Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 21, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/CANADA
CHINA
SYRIA/RUSSIA/SAUDI ARABIA
DEPARTMENT
RUSSIA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
CHINA/DPRK
IRAQ
CUBA
HAITI
TRANSCRIPT:
2:08 p.m. EST
MR TONER: There's an odd void in this part of the room. But I'm sure this side of the room will make up for it. Welcome to the State Department, everyone. Happy Thursday, as we're less than – I guess not less than 24 hours before the – this epic blizzard that's supposed to hit. My kids, at least, are excited about it.
Very good. Just a few things to read at the top, and then I'll take your questions. First of all, upcoming travel. Secretary of State Kerry will travel to Canada, to Quebec City, Canada in fact, on January 29th for the North American Foreign Ministerial Meeting. Secretary Kerry will meet with Foreign Minister Stephane Dion of Canada and Foreign Minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu of Mexico in a trilateral setting to advance our shared economic security and political agenda regionally as well as globally. And Secretary Kerry will also, of course, while he's there conduct separate bilateral meetings with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts.
QUESTION: Is that just a day trip?
MR TONER: It is a day trip, in my understanding. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: A long day trip, but a day trip, and probably a cold one as well.
Turning to China, the United States is concerned about the growing number of people in China recently – also including European citizens – who appear to have been coerced to confess to alleged crimes on state media, often before the commencement of any trial or the announcement of any charges. Some of these people have not been afforded legal or consular representation, and there are also instances in which foreign nationals appear to have been brought to mainland China against their will and by extra-legal means. These actions undermine China's claim to be a rule of law society and run contrary China's human rights commitments and hinder its attempts to build a more transparent and effective justice system.
And on that, I will take a – take your questions.
QUESTION: Yeah. Can we start with – can we start with Syria?
MR TONER: Sure. Of course. Syria? Okay. Sorry.
QUESTION: To start with, yesterday you held out the possibility that the talks might slip by a day or two. The Secretary now has also held out that possibility. When do you think these talks will actually begin?
MR TONER: Well, I think – and I at least tried to convey this yesterday. We don't think this is going to be a significant delay, if there is one. I think the Secretary said, "no fundamental delay in the process." And I think that's our expectation, that if this slides a couple of days, certainly that's acceptable. But we want to see the talks continue.
QUESTION: We have a diplomat saying that the outside deadline now for holding the talks is January the 29th. Is that correct? Friday, at the end of the week?
MR TONER: I don't know if there's a new date certain. Again, I think our expectation – and the Secretary said as much – is a couple of days here and there doesn't matter. But we want to see, obviously, the talks continue. But I don't want to pick a new date.
QUESTION: And then there are – there was a report in Al-Watan newspaper suggesting that the Russians have proposed that they name half the Syrian opposition delegation. Is that an accurate representation of their position? And regardless of whether it is or not, is it remotely acceptable to the United States that Russia could pick half of the Syrian opposition delegates?
MR TONER: So in answer to the first part of your question, I'd have to refer you to the Russians to characterize what they may – or may have raised in terms of the Syrian opposition representation. I would just say that the Secretary did discuss generally the composition of the Syrian opposition with Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday. We feel that last month's conference in Riyadh brought together a broad, representative group of the opposition. And the results of this conference, including the creation of the High Negotiating Committee, should be respected as the opposition prepares for the political transition negotiations under UN auspices.
QUESTION: Should the Russians or the United States or any one country get to pick any of the delegates here?
MR TONER: Again, I just – I think that what we've had so far is a process by which the Syrian opposition has chosen, by its own accord, a very broad and representative body to go into these negotiations, and we should respect that.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on statements by Staffan de Mistura. He said that the Saudis are basically obstructing his efforts. And I mean, I know de Mistura is a very reserved diplomat, not – sort of does not have propensity for hyperbole. So when he says that, he must be quite frustrated. Do you get that feeling? Are you talking to the Saudis about their effort to obfuscate his efforts?
MR TONER: So first of all, I'm – I've seen reports of his comments that came out of a closed session of the UN Security Council, so I can't speak to their veracity or even the content. I can say that we have worked, obviously, closely with the Saudis. In fact, the Secretary met with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir last week in London and talked a lot about this process and this meeting, this upcoming – these upcoming talks, rather, with him and about the composition of the Syrian opposition, as we continue to, obviously, talk to other members of the ISSG, this Syrian support group. But we recognize that all these various stakeholders are going to have different criteria, different priorities in terms of how this opposition group is represented. But as I just said to Arshad, we feel that the process, the Saudi-led process that led to the creation of this HNC, this High Negotiating Council, is legitimate, it's broad, it's representative, and we think it should move forward.
QUESTION: But do you feel – I mean, independent of that article in Foreign Policy, I can assure you that there's a great deal of talk that the Saudis are being quite difficult, to say the least. Are they allowed too much latitude, perhaps, to how these negotiations must go or should go and so on, and in the process – and basically hold back any chances to move forward with any kind of resolution?
MR TONER: Sure. I mean, a couple thoughts on that, Said. One is, again, we can shine a light on the Saudis, on the Russians, on whoever within this group of stakeholders. But the fact is is that we've been very candid from the beginning of this process that there are a lot of different viewpoints contained by – in this group of stakeholders. And that's part of this process. We need to reach consensus. We can't let the opinions of one or another of these stakeholders hold back the process. It's not identifying one or the other as an impediment moving forward, not at all. But we need to work together within this group in order to keep this process on track.
The second part of your question – I'm sorry, I forgot.
QUESTION: The second part of my question – maybe they are given a great deal of latitude to basically have a "yay" or "nay" sort of speak on how these things move forward.
MR TONER: Well, again, the Saudis have been a strong partner in this process. The Secretary's consulting with them regularly moving forward, as he is with Russia, as he is with other members of this group.
QUESTION: But their insistence – that's my last question --
MR TONER: No, no. That's okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- their insistence on, let's say on including, Jaysh al-Islam, for instance, as – to be represented in these talks, a group that, except for you guys, everybody else considers to be a dangerous terrorist organization.
MR TONER: Right. But again, the Syrian opposition, the High Negotiating Council – or Committee, rather – they've chosen their representatives for these talks. It's our belief or our conviction that these talks should move forward with that broadly representative group.
Please, Barbara.
QUESTION: If the Syrian opposition decides to boycott, as some have said they would, would that be in the U.S. view – would that mean that the talks wouldn't go ahead? Because the Russians have been quoted as saying if the Syrian opposition boycotts, there's a second group that would be – that they've chosen or that they've agreed on that would come and sit there.
MR TONER: Sure. I mean, look, there's been a lot of – as you say, a lot of conjecture in the press, some comments made about preconditions for talks. I don't want to get ahead of these talks. It's all hypothetical right now. What we really want to do is to see these – see the Syrian opposition, as well as representatives of the Syrian regime, get together in Geneva so that this process can begin. We believe there's an urgency here. I know some of the comments that have been made about delaying the talks or preconditions for the talks based on humanitarian access or access for humanitarian assistance. All of those are clearly priorities. Secretary Kerry has made this point multiple times in his conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov, that humanitarian assistance access must be given for some of these communities within Syria that have been basically cordoned off by the regime.
But that said, there is an urgency to this process going forward, to put a political process in place, to put a ceasefire in place. That will, frankly, give hope to the Syrian people and give momentum to what is a long-term solution to the problem there.
QUESTION: And is – Mr. Kerry seems to have just mentioned that the parties wouldn't meet face to face. Can you give us any more details about that? He said proximity talks.
MR TONER: Yeah, I think he said at the beginning that they might be, and I frankly don't know whether he said definitively or not. That's really Staffan de Mistura's call, if you will, working the – because he's really leading this process, this UN-led process – but that they could be proximity talks, which is somewhat understandable given the grievances between the two sides.
Please.
QUESTION: You --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) shuttle between them?
QUESTION: Can you --
MR TONER: I don't know what the physical – how this would work or the physical process. Again, I'd refer you to de Mistura.
Please.
QUESTION: That's what I was going to ask, for some clarification on proximity, like would there be representatives of the representatives, kind of?
MR TONER: I mean, traditionally, proximity talks would be, yes, when there would be someone – a neutral third party, if you will – who went between the two groups. But again, I don't want to lay that out because I don't know, frankly.
We're done?
QUESTION: Different subject?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I would like to go to the very popular email subject just for a little bit here.
MR TONER: Ever popular, evergreen.
QUESTION: Right. I was hoping that you could give us an update on the status of the interagency FOIA review, if you have a number of how many instances of classification have been flagged by the intelligence community thus far, how's that process of kind of reconciling those differences going, just kind of in general terms. And then I have some more specific questions.
MR TONER: Sure. Well, in terms of specific numbers, I mean, I think you know the global numbers that we've talked about in terms of documents released overall. I think we've talked about a large amount of material, obviously, some 55,000 pages that have been released or will be released ultimately. And we're focused on that process. We continue to work closely within – or with, rather, our interagency partners and – and on this process of clearing these – this mass amount of documents and through the FOIA process. But – and that work continues. I mean, we've done – made enormous strides over the past several months, but there's obviously still a good number of documents, although we're in the final tranche, I think, of them. But we're committed to meeting those commitments.
QUESTION: As these instances of, I guess, potentially classified information are found, though, and flagged and kind of gone through further review in the process, are – is the State Department getting to where those have mostly been resolved, and will they be settled in time for everything to be released by the 29th?
MR TONER: Well, I don't want to definitively say today, because as you know, given the enormous amount of work to be done in clearing these emails for release, for public release through the FOIA process, we have had to push deadlines out a little bit. So I can't say definitively today that we'll meet the next deadline for the release of the next tranche of emails. But I can assure you that the team working on this is working nonstop, full stop – 24/7, if you will – on trying to get through these documents.
In terms of classified documents, I mean, we continue to work with the interagency. And I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. The intelligence community has always been a part of this review process. And in fact, last July we directly brought them in, brought a team from the IC into our review process in order to review the full collection of Secretary Clinton's emails. So this is a natural dialogue that takes place in this review process, not particular to this set of emails. Obviously, this is a high-profile FOIA case, but it's not unusual for – when we're looking at processing these FOIA requests that there's going to be disagreement or discussion, I guess, rather, between various agencies over what might or might not need to be classified. And we're working through that. We've worked through it already in a number of cases and we're going to continue to work through that as we get through this final tranche of emails.
QUESTION: But can you characterize those emails that have been flagged for further review? Is it a large batch? Is it – I mean, how would you characterize the numbers if you can't give a specific number?
MR TONER: I don't want to necessarily say it's a large batch. I don't have numbers certain. All I can say is that we take, obviously, this review process very clear – or very seriously, rather, and as well as our obligation, our responsibility, as needed, to classify any material that is deemed eligible for classification. And we've done this already, upgraded a number of emails in that regard. But I don't – I just don't have a number or a specific number, an accurate number I can give you today on what might still be out there.
QUESTION: But if you can't come to terms with the intelligence community or with any particular agencies on a specific email, what happens to that email? Is it – I mean, is it just not released? Is it redacted in full? What happens if those are irresolvable?
MR TONER: It's a good question and a fair one. I think our expectation is that we'll resolve all these discussions. And again, I don't want to necessarily couch this in terms that there's some kind of conflict. We're just working with our colleagues in the intelligence community to address their concerns, as we do with other members of the interagency, as we review these emails. There's also other emails that touch on other equities within the interagency. That's a part of the review process. We've gotten through this before with this particular FOIA process and with other FOIA processes, and we'll get through it this time.
QUESTION: Aside from this particular case, is it common for agencies to disagree so fundamentally on whether something is or isn't classified?
MR TONER: I think so, and we've talked a little bit about this throughout this particular process, that classification is not an exact science. It's not a black and white kind of thing. There are differing viewpoints over what should be classified and how the same information can be obtained in different ways and through different modes. And that's always, again, a discussion we welcome. We want to have that, because as I said before, ultimately our responsibility here is not to put out anything that should be upgraded or should be deemed classified. And we take that responsibility very seriously at the same time as we comply with the FOIA request to make these documents public.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked – it was still the State Department's assertion that none of the documents that have been released contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. You said of the documents that have been released, "Yes, that's the case." Do you mean when you say that, just to point a really fine point on this, that none of that information was marked classified, or has the State Department made a definitive assertion that none of those documents contained classified information?
MR TONER: No, we – and a fine point is fine. But we've said none of the emails released to this point in our monthly productions were marked classified at the time that they were sent. They were upgraded at the time of release.
QUESTION: But you can't say definitively that they didn't contain classified information at the time they were sent, just that they weren't marked as classified?
MR TONER: Correct. And we've also said that – acknowledged that there are other reviews and investigations into some of these broader questions.
QUESTION: Okay. And then just a few things on specific statements that Secretary Clinton and her spokespeople have been saying in recent days. What's the protocol for State Department employees sending articles that contain information that, while in the public domain, is considered by the government to be classified?
MR TONER: What is the protocol for that?
QUESTION: Is it allowed?
MR TONER: If you're talking about, like, for example --
QUESTION: Forwarding an article.
MR TONER: What's that?
QUESTION: Forwarding an article.
MR TONER: Forwarding an article. I'd have to get the specific language for you, but it's strongly discouraged to, for example, access WikiLeaks material and other material that is allegedly classified. It's --
QUESTION: Not prohibited, though?
MR TONER: I don't know. Again, I don't have the exact language in front of me.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I'll have to get back to you on that.
QUESTION: And then I promise this is my last one on this.
MR TONER: That's okay. No worries.
QUESTION: The – Secretary Clinton's campaign spokesperson has also said that there are political motives at play with the intelligence community inspector general. Has this review process been politicized?
MR TONER: From our viewpoint, not at all. We've approached this in a very pragmatic way in terms of we have a FOIA request, we need to fulfill that request, we need to make these rather significant number of emails public, but we have to do so in a way that protects any classified information that may be contained in them and upgrade them as necessary and redact them as necessary. I'd just refer to you – if there's specific comments about the motivation for the ICIG, I'd have to refer you to them.
QUESTION: Staying with the emails --
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: The Daily Caller reported earlier this week that a group of emails that they obtained under a lawsuit showed that then-State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull, after being informed that Secretary Clinton's private BlackBerry had failed a number of times, proposed providing her with a State Department-issued BlackBerry and – that would have various kinds of protection so that it would continue working and so on. And it – in his note he said that the official BlackBerry or the – would mask her identity but would be subject to FOIA requests. And the emails that they say they have obtained show Huma Abedin, the former Secretary's deputy chief of staff, as saying that giving the Secretary a State-issued BlackBerry equipped with a state.gov email address, "doesn't make a lot of sense."
My question is: Why, from an institutional point of view, would it not make sense for the Secretary of State to have an official BlackBerry from the State Department with an email address – with a state.gov email address that was believed to be more reliable than the personal email address and device that former Secretary Clinton was using. Why doesn't that make sense from an institutional point of view?
MR TONER: Sure. And you're probably not going to be very satisfied with my answer, but I hope you can respect the fact that I'm aware of the article, I'm aware of these emails. I can't speak to the content of them or make a judgment or offer, really, an opinion – even an institutional one – over what was said or not said in them, given that, as I said, there's other investigations, reviews, looking at some of these questions.
So we obviously take our responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act very seriously. We're looking at getting these emails out. I can't – if I – I can't address your questions because of these reviews, because of these investigations and inquiries underway. I don't want to get ahead of them. I would just simply note that Secretary Kerry himself has asked the inspector general to look at some of these matters last March, and we've worked closely with the OIG, and it's – on this review, and we welcome its findings once it comes out with them. But I just don't want to get ahead of those investigations.
QUESTION: Well, can we go on to Russia?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Today, the British public inquiry concluded that the 2006 murder of Mr. Litvinenko was probably approved by President Vladimir Putin and was – and has been described since by Prime Minister David Cameron as a state-sponsored action. Obviously, these are two countries you have relations with. Does the United States have a stance on alleged Russian assassinations abroad?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think it's safe to say that we're deeply troubled by this – the findings of this UK Government inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. His murder was a terrible crime, and as we've said before, we believe the perpetrators of the crime should be brought to justice.
QUESTION: Do you know if Mr. Putin is one of the perpetrators of the crime?
MR TONER: Again, I'm aware of the findings. It's – obviously, it's a public report. You've seen them as well. Of course, we're evaluating. These are pretty serious charges, obviously. I think it's up to the British legal system to continue to investigate and prosecute this criminal case, and I'm just not going to comment beyond that.
QUESTION: Can I just --
MR TONER: Please, Barbara. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- just to return to the – to follow up on the visa waiver? It's official now the --
MR TONER: Yeah. I got it. It's official.
QUESTION: -- the Visa Waiver Program being implemented. Can you – do you have any more information about why it was already being implemented before it was officially announced, and how long that was going on? Because there's some suggestion that it had been going on for a while.
MR TONER: Well, it was only this – it was only signed – sorry, the new Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 was only signed on December 18th, 2015. And I think I spoke a little bit yesterday about this phased approach, but let's just widen the lens here. So we all know what the Visa Waiver Program is, it's established in 1986, enables nationals of 38 participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism, for business, stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. And this program from the outset was – the objective – had the objective, rather, of maintaining high standards of security while facilitating legitimate travel to the U.S.
Over the past few years – and obviously, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris – the Administration has taken a series of steps to enhance significant security measures of the Visa Waiver Program. So under this act, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, and that's nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1st, 2011 – and there's exceptions to that – as well as nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria.
And it's important, I think, to note that these new travel restrictions don't bar travel to the United States. They just would require a traveler covered by the restrictions – these restrictions to obtain a U.S. visa. So beginning on January 21st – obviously today – travelers who currently had valid ESTAs, which are Electronic System for Travel Authorization – acronym is ESTA – who have previously indicated holding dual nationality with one of the four countries will have their current Visa Waiver Program travel authorizations revoked. And that process, like I said, is going on now, that there's – there are, starting on today, that these new ESTA applicants and current ESTA holders who fall under the act's restrictions will have their ESTAs denied or revoked and those travelers will be directed to apply for a U.S. visa. And this is already happening. This – I'm getting around to your question; I apologize.
But this is already happening today, so these people are being notified by email. And so some of the process, when you talked about – and we talked a little bit about the phased approach yesterday – was actually going through all the current holders of ESTAs and determining who among them, that small subset, frankly, among current ESTA holders this new law or these new restrictions applied to. And again, they will be notified – I'll get to you – but they will be notified going forward starting today via email and then – and part of that notification will include instructions on how to go about applying for a nonimmigrant visa.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Please, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.
QUESTION: I have several questions about this so --
MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: I was really struck by something you said about this yesterday. You said that this – and you sort of said it today – that this affects a, quote, "subset of people" and you also said that the – applying for a U.S. visa is, quote, "not that arduous a process." So I guess, referring to the dual nationality provision in particular of these new visa waiver restrictions, a lot of the people who are going to be affected in the thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands actually – probably more – are --
MR TONER: I'm sorry. What did you say? Hundreds of thousands?
QUESTION: Yeah. There's at least 200,000 --
MR TONER: I don't think that's correct.
QUESTION: There's at least 200,000 Germans alone of Iranian descent who could be affected by these rules. Okay.
MR TONER: Well, I just don't – I don't think it's an accurate number, sorry.
QUESTION: No. I – that's from the German ambassador. I mean, we're talking about people in the Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, and Sudanese diaspora who are going to be affected by these provisions. So whatever the number is, I mean --
MR TONER: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: One of the – the question I want to ask is – there are several questions. Like, how is this not racial and ethnic profiling when it comes to – we're talking European citizens, citizens of Japan, South Korea, some other countries who have some sort of ancestry or whatever, and some of them have never been to Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Sudan. So how is this not ethnic or racial profiling when it comes to letting these people in the U.S.?
MR TONER: Well, again, this is – look, I mean, first of all, to answer your – first part of your question, I stand by the comments I made yesterday. This is an inconvenience, but the vast majority of current ESTA holders are not going to be affected by this change and can continue to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. But requiring travelers to have a valid visa is not saying they can't travel to the United States. They simply have to go apply for a visa at their embassy or consulate. And I just – we issued over 10 million nonimmigrant visas to qualified travelers last year.
QUESTION: But you're treating one set of citizens differently --
MR TONER: Sorry, just let me – let me just --
QUESTION: -- than another because of their ethnic background.
MR TONER: Again – well, there's a number of – and I went through them and I'm happy to go through them again – there's a number of qualifications that they apply to. It is nationals of Visa Waiver Programs who traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1st, 2011. And there are exceptions to that, but that's clearly not labeling somebody for their racial or ethnic background.
QUESTION: No, no. I'm talking about the dual nationality provisions.
MR TONER: Let me finish. There are also nationals of Visa Waiver Program countries who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, and Syria. And look, the reasons that these new restrictions have been enacted is in the national security interest of the United States. We're all aware, given recent attacks in Europe, terrorist attacks in Europe, that there is a concern about foreign fighters coming back from Syria, European citizens returning from Syria or Iraq or elsewhere, and then trying to apply for visa or come to the United States via visa-free travel, or Visa Waiver Program travel. It's a recognition that that threat exists and it's an attempt to add another layer of security. Nobody's talking about denying anyone entry for legitimate travel to the United States.
QUESTION: Well, let's talk about that, okay? Like, say somebody in this group that's now been branded with, like, potential T for terrorists or whatever is going to get extra scrutiny, and this – we could be talking about, like, a German kid who grew up in Germany, has an Iranian father, but who himself has never been to Iran, okay? Or the non-Iranian wife of an Iranian man who Iran considers as an Iranian national because Iran's definition of citizenship and nationality is so broad.
So let's say this person is going to be given additional scrutiny for getting a visa from the U.S. Will they be given a reason if they are rejected and what that reason is? Like, will they be told, "We think you're a terrorist," or whatever?
MR TONER: I mean, they will be given a reason why, and I talked about that. They're going to be sent – all of the people who are affected by this change will be notified via email.
QUESTION: No, no. I'm talking about in the future. In the future, if somebody applies because they have to apply for a visa --
MR TONER: Well, no, absolutely – no, absolutely. Well, look, what we are – no --
QUESTION: I mean, will they be told, "We think you are – we're rejecting you because we think you're a terrorist," or whatever?
MR TONER: No, but what – listen, let me answer. So for those travelers who are affected by this provision, who don't have imminent travel planned to the United States, they don't need to rush to the embassy, they don't need to do anything other than – if they plan to travel to the United States in the near future or even in the long-term future, they need to do what any prudent traveler does, which is go to the embassy – we recommend three months before – and apply for a nonimmigrant travel visa. That's done around the world for many, many, many millions of people every year. As I said, there's no – the big picture here is that there's no prohibition on travel to the United States on any of these individuals. It's another layer of security.
QUESTION: Okay, but what you said is not an arduous process actually can be a very arduous process. I mean, getting a visa to the United States is not a simple process. It can be expensive. It can take time. If you're a businessman who happens to have Syrian roots and needs to get to the U.S. very quickly to get business done, suddenly – I mean, did you say three months in advance or whatever? I mean, there's a lot of reasons, but my question, again, is --
MR TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- if they apply for a visa because they're told they have to, okay, and then they're rejected, will they be told exactly and on what grounds they are rejected? And will they be given a chance to appeal that rejection?
MR TONER: Yes. So the – quickly, so first of all, on your first question about visas being arduous, et cetera, look, visas have some advantages over ESTA travel authorization. They're valid for up to 10 years; that's not true with ESTAs or visa-free travel – Visa Waiver Program travel, which is a general two years, I think, under ESTA. And also, the option to stay in the United States for up to – is up to six months at a time as opposed to – I think there's a 90-day window under the Visa Waiver Program. So I mean, there are advantages, if you're that businessman, to have a 10-year visa to travel back and forth to the United States.
As to whether they'll be notified as to why they were disqualified, again, they will be notified because they fit into one of those categories that I already – and I don't know why you're looking at me like I'm --
QUESTION: Because I'm asking, if your visa gets rejected, that if --
MR TONER: They're going to be notified that they don't qualify for visa-free travel.
QUESTION: But if you don't qualify for visa travel --
MR TONER: But – let me finish – let me finish --
QUESTION: -- and then you apply for a visa and you get rejected --
MR TONER: Let me finish. But they can – but they can – there are – and we've talked about this and this has been out there – there are waivers that apply and exemptions, and they can put in – and these will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
QUESTION: Okay. But if you're told, look, you have to apply for a visa, and then you go in and you apply for a visa and you get rejected, are you going to be told why you're rejected? That's the question.
MR TONER: You're always told when you're rejected from --
QUESTION: Exactly why you're rejected?
MR TONER: I mean, I can't – I don't remember the exact legal framework or how the language looks, but yeah, you are.
QUESTION: And then can you appeal that? I have a few more questions.
MR TONER: Yes, of course.
QUESTION: Okay. So you can appeal that and you could possibly --
MR TONER: Yeah. I'm not sure what the window is. Again, you're talking about a regular B-1, B-2 visa application. Yes, I mean, there's gradations of this, but you can ask – be either told you have to come back with more information or you can simply be refused. And I think there's a time window before you can reapply.
QUESTION: Why is this rule not being applied to people who are also of Saudi Arabian dual nationality or have visited Saudi Arabia, or Pakistani or other countries who have, frankly, produced a lot more terrorists than, like, Sudan?
MR TONER: Sure. Specifically – it specifically relates to concerns about ISIL and foreign fighters returning from those battlefields, and also state sponsors of terror.
QUESTION: But there are lots of Saudis who --
MR TONER: Sudan (inaudible) --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in Somalia and not AQAP in Yemen?
MR TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And there's ISIS in Libya now. It just seems an arbitrary list.
MR TONER: I mean, I'm just laying out the --
QUESTION: And what is the U.S. Government going to do --
MR TONER: -- parameters that was put forward in this legislation that Congress enacted.
QUESTION: And what is the U.S. Government going to do if and when Europe makes this reciprocal and, like, Iranian Americans, Syrian Americans, Iraqi Americans, Sudanese Americans – people who are Americans, American citizens – will now have to face visa restrictions whenever they want to go anywhere in Europe? What is the U.S. Government going to do? Are you going to stand up for people, American citizens who are facing these restrictions, or not?
MR TONER: Look, I'm not going to speak to what Europe writ large may or may not do or individual governments may or may not do.
QUESTION: They said they're going to do this. I mean --
MR TONER: All I am saying is this law was passed December 15th with the intention of increasing the level of security for people coming on visa-free travel to the United States. And we are, in conjunction with, and frankly, Department of Homeland Security has the lead on this, enacting that law.
QUESTION: Will the ESTA form ask you to declare whether you're a dual-national, and if you just write British even though you've got Iranian parents, are you then in --
MR TONER: So sure, so that's a fair question and I don't have a complete answer for you. They're actually modifying the form now, and somewhere I have a date certain on when that new form will be rolled out. But my understanding is that, yes, it will obviously include questions that identify the (inaudible) --
QUESTION: And it would be illegal for you to fill out the form dishonestly and just say I'm just German?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, that's already illegal.
QUESTION: Right. But they don't --
QUESTION: Well, a lot of people don't realize they're dual nationals.
QUESTION: The people who control Iranian nationality, whether you have Iranian nationality or not, are the Iranian Government. So you've effectively subcontracted part of your visa process to Tehran.
MR TONER: I'm sorry, do you have a question? I'm not sure. Was that a question, sir?
QUESTION: There was a question. Have you outsourced part of your visa process to Tehran?
MR TONER: No, we don't think so.
QUESTION: Is it – can I follow up on that, though? Actually, I mean, just because the Iranians regard someone, an American citizen of Iranian descent, as an Iranian citizen, does that automatically mean that the U.S. Government regards such a person as a dual national?
MR TONER: Because Iran claims them as a citizen?
QUESTION: Yeah. Or let's take a simpler example.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Let's take a British citizen or subject of Iranian descent – does the U.S. – who is regarded by the Government of Iran as an Iranian citizen, okay, or as having Iranian nationality. Let's suppose this British citizen of Iranian descent has never sought Iranian nationality, has never traveled as an Iranian, has never made any claims to be an Iranian national; they regard themselves as a British citizen. Does the U.S. Government regard that person as a dual national?
MR TONER: So – and I guess it gets back to your question --
QUESTION: For the purposes of this law.
QUESTION: My question (inaudible). Yes.
MR TONER: Yeah, yeah. And I'm not aware that we are relying on Iran to identify its citizens that it believes are dual nationals. I can get more clarity on this and whether --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: -- how it actually will determine --
QUESTION: The British citizen repudiates he's Iranian. Is that on him?
MR TONER: Yeah, I just don't have that in front of me here, but it's a fair question.
QUESTION: Can you take that one?
MR TONER: Yeah, we can.
QUESTION: Okay. And then second related question, which is kind of more of a political question, but members of Congress who were involved in drafting at least the House version of this law are accusing the Administration of abusing its waiver authority. The waiver authority that is granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security, I think gives you a national security waiver. There's another term that I'm blanking on right now. But your Media Note states – for example, it states businesspeople as potentially being entitled to such a waiver.
So two questions here. One, how do you justify business as being – as falling under a national security waiver? Second, they – Republican members of Congress also claim that specifically in the negotiations leading up to this law they made clear that the waiver authority was meant to be exercised on an individual basis and not to apply to whole classes of people, like businesspeople. So how do you counter their argument that you are interpreting your waiver authority too broadly in both instances – the national security and suggesting that it's available to entire classes of people – when it's not; it's a case-by-case basis?
MR TONER: Sure. So under the new law, the Secretary of Homeland Security actually would – is – has the authority to waive restrictions if he determines that such a waiver is in the national security interest of the United States. So whether these ESTA applicants will receive a waiver will be determined – and this speaks to your question – there are certain categories, and I can go through those categories, but they'll be determined on a case-by-case basis.
So as a general matter, the Secretary of Homeland of Security concurs with the judgment of the Secretary of State that it is in the national security interests of the United States to administer waivers for certain applicants in the following categories – again, with the understanding that everything would be on a case-by-case basis, and that says – just to clarify, that's individuals who travel to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on behalf of an international organization or regional organizations and subnational governments on official duty – some examples, obviously, are the UN and other international organizations or regional organizations; individuals who travel to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on behalf of a humanitarian NGO on official duty; individuals who travel to Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria as a journalist for reporting purposes; and then individuals who travel to these countries for legitimate business-related purposes following the conclusion of the JCPOA.
And I would have to get more clarity. I think they're still determining – one of your questions, Arshad, was what is legitimate business purposes.
QUESTION: And why does that necessarily fall under a national security waiver? I mean, why do you care if a German businessperson is selling – why is it in your national security interest for a German businessperson to be selling widgets to Iran? Why would that --
MR TONER: Well, it's not, but we also don't want to impede that same businessman from doing business in the United States.
QUESTION: Right. But why is that in your --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, why is it in the – it's – their argument is, I think, is that it's an inappropriate exercise of a national security waiver, that you're essentially doing things that are good for business but aren't necessarily intrinsically good for national security, and that the waiver authority is for national security.
MR TONER: Well, again, with all due respect, legitimate business, business that promotes the U.S. economy, is good for American business, we believe is a category worthy to qualify for exemption but with the caveat that any of these individuals would have to be vetted on a case-by-case basis.
QUESTION: Got it. Okay.
MR TONER: Anyway.
QUESTION: Can we move on?
QUESTION: Why was Sudan --
QUESTION: Can we move on?
QUESTION: Why was Sudan not given a business exception? I mean, I can understand Syria not being given one, but why was Sudan not given a business exception?
MR TONER: Was not given a what?
QUESTION: A business exception.
MR TONER: I'm not sure that that's the case, but I'll check in on that. I don't know.
QUESTION: I mean, it just says to Iran and to Iraq.
MR TONER: I'd have to look into it. Sorry.
QUESTION: And just one last thing from me – I'm sorry.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Yeah, that's okay.
QUESTION: But I don't understand why – I still don't understand the case – the theory of the case for this. Like, people who go to fight for ISIL in Syria and Iraq, they're not getting their, like, passports stamped in Damascus. I mean, why do you guys think this is going to work? Like --
MR TONER: Well, I mean --
QUESTION: -- won't they just lie? I mean, I'm just confused as to why – how is this going to keep terrorists out?
MR TONER: Sure. Again, I would defer to others who are much more expert in the flow of foreign fighters than I am. But I think it's a recognition that this is a possible conduit or way for these foreign fighters to come back from Syria, Iraq, other places, land in Europe, and then move to the United States where they can carry out terrorist acts. It's not denying anyone the right to travel to the United States. It's simply putting in more precautions or more security procedures in place that we can hopefully filter out these few bad eggs. And we recognize that this – I said as much – this is going to be an inconvenience. We're ramping up our support. There are consulates and embassies all throughout Europe so that we can meet legitimate travelers' needs for visa --
QUESTION: It's just – it's not just an inconvenience for a lot of people. If somebody gets rejected for a U.S. visa – let's say they're completely innocent; it's a mistake, okay, and they get rejected for a U.S. visa. That screws up their travel for the rest of their life because everywhere they want to go asks you if you've ever been rejected for a travel visa. And if you say that the U.S. has rejected me, that just – I mean, you're messed up. You can't go anywhere. I mean, all I'm saying is like – I'm pointing out that you guys have this huge responsibility, people who often – these consular officials are often young State Department employees, not a lot of experience, with a tremendous power who are issuing these visas. And now this whole group that's been kind of branded as potential terrorists – if there's – if you just decide one day, well, we don't know but we're not sure, so we're going to reject this person's visa, that just screws up their travel forever. So I mean – and again, these are European citizens who in the past have been able to come here without a visa, and now they're ethnic ancestry is being held against them. So I just want to get, again, like, how do they know they're going to be treated fairly? And I really am going to stop asking questions. Thank you.
MR TONER: No, no, it's okay. It's okay. I take exception to your saying that the fate of these individuals is being judged by inexperienced or young officers overseas. Frankly, our consular officers on the line do an exceptional job at adjudicating visas. And aware that in some of these posts they face an enormous workload, but they receive extensive training in how to adjudicate visas. They become experts on consular law, and they are very good and very professional in how they carry out their duties overseas.
More broadly to your question, nobody's trying to make these people who are ineligible for Visa Waiver Program travel or visa-free travel to the United States some kind of scapegoat. To the contrary, this is something that's being done in the interest of increasing security of Americans, and we're going to make every effort to accommodate these individuals who are affected by this change through other means to meet their needs to travel to the United States if they choose to.
Said, please.
QUESTION: Can I just have one more quick question?
QUESTION: Please.
QUESTION: Sorry, but I just – one last thing. Of course, as you said, you're implementing legislation passed by Congress, but is there any attempt from the Administration to try and soften the dual nationality part of this visa waiver or change it or look again? Because it's – it is a kind of different thing than somebody who's actually come directly from the area or been traveling to the area.
MR TONER: Well, I think defining that – and I'm – I'll try to get Arshad's – I took the question from Arshad, is how that's being defined. I think we'll get back to you on the criteria for that. But I'm not aware of any move underway to redefine that or soften that, as you say.
Please, Said.
QUESTION: Can we go into the Palestinian-Israeli issue very quickly?
MR TONER: Sure. Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Okay. Today, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, met with Israeli reporters and told them that he has been trying for the past few months to reach out to the office of Prime Minister Netanyahu to arrange for a meeting. I have two questions on this. First of all, are you aware of that? Are you facilitating that, or did he come out to you and say please arrange a meeting between us?
MR TONER: I haven't --
QUESTION: Because he's saying that he's been rejected.
MR TONER: No, that's okay. I haven't seen the remarks. I apologize; I just haven't seen them.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: We've said all along – and we obviously maintain contacts with both sides, but we've said all along we want to see both sides take affirmative steps, de-escalate tensions, de-escalate the violence, and put – put them on a track towards eventually some sort of two-state solution. I'm not aware specifically of these requests. I just don't have that in front me.
QUESTION: Would you facilitate such a meeting if they came out – if the Palestinians came out to you and say we want to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MR TONER: I think we would be receptive to any attempt by Mahmoud Abbas to meet in good faith with the Israeli Government. I can't say that we'd facilitate it or whatever, but I think we would be receptive.
QUESTION: And a very quick follow-up on the – it seems that the fallout from Ambassador Shapiro's comments are still happening . According to Reuters, he's been subject to a lot of insults and so on. In fact, everybody is – a fellow by the name Aviv Bushinsky, a former advisor to Netanyahu, according to Reuters basically called him – "To put it bluntly, it was a statement typical of a little Jew boy." And then he called him a very derogatory name in Yiddish and so on. And I'm wondering whether you categorize this under incitement and whether you fear for the safety of Ambassador Shapiro or anything like this.
MR TONER: Ambassador Shapiro's remarks stand. We talked about this yesterday.
QUESTION: And the day before. Yeah.
MR TONER: I think John Kirby spoke about it the day before yesterday. The issue he spoke to is not new. We have consistently made clear, as I did yesterday, about our concerns about violence on both sides. We've strongly condemned terrorist attacks perpetrated by Palestinians but also remain deeply concerned about Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and their property in the West Bank. And that's what Ambassador Shapiro was speaking to in his address.
As to insults that have been leveled against him – and I've seen the same reports – that's free speech in a democratic society. Obviously, we disagree and would encourage that if there is discourse on this issue that it be held at a higher level than hurling insults, but he's free to speak freely in a democratic society.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you don't consider such statements to be incitement against the ambassador, do you?
MR TONER: I mean, if you're saying whether we're concerned about his safety --
QUESTION: Right. I mean, okay, do you consider that to be part of incitement, which also may drive some people to do certain types of action?
MR TONER: I think in general, as we've said many times before, we would encourage everyone to tone down the rhetoric.
QUESTION: Now, my last question – now, you've said that --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- you condemn Palestinian terrorism. I assume you are referring to the young men and women that allegedly attack with knives and so on. But on the other hand, you're deeply concerned about settler violence which has the same impact, does the same thing – in fact, far more scary. Why wouldn't you call that terrorism? Why wouldn't you condemn that as terrorism that also endangers civilians?
MR TONER: Well, again, Said, I'm not going to – and frankly – and what Ambassador Shapiro raised the other day was stressing the need for fair judicial processes for both Palestinians and Israelis, and to bring justice to all perpetrators of violence. We said many times we're not going to get into adjudicating every act, every crime, every act of violence as terrorism or not terrorism. In general, we condemn all acts of violence, all acts of terrorism, and we call on both sides to de-escalate.
QUESTION: John --
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Deputy Secretary Blinken trip to China today and also Secretary Kerry will visit to China next week again. What purpose of those people's visits to China in second times? Can you tell us?
MR TONER: What purpose are the trips for?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Well, I mean, it's China. I mean, it's – we have a very important, very strategic relationship with China that – as you know better than most, that spans every global issue from Iran to – frankly, to Syria, to other issues around the world, a strong economic interest in the region with China, and obviously, that relationship spans to other concerns, as you heard me at the top of the briefing talk about human rights. So our relationship with China is something that we need to build on and work at constantly, and it's a very high-level relationship. So the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary both going there is emblematic of that.
QUESTION: Regarding sanctions against North Korea, were – Secretary Kerry, when he visit to China, so he will pressure the Chinese Government for cooperating with the (inaudible) on North Korea's influence?
MR TONER: I don't know "pressure." I mean, look, both the United States and China agree on the importance of a denuclearized North Korea. And we've been very clear in saying that we encourage China to urge North Korea to refrain from provocations like we saw last month and abide by its international obligations and commitments, particularly given China's unique relationship with North Korea.
So this is a conversation, a dialogue we're going to continue to have with China. We look forward to working with them as well as other international partners to respond appropriately to the latest provocations from North Korea.
QUESTION: Have you seen the --
QUESTION: Follow-up on that remark?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that?
MR TONER: Yeah, let's finish (inaudible).
QUESTION: Sorry, on North Korea --
QUESTION: Chinese state media (inaudible) yesterday that the People's Liberation Army carried out a live drill – a live fire drill off the southeastern coast recently. Can you confirm this drill has taken place?
MR TONER: I don't have any confirmation of that. I don't have any information on that. I just don't. You said where? In the --
QUESTION: In China off the southeastern coast.
MR TONER: No, I don't have any – I'm sorry, I just don't have any information about it. I can take the question, but --
QUESTION: And a follow-up about China?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Former Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met with Taiwanese President-elect Ms. Tsai Ing-wen this week. Do you have any information to share about the message he's conveyed?
MR TONER: I don't. I mean, obviously, he's a former deputy secretary, so he's a private citizen. So I'd refer to you him to comment on his trip there.
Please.
QUESTION: Yes, so a follow-up on the China-North Korea issue.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any more details specifically about Deputy Secretary Blinken's discussions with China on the North Korea issue? I mean, I've seen the readout, but --
MR TONER: I mean, I don't. I mean, I don't have a full readout. He gave an interview while he was there, I think, to The New York Times, where he spoke a little bit about what I just said, which was that we're looking to China to – if you will, to leverage or to use its relationship with North Korea to urge them to change the path that they're on.
QUESTION: Does it seem like, I mean, the Chinese are receptive to what Secretary Kerry called it's no longer business as usual?
MR TONER: Sure. I would just say that China obviously recognizes that these kinds of ongoing provocations by North Korea are troubling, to say the least, and understand the importance of a denuclearized North Korea. And we're continuing to have discussions about how we can best get to that endgame.
Please, and then I'll get to you. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Yes. Mark, I was wondering if you have any update on the three Americans missing in Baghdad.
MR TONER: I don't.
QUESTION: And there are some conflicting reports that some says – like giving reference to U.S. officials, some Shia-backed militias are responsible for the kidnapping Americans.
MR TONER: Sure. And I've seen that, and I spoke a little bit about this yesterday. I mean, look, there's a lot of information circulating out there about who or – might be behind their disappearance. We don't have – I don't have any further information that I can provide right now.
QUESTION: Considering Iran's influence on the region, I was wondering if Secretary Kerry spoke to Mr. Zarif by any chance about this case.
MR TONER: He did, and I would refer you to – I think the transcript – he mentioned that he did speak to him and he did raise his concerns about these individuals with Foreign Minister Zarif, if I'm not mistaken. I think he did a roundtable earlier today. I don't know if the transcript's come out yet.
QUESTION: The transcript is not out yet.
QUESTION: Just clarification on that. Prime Minister Abadi is still saying it's not completely clear that they were actually kidnapped. Is that the U.S. position is well?
MR TONER: Which is what I – no, but I – look, I mean --
QUESTION: I mean, you said "disappearance." You didn't say "kidnapping."
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, this is an ongoing investigation, so I can't give you a play-by-play and I'm not going to give you a play-by-play. We continue to cooperate and work with the Iraqi authorities. There are a number of possibilities as to what happened to these individuals. We're obviously pursuing all of them diligently, but I don't have anything and I can't, frankly, share any information about what may have happened to them.
QUESTION: But you can --
QUESTION: Why did he speak – why did he speak to Foreign Minister Zarif?
MR TONER: Well, he acknowledged one of these – that one of the possibilities is that they were kidnapped by an Iraqi – or Iranian-affiliated, and he said he had raised it with them.
QUESTION: An Iranian-affiliated militia?
MR TONER: A militia.
QUESTION: And one other thing: You just used the word – he acknowledged the possibility that they were kidnapped. You're not saying that they were kidnapped?
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: Just that that is a possibility that he acknowledged.
MR TONER: No, exactly, exactly.
QUESTION: Can you get that transcript out as soon as --
MR TONER: Sure thing.
QUESTION: Mark, there's been no demands made?
MR TONER: Sorry, I'll get to you --
QUESTION: No demands were made?
MR TONER: There's been no --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I don't think there's been any acknowledgement – public acknowledgement of who's behind this.
QUESTION: Can I just ask a quick question on Gitmo, if you had any updates on the current status of the special category residents? And then as a follow to that --
MR TONER: I'm sorry, with what?
QUESTION: The special category residents there, and if their status will be changed given the new relations between us and Cuba. Do you have any readout on that or update?
MR TONER: I don't. I'll have to take that question. I promise I'll get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah. No worries.
QUESTION: Can I have one last one on --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Haiti election's on Sunday. Obviously there was – there's been concerns raised by the Organization --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- of American States and also by lawmakers in the Haitian senate. But President Martelly today said they're going to go ahead on Sunday. How is America's position on this?
MR TONER: I – it's our belief too that the electoral process should conclude in order to inaugurate a Haitian president, elected by the Haitian people, and according to Haitian law. We support all efforts to dialogue among Haitian actors to enhance the credibility and transparency of the electoral process in Haiti.
Thank you, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 3.11 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
