency, as you know, and they can't be rushed and they shouldn't be rushed. The reason why we believe we're very close to implementation day is because Iran has put a great deal of effort in trying to meet all their commitments, and that's the only thing driving the schedule. We've said all along that there will be no implementation day, there will be no sanctions relief until they've met all their requirements, their commitments, under the JCPOA and the IAEA can verify that they have done so. We're not there right now, and I can tell you that the process continues. But that's the only thing driving any sense of timing. There's no artificial pressure being applied. There's no rush afoot here.
QUESTION: And in terms of the domestic political climate here in the United States, what is this Administration prepared to do to try to quiet the naysayers once the IAEA comes out and says Iran has complied with the terms of the JCPOA?
MR KIRBY: That question would presuppose that you can quiet critics. And look, we've said all along that we know that there have been and there are and there will continue to be critics of this deal, whether they're in the halls of Congress or elsewhere, even around the world. And what we've said all along is that we're going to continue to engage in dialogue and discussion and talk about this and answer whatever questions that we can. We've been very open and transparent about that in multiple discussions with members of Congress, even in open testimony.
So I can't speak for the critics and what they'll say when we get to implementation or how they'll react. That's for them to speak to. What I can tell you is that we're going to continue to work towards making sure that we're all ready to meet our commitments. Iran has continued to take the steps that it needs to take to implementation. Again, we're not there yet. But once we get there – and we will, toward – to implementation day – then we'll – the deal will be in effect. And let's not forget that upon implementation, we will have, through the deal, as long – and through a very rigorous verification and inspection regime going forward – been able to make sure that Iran does not possess or acquire nuclear arms. And again, I'd say it again that a Middle East which is already under great tension without a nuclear-armed Iran is better than one with it.
QUESTION: But it's not just quieting the critics. The critics in large part belong to a co-equal branch of the U.S. Government, and they can try to pass legislation to basically undermine the terms of the JCPOA, especially the sanctions relief.
MR KIRBY: It's not about --
QUESTION: What is the – what is the Administration prepared to do to essentially prevent them from doing something that we can all pretty much assume they're going to do, or try to do?
MR KIRBY: It's not about quieting critics. We've – there have been critics all along, there will continue to be, and that's okay. Everybody is entitled to a different view. It's about continuing to address the concerns. But once the deal is implemented, the deal is implemented.
Now, I can't speak hypothetically to what measures members of Congress might pursue after that. We'll have to – they can speak to that, and we'll have to address it if and when that happens. But upon implementation day, sanctions relief occurs and the deal is in effect. And again, most importantly, Iran is prevented from ever acquiring nuclear arms and those capabilities.
QUESTION: On that point, John – now, what Iran needs to do is – are measurable, tangible things, right? Would you say that they covered 50 percent, 70 percent of what they needed to do? For instance, turn over their enriched uranium, pouring cement in the core and so on, and all these things which they have done? So how many more steps, or what are the remaining steps? This is not something abstract.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – that – I'm not going to get ahead of the work the IAEA is doing. But as you heard the Secretary say, they are shipping out all that low-enriched uranium. We – that was a key component, one of the things they needed to do, and obviously it advanced the breakout time from a matter of months to more than a year just in that one – in that one movement. But in general, I can walk you through what their steps are.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I won't talk to you about progress on that. That is not my responsibility; that's the IAEA. But they have to modify and redesign the Arak plutonium reactor so that it cannot be used again to produce weapons-grade plutonium. They have to disconnect and remove two-thirds of their installed centrifuge capacity, going from over 19,000 to just over 5,000. They have to reduce their stockpile of up to 5 percent low-enriched uranium from the current stockpile down to 300 kilograms or less. We've talked about that. They have to disconnect all uranium-enriching centrifuges at Fordow and turn the facility into a research facility that will no longer be enriching uranium. They have to put in place all the transparency measures with the IAEA specified in the JCPOA, including 24/7 monitoring of all Iran's declared nuclear facilities. And they have to provisionally apply the IAEA Additional Protocol and implement Modified Code 3.1, which if you look in the deal, it'll have more detail on that.
So all that's very public. That's all in the documents which you can find online. I won't, again, give them a report card on all those things. That's not our job. That's for the agency to do.
QUESTION: You said yesterday that there had to be some other, I guess, paperwork that needed to be done, once the IAEA comes out with its report, on the part of the P5+1. Can you spell out exactly what documents need to be signed, how they can be done? Are you --
MR KIRBY: I don't have that level of detail. As I said to Arshad's question, there's sort of two things here. They have to complete all their steps, and then those steps have to be verified by the IAEA. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about documentation. I just simply don't have a status report for you on all that.
QUESTION: Are you worried that U.S. relations with Iran may get a whole lot more challenging after they have taken nuclear steps and you and the European Union and the United Nations have taken the sanctions-easing steps?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, to be clear, the Iran deal was never about defining or improving our – a relationship with Iran. It was about cutting off their pathways to a nuclear bomb, and it will do that. So nobody is looking at this from a relationship perspective. That's not the purpose of it. What we've always said, that if, as a byproduct of the deal and the dialogue that the deal engendered, Iran were to be willing to change its behavior in the region and its conduct and become a responsible member of the international community, well, that would be a – that would be welcomed. But that onus is on Iran and only Iran. We don't have diplomatic relations with that country. I see no prospect for that anytime in the near future. I'm not trying to predict one way or the other, but there are no diplomatic relations with Iran. And we're not talking about that at this time. We're talking about making sure they can't become a nuclear-armed state.
QUESTION: Well, I guess the reason I'm asking the question is that up until implementation day, all of your sanctions remain in place. On implementation day, some of your sanctions go away. And they're quite significant, the ones that go away, notably on those that had previously barred non-U.S. actors from buying other than constrained amounts of Iranian oil. And so the thing I wonder is whether the Administration thinks that as a result of this deal, it's going to end up with a kind of cooperative Iran, like the one that released the sailors within 24 hours of taking them into custody, or to the contrary, whether it thinks it's going to face an Iran that is more pugnacious and engages in more of the kinds of behaviors that you don't like, because they will have gotten much of what they wanted out of you, which is sanctions relief, right. So are you bracing for a tougher Iran, or are you hoping or thinking that it's actually going to get better?
MR KIRBY: We're pretty clear-eyed, I think, about Iran and their capacity for misbehavior. Nobody's making any predictions one way or another how – what the future will hold in terms of that behavior. But I could tell you that, again, this was solely focused on removing nuclear arms from their capabilities and not about changing their behavior, which is why we will still have at our disposable – at our disposal, sorry – unilateral, and the international community will have multilateral mechanisms and tools, including sanctions, to deal with the fact that they will still on implementation day be a state sponsor of terror; that on implementation day, they still will remain a threat to others in the region, to include Israel; that on implementation day, they will still – we have to assume will still be supporting groups like Hizballah.
So nobody's – again, I've said this before – nobody's turning a blind eye to the fact that this is still a regime that bears significant watching. And this isn't about trust. It's not about trying to forge a new friendship here. It's about taking a very big step to try to reduce, in the realm of nuclear arms, their ability to do that much more harm to people in the region.
QUESTION: And just one other – one for me on this: Did you get an answer to the question that I – I think you had said you would take on whether L regards the Geneva Conventions and – as applying to the U.S. soldiers that were in – the U.S. sailors, excuse me, that were in Iranian custody?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I – my – what – my comments yesterday still stand.
QUESTION: So in other words, you're not at war, therefore they're not prisoners of war, therefore Geneva Conventions don't apply?
MR KIRBY: We're not in armed conflict with Iran, and there's been no legal determination to that effect. So my comments still stand.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry, no, same topic. Two questions. One technical question regarding the implantation day: Who will be giving the green light? Who will be saying in the coming days, "This is it, the deal is implemented"?
MR KIRBY: Well, the IAEA has to make the certification, the validation. And then the P5+1 will come on top of that and so state. And then it will – for – as a member of that group, we'll make our own official announcement and statement that from the United States perspective, we're in effect. So there'll be a series of statements, but it all has to start with the IAEA and their certification.
QUESTION: Who would make the statement from the U.S. Government that it is in effect? Would it be the State Department? Would it be the White House? Would it be the Treasury Department?
MR KIRBY: I don't want to get ahead of the specifics of the process. I just would tell you that the U.S. would – as you would expect we would, as we did in the past – would issue the appropriate statements at the appropriate time to indicate that it's in effect for us as well.
QUESTION: Do you expect the IAEA to say publicly, "We have a certification ready," or does that happen when the P5+1 have seen it?
MR KIRBY: I don't have that level of detail, Dave. I don't – I'd have to refer you to the IAEA. I mean, I can only really speak for our piece of this.
QUESTION: And a broader question regarding your policy with Iran: What do you respond to your historic ally, Saudi Arabia, and Israel that are scared that the U.S. is moving towards Iran, is doing – this is – that this nuclear deal is only the start of a rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran, and that there will be a major shift in the region?
MR KIRBY: I'd ask them to read the transcript of my answer to Arshad just a few minutes ago. And this deal was about one thing and one thing only – removing Iran's ability to possess nuclear weapons. And it will do that. And one of the reasons why we pushed so hard for the deal, why it matters so much to us, is because it is so good for our allies and partners and friends in the region. It makes them all safer. An Iran without that capability is not just good for our interest; it's good for their interests. That's what we would say.
Yes.
QUESTION: New subject?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: India. Two questions, please. One starting with – as far as failure of the talks between the two countries, India and Pakistan, always innocent people are the victims, so – in both sides. And whenever they want to start people-to-people talks, the people can benefit and development can go on between – in two countries, but there are some always elements at the last minute, all these bombings and – that happens.
My question is here that people are asking now from both sides that whenever bombing happens in India or Pakistan, only the innocent people are the victims there. So where – what is the message now? Because this is the history now whenever they come very close to have talks, dialogue, and meeting at the highest level, and then these things happen, so – bombings and all that, then – because some elements, as I said, they want to – or they are against the talks and two countries to come closer.
MR KIRBY: Well, we want – as I said before, we want them to continue to have a dialogue and to continue to look for ways to cooperate against a common threat. And we talked about this not long ago at a recent conversation between both Prime Ministers Sharif and Modi. We – that was a welcome sign, both condemning the terrorist attack on the air station and expressing their shared commitment to fighting terrorism. That was not an insignificant discussion that they had, nor was it an insignificant commitment that they made, and it's exactly the kind of commitment that we want them to continue to make.
It should come as a shock to no one that terrorist groups will try to undermine those sorts of efforts by conducting spectacular attacks – to do exactly that, to sow fear, and to hopefully sow doubt in the minds of national leaders towards a level of cooperation that can have a real – a practical effect. And obviously, we don't want to see that happen and we're – we are encouraged by the dialogue that has recently taken place between India and Pakistan, and we'd like to see that continue.
QUESTION: And second, as far as the U.S.-India relations are concerned, Ambassador Richard Verma – I believe that he's having a fun and wonderful time in India as U.S. ambassador. He started his new year with a long year-end message to the people of India from the people of the U.S. – of course, you must have seen – where he laid down all the U.S.-India relations took place between Prime Minister Modi and, of course, President Obama and Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Sushma among other leaders and talks and visits and all that when he said that progress has been done in this year of 2015 and we have a long way to go and much has been done and – but much to be done.
So where do we go from here now? And now railway minister of India is here in town and meeting and greeting all the high-level U.S. officials as far as infrastructure and railways and transportation in India, including today meeting the transportation secretary, and yesterday he was at the Carnegie. So where do we go now? What – there's much to be done.
MR KIRBY: Well, you've said it yourself. There is – there's still much to be done, and again, this is an important relationship that we want to continue to improve. And we have excellent relations with the Government of India. We want to make them even better. And I think you can – again, I would point you to the ambassador's end-of-year statement, which I think was pretty complete, pretty comprehensive. We know how important this relationship is, and I can assure you and the Indian people that the United States remains committed to it.
QUESTION: But John, one thing is there that for the last 10 years, people of India and the U.S. industries are waiting for this civil nuclear agreement which is already done, everything is done, but where are we now where the people of India are asking when they will get all these trucks moving to India for this electricity and all the developments that they are waiting for?
MR KIRBY: I just don't have an update for you on that specifically.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Tolga.
QUESTION: I want to, back to Turkey, the statement that you --
MR KIRBY: I'm shocked. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah – you read at the top. Have you raised this concern with the Turkish Government, first of all?
MR KIRBY: I think you saw Ambassador Bass' statement --
QUESTION: Ambassador Bass tweeted about this, but it was a public statement.
MR KIRBY: -- which was pretty clear, pretty concise, and pretty public. Yes, of course, we always raise these issues with Turkish authorities, publicly and privately.
QUESTION: What was – because he was blamed to be kind of enemy of the Turkish-U.S. relations. When he tweeted on this, mayor of Ankara said that he is hurting the relations between the two. So I'm wondering – of course, he's not a part of the government, but I'm wondering if you with the same reaction for the government as well.
MR KIRBY: Do I have the same reaction --
QUESTION: Like the Ankara mayor said. Do you believe that --
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that Turkey has no better friend than the United States, and they certainly – and that's certainly represented in Ambassador Bass. Nobody is more committed to seeing Turkey succeed and to live up to its own constitution and democratic values. Nobody is more committed to that than Ambassador Bass. And it's because he deeply cares about the Turkish people and the health of the Turkish democracy that he spoke the way he did, that he issued the statement of concern that he did.
It wasn't a – it wasn't picking sides on the academics' arguments or not. That wasn't the issue. In fact, you can look at his statement and he makes that clear. It was the idea of being able to express opinions freely and openly and to challenge – to challenge government in a peaceful, democratic way, which is enshrined in the Turkish constitution itself. So to the mayor of Ankara – and I've seen those comments – I would say that Turkey has no better friend than Ambassador Bass, and that's very much represented in his statement.
QUESTION: Did you see the same reaction from the government?
MR KIRBY: I've only seen the press reports from – the same ones that you're alluding to.
QUESTION: And have you discussed this issue with the government on the reaction?
MR KIRBY: I've answered that question already. Of course, we raise these issues all the time with Turkish authorities.
QUESTION: No, the reaction of the mayor. I mean, because --
MR KIRBY: I don't have an update for you. The article just appeared a little bit ago. I've seen it same time as you have.
QUESTION: Okay. And can I finish – and you said "a troubling trend." Are you concerned about the direction of Turkey in general?
MR KIRBY: I think I'm going to leave it at my opening statement. It's a troubling trend that we're concerned about.
QUESTION: And the last one: I know that you're cautious about not to interfere with the domestic policy issue with other countries, and the government circles and pro-government circles, they say – criticize the Ambassador Bass comments to interfere with the domestic policy of Turkey. Why you think that this is not an internal issue for Turkey, and why you made the statement at the top?
MR KIRBY: We are uniformly and always expressly concerned about freedom of expression around the world, and I can't tell you how many times in just the eight months I've been at the State Department that I've stood up here and I've talked about our concerns with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of the press from this very podium about places all over the world. It's one of our core values and it's one of our key principles here in the United States. It matters deeply to us.
And we know that it matters deeply to the Turkish people because it's in their constitution. And so when we see express examples where those values are not being lived up to – values that, again, is enshrined in their own constitution – we believe we have an obligation to speak up about it. And we're going to continue to do that.
QUESTION: Do you believe that these detentions are hurting the U.S.-Turkish relations?
MR KIRBY: Turkey's a NATO ally, a strong partner, and a friend. And I've said this before: Even allies and friends aren't always going to see eye-to-eye on everything. And good friends and allies – if you are a good friend and ally – should be able to discuss freely the concerns that you have with one another, and we do that with Turkey. We're not always going to see everything the same way that they do, but it doesn't mean that the partnership is weaker. It doesn't mean that we're not as strong an ally. It means that it's a healthy relationship, that you can speak freely and express – and express those same concerns, and we're going to continue to do that when and where we see it's appropriate.
Okay.
QUESTION: Same subject?
QUESTION: The fight against ISIS?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: On the same subject?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: While you are talking about these concerns, right now dozens of academicians who signed that petition detained, some of them already fired and suspended. So when we report about your concerns, usually the echo comes from Turkey is that these concerns have been displayed for a long time, but the trend is continuous. Do you think these concerns that you have been expressing make any difference? If no, then what is it good for, this expressing concerns, as long as this witch hunt is going on in Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't speak up and express the concerns when we have them?
QUESTION: I think many people think that U.S. should make necessary policy changes as many think this building has enough able diplomats to propose such policy recommendations.
MR KIRBY: We want to see Turkey, as I've said before, live up to its own democratic values. Ultimately, these are decisions that Turkish leaders have to make. These are sovereign decisions that they have to make. That's what we want to see, and that's why we express our concerns in real time when they happen. We do that privately and we do it publicly, and we're going to continue to do that. But ultimately, we want to see Turkish leaders make the right decisions here and move in the right direction. I won't go beyond my opening statement in terms of characterizing a trend or not. I said we call it a troubling trend, and that's where I'll leave it. But we want to see those principles enshrined in the Turkish constitution to be valued and to be implemented.
QUESTION: You, in the same opening statement, you said that Turkish democracy is strong enough to embrace this freedom of expression. Can you tell us what aspect of Turkish democracy you see strong nowadays?
MR KIRBY: It was a broad statement that I stand by. We believe that it is a strong enough, resilient enough democracy. We believe the Turkish people are strong enough and resilient enough to live up to these values, and that's what we want to see them do.
QUESTION: And finally, today one of the oldest mainstream newspaper, Cumhuriyet newspaper, it's reported by the censorship watchdog that has been selectively blocked by some of the country's largest service providers the day after President Erdogan fiercely attacked the newspaper. Headline came yesterday. Do you have any comment on this particular --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, but obviously, if it's true, everything that I mentioned in the last few minutes and in my opening statement would still stand, that we want to see Turkey live up to its democratic values, and that includes freedom of expression and freedom of the press. And we've been nothing but consistent about that particular matter over these many months, but I haven't seen that report.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yes. When Secretary Kerry goes to China, will he – besides DPRK, will he be discussing Taiwan's presidential election with the Chinese counterpart?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think there will – he will be discussing a wide range of bilateral issues that we routinely discuss with China. I'm not going to get ahead of specific agenda items.
QUESTION: I do note that Deputy Secretary Blinken will be meeting with the Zhang Zhijun, who is the official in charge of the Taiwanese affairs in the Chinese Government. Is that a nuance that – for Secretary Kerry not to discuss Taiwan issue with his counterpart? Because --
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that he wasn't going to discuss Taiwan. I said I'm not going to get ahead of specific agenda items. Cross-strait relations is obviously something that we routinely discuss with Chinese leaders. There's a lot of other things as well on the agenda. There's – I mean, that you would expect that they would discuss. But again, I'm not going to get into specific items right now or – and when the meetings are over and when we can read them out to you, then we'll have those discussions.
QUESTION: Also on China?
QUESTION: If indeed he meet with – discuss the Taiwan issue, can we read that this is not a discussion of sovereignty or is that any nuance?
MR KIRBY: I can appreciate your strong desire for nuance before we've even left Andrews Air Force Base. I'm just simply not going to get ahead of the specific discussions that we're going to have. You can imagine that because the U.S.-China relationship is so important – to them and to us – because there's so much change in the region and tension, that there are a lot of issues that he will be raising with his Chinese counterparts. And I mean, again, I don't want to go through a list of them. I think you can imagine what they would be – everything from security challenges to economic opportunity. Okay?
QUESTION: Can we move on to Macedonia? Macedonia --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taiwan?
MR KIRBY: You're going all the way from China to Macedonia, okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taiwan?
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Taiwan?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So with the death of former comfort woman Cheng-Chen Tao earlier this week, President Ma of Taiwan, he said that he would continue to work on achieving justice for Taiwanese women. Would you support such efforts of reconciliation on this issue between Taiwan and Japan?
MR KIRBY: I'm afraid I don't have a comment for you on that. I haven't seen those comments.
QUESTION: A quick related question about the Secretary's trip to Asia. Is he going to Japan or South Korea?
MR KIRBY: No. As I told you, he's stopping in Laos, Cambodia, and Beijing.
QUESTION: That's it? No other?
MR KIRBY: There's not a stop in Japan on this trip.
QUESTION: On Macedonia?
QUESTION: Can we go to the fight against ISIS?
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: ISIS?
MR KIRBY: What about ISIS?
QUESTION: I have a couple questions on the fight --
QUESTION: Macedonia.
MR KIRBY: Oh, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, can we stick to Asia?
MR KIRBY: I'm just – I'm just trying to – I am --
QUESTION: No, we're going to Macedonia. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I am just trying to keep up with you guys today. (Laughter.) When I first took this job, it was, "No, no, Kirby, we're going to stay on topic and we're going to exhaust the topic before we go to the next one."
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR KIRBY: Which is not the way we did it at the Pentagon, and this is actually more like what I'm used to. But it just – you guys are flipping on me here. All right, what – let's go to Macedonia so that --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Can I have Asia?
QUESTION: You can go to Asia.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the newest announcement from the prime minister that he's planning to resign? Do you think this is a sign of implementation of the Przino agreement?
MR KIRBY: It's part of the – it's part – his resignation is part of that agreement.
QUESTION: So you welcome that?
MR KIRBY: It's an intrinsic part of it. We continue to support Macedonian efforts towards deepening their Euro-Atlantic integration. We support the Przino agreement as an essential next step towards that goal. And we're working with the EU to assist Macedonia's leaders to build on the progress and implementation they've made so far. The prime minister's resignation was a part of the agreement. And I'd refer you to the Government of Macedonia for any further information about it.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. playing any role as a facilitator? Because a few days ago, I remember the prime minister met with Vice President Joe Biden in Washington.
MR KIRBY: You're right. The Vice President met on the 11th. They agreed on the importance of continued implementation of the agreement and taking the actions necessary to ensure credible elections. And the Vice President emphasized the United States continued support, again, for Macedonia's EU – I'm sorry, Euro-Atlantic integration.
QUESTION: So would you call the U.S. as a facilitator to that process?
MR KIRBY: I did not say that. I told you we support their integration, their Euro-Atlantic integration.
QUESTION: And can I have one quick question on Ukraine, on the – following up? Sorry. Final one. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: You guys have got to police yourselves.
QUESTION: The Ukraine – the meeting take place in Russia. Why is that? Is that because of the – Putin's aide is under the Western sanction not to travel to --
MR KIRBY: The location for the meeting was established by the Russian Government. We didn't – that was their choice to meet in Kaliningrad.
QUESTION: And then the U.S. did not ask him to come over here, or --
MR KIRBY: The decision to meet there was a Russian decision.
QUESTION: But the fact – because he's under sanction not to travel, does that in any way undermine the Western sanction for his travel due to the undermining the sovereignty of Ukraine?
MR KIRBY: Not at all. There's no prohibition on meeting with an individual who's under sanctions. He is the appropriate person in their government to have these discussions about Minsk implementation, and he was chosen by the Russian Government to head these meetings. And so we attended the meetings and we had good discussions today.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, can we go to the fight against ISIS? Yesterday, Steve Warren from Baghdad talked about the way in which the United States or the coalition is fighting ISIS. But he also mentioned that there are 6,000 troops – 3,500 are Americans, and 2,500 others from other countries. What other countries have troops or soldiers in the fight against ISIS in Iraq?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to go to the Defense Department, Said. I don't have the breakdown. There's some 65 nations in the coalition. Not all of them, of course, have troops inside --
QUESTION: Yeah. Well they're --
MR KIRBY: -- Afghanistan.[i] But I'd point you back to Steve for a breakdown if he's got one. I don't have that.
QUESTION: Well, do they include any troops, let's say, from the Arab countries – Jordan, Saudi Arabia?
MR KIRBY: I don't have a breakdown, Said. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Okay. And I have one other question on the same issue. There are also – well, I mean, it's been reported by the Pentagon that about 100 Special Forces units will be deployed in Syria and in Iraq to conduct special operations and so on. Will they be, like, separate units working on their own sort of against high-value targets, or will they be working with the current, present American force?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about military matters. The only thing I'd say is that I think the Pentagon's been clear that the primary focus of this is an advise and assist, and that if there's a need for them to be directly involved in a raid, that they can do that. But beyond that, I simply am not qualified to speak to it. You really should go to the Defense Department for that.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Iran for (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Just about the political climate around the implementation. Technically, obviously the requirements for the U.S. are clear, but there's political opposition and Mr. Obama's going to keep vetoing legislation that he feels is not helpful till he leaves, but he's only here for another year. And I'm just wondering if that political uncertainty could affect the perception of success, because bankers might be very cautious and so on. Is there any concern that even though technically you'll do what you need to do, politically it will look like you're – or practically it will look like things aren't happening --
MR KIRBY: Well, those are – those are --
QUESTION: -- and this might affect the success of the implementation?
MR KIRBY: Those are decisions that business leaders will have to make. I mean, our concern is getting the deal in effect and making sure that we do our part, which is the sanctions relief that is part of that deal. But these are ultimately corporate decisions that need to be made, and they'll have to speak to the calculus with which they make those decisions.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a couple of quick ones. One, Syria. The Russian defense ministry has said that it has a new objective in Syria, and that is to deliver humanitarian aid to people in need. Did you see that report? To your knowledge, have the Russians been delivering such aid? Do you welcome it? And if they are delivering such aid, are they delivering it to non-government-controlled areas?
MR KIRBY: Okay, let me see if I remember all those. I have not seen the report. I can tell you, though, that – if you just give me a second to find it in this mammoth beast of a book I have here. So let me talk a little bit about humanitarian aid, Arshad, and then remind me about what I'm missing here for you.
But yesterday, a second joint UN-ICRC-Syrian Arab Red Crescent humanitarian convoy of over 60 aid trucks reached the towns of Madaya, Foah, and Kefraya, where staff immediately distributed flour, winter clothes, blankets, and specialized health and nutrition supplies. Medical personnel and nutritionists are accompanying the convoy to Madaya to examine patients, determine the criticality of health conditions, and provide on-site medical treatment as needed. UNICEF has now publicly confirmed cases of severe malnutrition were found among children in Madaya, and tragically announced that their staff was there to witness the death of a severely malnourished 16-year-old boy who passed away right in front of their eyes. The UN is working to get medical teams and mobile clinics to enter besieged areas immediately, but it is still waiting on the Assad regime.
So while we're relieved about the arrival of additional assistance, this suffering, this obstruction of humanitarian access, should never have happened in the first place. And the overdue aid that's finally reached places like Madaya is still not going to be enough. What the Syrians need is immediate unimpeded humanitarian access, consistent and recurring. I have not seen anything that would – I have seen no indications that the Russian defense forces are involved in this delivery. As I read at the top, it's UN and it's nongovernmental agencies that are doing it, the ICRC.
That's not to say that they have – they might have plans; they could. I don't think that we would – we would certainly take a dim view if the Russian defense ministry was more focused on providing humanitarian aid and assistance and less focused on bombing opposition groups and innocent civilians. So if it were true --
QUESTION: You would take a dim view of that?
MR KIRBY: Huh? I said we wouldn't take a dim view if they were more focused on --
QUESTION: Oh, you wouldn't take a dim view. Yes, got it.
MR KIRBY: I hope I – hopefully I said that right. We'll have to look at the transcript. (Laughter.) We would not take a dim view if they focused more on humanitarian assistance and less on bombing opposition groups, but I have not seen anything to confirm that (a) they've made that policy decision or (b) that they've begun to implement it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Good --
QUESTION: I've got one more.
MR KIRBY: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: You may not have seen this in time to get an answer for the briefing, but it – the former chairman of Mexico's ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party has been arrested in Spain. Do you know if the U.S. Government played any role whatsoever in his arrest?
MR KIRBY: You're right, I don't have anything on that. I'm going to have to take that one for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I did not get any updates like that before I came out here today.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can we just go to Nigeria, then?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: There have been reports, including by my own agency, of large-scale killings by Nigerian security forces in the town of Zaria in the north. They're conducting a security operation against a Shiite group led by Sheikh Zakzaky, the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, I believe. We – our own sources are talking about a death toll of maybe 300, and there have been reports of up to 700 dead. This is not Boko Haram, but this is another action by the Nigerian security forces. Is the United States aware of this, and do you have any comment?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we are. We continue to be very concerned by these violent clashes between members of the Nigerian army and a Shiite group in the Kaduna state. In the days after these incidents in both public and private statements, we called on the Government of Nigeria to transparently investigate these reports and to hold accountable any individuals found to have committed abuses. We're aware of at least four separate investigations that are being carried out by the Nigerian senate, house of representatives, the national human rights commission, and the judicial commission of inquiry established by Kaduna state – by the Kaduna state governor. We urge the individuals carrying out these investigations to carry them out swiftly, thoroughly, and with impartiality.
Got time for just a couple more. Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: A question --
MR KIRBY: Where?
QUESTION: Question on the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the AIIB.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So the AIIB will be officially launched tomorrow. Can I have your reaction to that? Does the United States welcome it?
MR KIRBY: Why don't you let me get a – get something back to you on that, okay?
QUESTION: When the Chinese President Xi was here – he visited United States last September – he invited United – to join the AIIB. Does the two sides discuss this issue onwards?
MR KIRBY: I'll get – let me get you a comment back on that, okay?
QUESTION: Or can you share your current status?
MR KIRBY: I will get you an answer to your question later, okay?
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MR KIRBY: Last one.
QUESTION: North Korea. This may be better directed to the Pentagon, but there were reports today saying that North Korea would stop nuclear tests if the U.S. suspends joint military drills with South Korea and other countries. Do you have a response?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments, but look, we have a – we have significant alliance commitments with the Republic of Korea that we take very, very seriously, and we're going to continue to make sure that the alliance is ready in all respects to act in defense of the South Korean people and the security of the peninsula.
Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:56 p.m.)
[i] Iraq
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
