• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
February 8, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

SAUDI ARABIA/UAE/SYRIA
CANADA
SAUDI ARABIA
CANADA
SAUDI ARABIA
SYRIA/RUSSIA/TURKEY
INDIA
DPRK/CHINA
KUWAIT
GREECE/TURKEY

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:58 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Well, that was an enthusiastic response. Somebody not happy about the result last night? Is that the problem?

All right, I don't have any toppers today, so we'll get right after it. Matt?

QUESTION: Since – because a large amount of the foreign policy stuff at the White House today was about North Korea, and I don't expect that you're going to say anything different than the White House is, I'll start with Syria. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

QUESTION: And --

MR KIRBY: I mean, I appreciate that.

QUESTION: Well, am I right?

MR KIRBY: I did not see the White House briefing, but I'm sure that we have the same view.

QUESTION: All right. Well, anyway, let's start with Syria. Well, actually, Saudi Arabia first, since the Secretary has just seen Foreign Minister Jubeir twice in the last two days, right?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Can we get a – are you able to offer a comprehensive and coherent reaction, U.S. Administration reaction, to the Saudi offer and now the UAE offer of ground troops? I keep hearing, "Well, we welcome the idea of doing – supporting – giving more assistance to the coalition," but I'm looking for something from a U.S. official who actually says, "Yeah, this – we think this is a good idea," or, "No, we think this is a bad idea."

MR KIRBY: Well, first, I thought I was perfectly coherent last week. Apparently, you differ. But I would say it again. And we've seen now the UAE has come in and offered to contribute to this force. And there was some talk about that with the Foreign Minister al-Jubeir over the course of these last two meetings.

And again, as I said last week, we welcome this. As it is focused on Daesh, which it is, we certainly welcome their willingness to contribute to the effort in this particular way. But as I also said, I mean, there is – we still just need to get a better sense of, obviously, what they envision this would entail, and make sure that it matches up with coalition efforts and coalition needs.

But again, no equivocation, we welcome the announcement and we welcome the support that they're willing to provide, given that it is going after Daesh. And number two, as I said before, we have long – actually, we've been saying for a while we want other nations in the coalition to intensify their efforts, just like we are ours.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the foreign minister said outside after the meeting that anything that they do with these troops would be part of the coalition, and the coalition is U.S.-led, suggesting, therefore, that the U.S. would lead this ground force – or command it at some point, this ground – these troops that the Saudis and the Emirates are – I mean, is that correct? Because I thought that the Administration – the position of the President was that there would be no boots on the ground in Syria.

MR KIRBY: I never – I did not hear the foreign minister's comments specifically. And he's right, the coalition is U.S. led, there is no doubt about that, but there has also been absolutely no change to the commander-in-chief's intention not to have a large U.S. military footprint on the ground in Syria.

Now, as you know, he has approved – and I won't get into too much Pentagon equity here, but he has approved --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- small numbers of Special Operations Forces to help in an advise-and-assist capacity and, if needed, a more direct CT capacity inside Syria. But again, I'd let the Pentagon speak to that. There is no change to – at least from our understanding here at the State Department, no change to the broader perspective and the broader policy that there – that this – that there won't be a large conventional, sustained U.S. military presence on the ground there in Syria. And as you know, the – we do have "boots on the ground" when it comes to fighting Daesh, but those are to the tune of about 35, 3700 U.S. troops that are in Iraq that are largely in a train, advise, and assist capacity.

QUESTION: So when you say that you welcome any member of the coalition intensifying their contributions, what do you make of a Canadian announcement today that they're going to stop flying these missions as of later this month?

MR KIRBY: Well, as I said before, these are all sovereign decisions. It's a coalition of the willing. Each nation has to be willing to contribute what they can. We're grateful for Canadian contributions to date. We're grateful for whatever Canadian contributions persist in the future. They've been an important part of the coalition, and we look forward to continuing to work with them going forward. But obviously, these are decisions that every nation has to make for themselves.

QUESTION: Okay. Well – but I'm not doubting that it's their sovereign decision to make, but I'm wondering what the Administration – what your reaction to this is. If you're welcoming the Saudis and their willingness to put up large numbers of ground troops, surely you must be disappointed in a decision by one of the few countries that's actually flying combat missions to stop flying them.

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't couch it as disappointment. The Canadians contribute in other ways as well, and we continue to look forward to their contributions to the – to coalition. But look, these are decisions that each nation has to make and we respect that. I mean --

QUESTION: No one is doubting that, John.

MR KIRBY: And – but – but the broader --

QUESTION: But, I mean, are you happy that the – that you're – that you've lost a member of the coalition that was flying?

MR KIRBY: Matt, it's not about being happy or sad; it's about being grateful for the contributions that every nation makes. And these are decisions that they have to make for themselves.

QUESTION: So can I also follow up from Matt saying – first of all, the Saudi foreign minister's remarks today kind of moved on from what they were saying where they're prepared to participate in ground operations, and he was – specifically said a special forces contingent that they had told you that they are prepared to give. Would that be more helpful to the coalition? And where do you see those operations?

MR KIRBY: Certainly, any addition to – in a special operations capacity, any addition to the effort on the ground there in Syria would be welcome and could be significant. But again, back to what I said last week when apparently I wasn't being coherent, what – that we still want to talk to the Saudis about this and get a better sense. But on the whole, on the face of it, we certainly do welcome an effort or desire to intensify efforts. And if – and as I said, in a special operations role, that could certainly be meaningful. But again, I think we just need to continue to talk --

QUESTION: Were the Saudis --

QUESTION: And then on the --

QUESTION: -- asked to put these troops to one side to be ready in case there's a decision to intensify the --

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any specific request that was made of them to do so.

QUESTION: So do you know have they also – are they talking to the military about this? Do you know if they talked with the Pentagon?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I can only speak for the conversations that Secretary Kerry has had with Foreign Minister Jubeir. I would refer you to the Pentagon.

QUESTION: And then following on the Canadian one: In Ottawa – no. Where were we? Montreal.

QUESTION: Quebec.

QUESTION: Quebec. The Secretary said that he was looking forward to the Canadians spelling out the next role that they would play in fighting ISIS. Do you know whether they've done that already? He said he expected a letter from them.

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any specific correspondence to that effect. But as – again, as I said, these are all sovereign decisions, and they are contributing to the coalition. And we look forward to future contributions as well, obviously, as they deem fit and as is appropriate to the Canadian people.

QUESTION: John, would – in your assessment or in the Administration's assessment, does Saudi Arabia have the capacity to send in such a ground force? One would assume that it would have to be in the tens of thousands to have any effect while it is, in fact, involved in, one, Yemen --

MR KIRBY: I --

QUESTION: -- and in fact, it also depends on many recruits that come from Pakistan, Ethiopia, others and so on. So they do have the capacity to actually send a formidable ground force that can bring the proper outcome?

MR KIRBY: They certainly have a professional, competent military and ground force. They certainly have capabilities within the special operations realm. I would let the Saudis speak --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- to specifically how many they're talking about and exactly where they would go and what they intend – what they would want them to do. And I would fully expect that all that would be coordinated with the larger coalition as all military efforts against Daesh inside the coalition are coordinated.

QUESTION: Right. Would they – I mean, where would they come from? They would have to go through a place like Jordan, maybe, so you would need to coordinate with Jordan. These forces --

MR KIRBY: I don't know, Said. I don't know. You're – those are second and third-order questions I can't possibly answer.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And again, that would be more in the military realm.

QUESTION: The reason I ask these questions – I want to see how imminent this thing is. I mean, are we talking about maybe in weeks, in months, in a year? I mean, what is your assessment?

MR KIRBY: I --

QUESTION: Is this really an imminent interference by the Saudis?

MR KIRBY: First of all, I don't think I'd characterize it as interference.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: It would be a contribution to coalition efforts against Daesh on the ground in Syria. We don't consider that interference. As I said earlier, the intensification of the effort could be helpful.

QUESTION: But you currently – I'm sorry, John, but you currently don't have ground forces.

MR KIRBY: Please let me finish.

QUESTION: Yeah, go ahead.

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak for timing. That's for the Saudis to speak to. This is a proposal that they have made, a contribution that they are willing to put forward, and they should speak to the timing and the specifics of that, not the United States. Clearly, we want to stay in close consultation with them moving forward, as we would any contribution of a member to the coalition, particularly in the military line of effort. But I just don't have any more details on this right now.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: The reason I said interference --

MR KIRBY: Hang on, Justin.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, Justin. Just one last thing – is because, to the best of my knowledge, there are no ground troops from any other country in Syria. So this would be a first, so to speak, right?

MR KIRBY: Well, there's a – the President's already talked about a small U.S. Special Operations effort there inside Syria. If you're talking about another – like a third party member on the ground in any significant number, I'm not aware of any. But again, I'd point you to the Pentagon for more granularity on that. I don't have the order of battle in front of me.

What matters is that the – that it helps – whatever this is and whatever it ends up being, that it intensifies the efforts and puts more pressure on Daesh, contributes to our overall effort to degrade and destroy them – in this case in Syria, but obviously we have a larger effort in Iraq and Syria as well – and that it's coordinated inside the coalition and part of coalition efforts, and that's important. And the Saudis have indicated a willingness to work inside that construct, and that's why we welcome it.

QUESTION: Can you be a little bit more specific about what exactly they're offering? I listened to the foreign minister outside and I – it wasn't entirely clear. And are you able to say are they offering a large ground force contingent on a U.S. ground force to go with it, or are they offering a smaller Special Forces operation that would work in concert with U.S. Special Forces?

MR KIRBY: I think it's premature for me to go into any great detail at this time. First of all, it's a Saudi proposal, and I think we should let the Saudis speak to it and characterize it the way that they want to. We are talking about a ground element. We have discussed the potential value of a special operations capability inside that element, which would be valuable. But as I said, we're still having discussions with them on this, and I wouldn't want to get ahead of any final decisions that they have or haven't made. Ultimately these are – just as Matt's question on the Canadians and the announcement they made with respect to their F-18s, that's for them to speak to. It's for each nation to speak to their own military contributions, not for us to.

QUESTION: Apart from the Saudi offer, does the U.S. believe that the way to turn the tide against ISIL inside Syria is to have some sort of ground troop presence?

MR KIRBY: I won't speak to military tactics. It's not my place here. That said, we have always maintained that you need to continue to put pressure on this group, and that the way to do that is a combination of pressure from the air and pressure from the ground. Now, in Iraq, largely, that effort on the ground has been conducted by Iraqi Security Forces, and our role on the ground has been to help improve the capability and competence of those forces. In Syria, there are several groups that have been operating against Daesh on the ground, and we have provided some assistance as well. And now the President has deemed fit to intensify our efforts in Syria by ordering the Pentagon to contribute some – a small number – some Special Operations Forces in primarily an advise and assist role.

We welcome this proposal by the Saudis to intensify their efforts by introducing some sort of ground elements in Syria to, again, intensify the pressure on Daesh. Exactly what that's going to look like and how that's going to play out I just don't think we can say right now, but if it can lead to further degrading and destroying their capabilities on the ground, well, that's a good thing, and we want to continue to have that discussion.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: On same subject, Turkish authorities have been talking about a new wave of Syrian refugees because of the Russian strikes. Do you happen to talk to Russian counterparts about their increased attacks in northern Syria, which has been reported as killing many of the civilians as well?

MR KIRBY: Of course we have talked to our Russian counterparts about their continued military activity in Syria and the degree to which it's contributing to a lack of humanitarian assistance getting where it needs to get to; an increase in what we have seen are credible reports or – or reports from credible organizations about civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure; and three, as I said – I think it was Friday – an increase in the displacement of civilians. And we know that there's – the estimates go from just more than 10,000 to much greater than that just in and around Aleppo of displacements, which will obviously have an effect on the refugee flow out of Syria and then at the very least to the border.

So yes, we're concerned about this. We've talked about it publicly. I've talked about it here from this podium. And we have certainly mentioned it in our conversations with Russian authorities.

QUESTION: It seems like there are tens of thousands of refugees right now waiting at the Turkish border. Again, from Turkey over the weekend remarks came from Ankara saying that could be half a million more Syrians may escape. So this is apparently very imminent situation. The question is: Is there anything else the U.S. can do to convince Russians to stop these strikes in the northern Syria?

MR KIRBY: We have talked a lot about this with them. You heard the Secretary address this very issue on Friday. And that's why he believes this upcoming meeting in Munich is important on Thursday to deal with this exact issue. And he's been very clear that Russian support for the Assad regime is doing nothing but prolonging the conflict, helping attract jihadis and foreign fighters to the effort because – in resistance to the support to the Assad regime. Obviously, it's increasing the flow of refugees, and it's harming innocent people who are not involved in the struggle one way or the other.

So yeah, we continue to bring this up, and we will continue to bring this up. It is opposite; it's absolutely contrary to what the Russians have signed up to in both Vienna communiques and UN Security Council Resolution 2254. So we have – we've made that plain and clear to them, and I suspect you will continue to see the Secretary do that, and I think it'll be – certainly will be a topic of discussion on Thursday in Munich.

QUESTION: But it seems on the ground that opposite the U.S. arguments Russians supported Syrian regime forces and Hizballah are making gains. Why should the Russians change tactics if they see they are winning on the ground?

MR KIRBY: Our argument is they should stop doing this because in bolstering the Assad regime, they are doing nothing but prolonging the conflict and making it much harder for us to get to any political resolution or transition of any kind. It was in part, as I said last week, because of Russian military support to regime forces on the ground in and around Aleppo that the talks in Geneva weren't able to go forward. And the special envoy had to pause them.

So the argument to the Russians are (a) you made a commitment that you would support a ceasefire and humanitarian access, so you've got to live up to your commitments. They didn't just make them verbally; they made them in writing. Number two, further support of the Assad regime in bolstering – bolstering him and empowering him is just prolonging the conflict in Syria and making it that much harder not just for the Syrian people, obviously, but for neighboring nations like Turkey, which is already dealing with an immense refugee problem on their side of the border and security issues of their own along that border, which we recognize.

So the arguments are all there in the plain for the Russians to do the right thing. Now, why they haven't done the right thing, you'd have to ask them. But they made commitments; we expect them to meet their commitments. Again, the Secretary was very, very strong on that last week when he talked publicly, and I can tell you he's equally as strong when he talks privately with Russian leaders.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: On Syria too. Syrian aid workers met with the Secretary in London last week, quoted the Secretary saying or telling them that Syria should expect another three months of bombing that would decimate the opposition. And they added that the Secretary has blamed the Syrian opposition for leaving the talks and paving the way for a joint offensive by the Syrian Government and Russia on Aleppo. Do you have anything on this?

MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to – first of all, I wasn't party to this conversation. That said, the Secretary is making no predictions about three months this or three months that. He has said publicly – and he said so as recently as Friday publicly – that unless we can get to a ceasefire that everybody has signed up to, and humanitarian access to the areas everybody has agreed needs it, then the conflict will be prolonged. I just said that in my prior answer. So I don't know of any prediction he's made in terms of this many months, but certainly he has been very open and frank about his very real concern that should support to the Assad regime continue, should Russian military activity still be designed to go after opposition groups instead of terrorists, that the situation in Syria is not going to get better, probably will get worse, and could go on in a very unfortunate way. I wouldn't begin to predict how long.

As for the opposition, he – there's been no badgering of the opposition. And again, the Secretary addressed this as well on Friday, that all along we wanted the regime and the opposition to participate in these proximity talks and get them going without precondition. Because if you put preconditions on it, you make it too easy, certainly for the regime and its supporters, to use that as an excuse not to talk and not to sit down and not to begin any dialogue.

Also, by being able to have talks, hopefully – ideally, you can start to get at the issues that are most – of prime importance, which is a ceasefire and humanitarian access. It's hard to do that when you're not even having a dialogue. It's certainly hard to do that when – as we saw, when people are being bombed, and they're not being able to get food and water and medical supplies.

But there was no badgering of the opposition here, and there was no blame game, except that – what you saw the Secretary say very publicly last week, which was that he felt the regime itself and its supporters – yes, including Russia – did contribute to an atmosphere in Geneva that was not conducive to productive dialogue and seemed to indicate that what the regime and Russia seem – believe is that there is a military solution to a problem that we always have maintained there can only be a political solution for.

QUESTION: One more on this too. Foreign Minister al-Jubeir has said – has just said that he discussed with the Secretary how to intensify the aids to the opposition to stop the offense made by the Russians and the regime. Is the U.S. involved in intensifying the aids to the opposition, or can you elaborate on this?

MR KIRBY: I think, in general terms, Foreign Minister Jubeir has it right: We are talking about ways we can intensify our efforts. But I'm not going to go into any great detail.

QUESTION: More on Syria --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead.

QUESTION: In your estimation, with the Syrian Government's defense in Aleppo, which is backed up by Russian airstrike, how does that affect the effectiveness of the Syrian opposition party? And in their role of the process, do you think – actually complicate the resumption of those peace talks?

MR KIRBY: I think I just dealt with that. Obviously, I said that publicly here from the podium, that certainly the continued bombing carried out by Russian military aircraft in support of regime forces on the ground made it that much harder for us – for the opposition, excuse me – to continue to stay in Geneva and have a dialogue over a potential way forward politically. No question about that.

Your second – your other question on Aleppo and what – and the effect it's having on the opposition – well, clearly we know --

QUESTION: Their role.

MR KIRBY: -- that opposition targets are still being struck and opposed by regime forces, all of which is, again, making it that much harder for us to get to some sort of political resolution here, which is why it's going to be so important, going into this week and going into Munich, that we lay this bare on the table and have a meaningful discussion with all the parties there in the ISSG about how to stop it, so that we can resume the political discussions that were attempted in Geneva last week.

QUESTION: Has Secretary Kerry spoke to Lavrov since last week?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any recent calls to Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out, nothing in the last several days.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: On nuclear issue in North Korea --

QUESTION: No, can we just – more on this? On Syria and Turkey, President Erdogan was reported yesterday as having criticized Envoy McGurk's trip to Kobani. He said that the United States would have to choose between a partnership with Turkey and a partnership with what he described as terrorists, the PYD. I don't know if you're aware of the remarks and can speak to them. And, if you're not, which side would you choose between Turkey and the PYD? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Well, number one, Turkey is a NATO ally and a key partner in this effort against Daesh. We are grateful for the support that they're providing, and certainly grateful for the support that they can continue and will provide in the future.

As I said, this is not a theoretical exercise for the Turks, it's right on their border. They're dealing with a couple of million, at least, of refugees on their side, not to mention the real possibility of more coming across, thanks in part to the activity by the regime and Russian military forces.

So we understand that there is a great sense of pressure there in Turkey. And again, we are going to continue to work with them as closely as possible. And the concerns that they have expressed about the YPD is not new, nothing new at all. And we are going to continue to talk with them and consult with them about them.

Look, the choices that have to be made here are the choices about how we as a coalition are going to intensify our efforts to degrade and destroy this group in Iraq and Syria. Those are the choices which nations need to make. Those are the choices that we are certainly going to make. But nothing's going to change about the close relationship we have with Turkey and the efforts that we're going to expend going forward to strengthen that relationship.

QUESTION: Now, you said nothing's going to change on your side, but you've not seen any sign that Turkey itself might lower its cooperation because of anger over this?

MR KIRBY: I've seen no indications of that. I mean, you'd have to obviously talk to officials in Ankara. But again, we're grateful for their contributions. And as – and I said it earlier but it probably needs to be resaid, said again. This isn't a theoretical thing for them. This isn't some far-off, distant conflict. It's right there on their border, in their backyard, and they're being affected by it literally every single day in tangible, demonstrable, real, human ways. And we recognize that. And that's why even though we understand they have concerns about support to Kurdish fighters in Syria, again, these are longstanding concerns. They have been nothing but open and honest about their concerns with that.

And we in turn – hang on a second. Don't jump out of the seat. I'm going to get to you. We in turn have been open and forthright and honest about how we need to move forward as a coalition to go after this group. So I can tell you that, look, even friends don't agree on everything. And we're friends and we're not going to always agree on everything in this particular fight. And it's a complicated struggle. We recognize that. But it doesn't mean that we're going to take our foot off the accelerator when it comes to going after this group and to continuing to work through these issues with a nation like Turkey.

Yes.

QUESTION: What do you think about the question that Erdogan posed? Does it sound like an ultimatum to you? I'm going to quote again: "Is it me that is your partner," he is asking, "or is it the terrorists in Kobani?" What do you think about that question?

MR KIRBY: I don't think there's any question that we are partners with Turkey. We are allies with Turkey and we're going to continue to be so – no question about that at all.

QUESTION: So Turkey considers PYD a terrorist group affiliated with PKK --

MR KIRBY: I understand that.

QUESTION: For Turkey, U.S. support for Kurdish fighters in Syria equals support for terrorists. How do you manage the situation where your one ally considers your other ally a terrorist?

MR KIRBY: We've been managing this particular issue for quite some time. This is not a new concern, as I said, that the Turks have proffered. And we don't, as you know, recognize the PYD as a terrorist organization. We recognize that the Turks do, and I understand that. Even the best of friends aren't going to agree on everything. Kurdish fighters have been some of the most successful in going after Daesh inside Syria. We have provided a measure of support, mostly through the air, and that support will continue. But it doesn't mean that we're – that we're not willing to continue to discuss the concerns that Turkey has raised, and we're going to do that. They are an ally. They are a friend. They are a partner. And as I said in my last answer, we're going to continue to work to improve that partnership.

QUESTION: Who's more --

QUESTION: But you're not regretting Brett McGurk's trip?

QUESTION: Who's more helpful in the fight against ISIL in Syria – the Kurdish fighters or Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Everybody who is taking the fight to Daesh is helpful in their own way. It's a coalition of the willing, as I said before, which means every partner in the fight has to be willing to contribute what they can, where they can, for how long they can. And we're grateful for that. We – and I can only speak for the United States – are intensifying our efforts not just on the military front, which I know everybody is most interested in, but across all the lines of effort. And we have asked for and encouraged other nations to intensify their efforts. But these are sovereign decisions nations have to make, and some of these groups have to make their own decisions. We have said that these Kurdish fighters are successful against Daesh, these groups that we are providing support for, and we're going to continue to provide that support because they are going after the group that we believe needs to be eradicated in Iraq and Syria.

QUESTION: John, but the --

QUESTION: John, some Turkish officials reported saying that the arms given to PYD to use against Daesh are being found in Turkey used against Turkish military, suggesting the relation between the PYD and PKK. I was wondering what do you think about this.

MR KIRBY: Well, number one, I've seen those reports. I've seen – we've seen no indication that that's borne out by the facts. What's provided to Kurdish fighters is really in terms of ammunition and not weaponry. But obviously, we're monitoring – we've seen these reports and monitoring closely, and we take it seriously. And certainly, should we find evidence that it's true, well, then we'll take the appropriate steps. But we haven't seen any indication of that thus far.

Said, you had one?

QUESTION: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on something. You're not walking back or regretting the trip made by Mr. McGurk, are you?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: No, of course.

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Same subject. On the particular visit it turns out that Ambassador McGurk met with Polat Can, who is the YPG representative, but also the former PKK militant. Do you know about anything about it, and --

MR KIRBY: There was a – there – he did meet briefly with that individual, who is a spokesman for the PYD and was representing them in Kobani. The purpose to go to Kobani was to commemorate the anniversary of it being retaken from Daesh, and it was a – it wasn't like a long, pre-scheduled meeting with that individual. He happened to be there representing the Kurdish fighters. And so yes, so Mr. McGurk had a brief meeting and discussion with him.

QUESTION: Final question on Turkey. Do you consider Turkey's role regarding securing a political resolution on Syria question in broader perspectives helpful, or more of Turkey's helping you to get the political resolution on Syria, or not helping you?

MR KIRBY: No, they have been a help. They've been one of the original four nations that sort of kicked off this ISSG. It was Russia, the United States, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. They've been right there since the very beginning and have continued to be supportive of the Vienna process. And again, we look forward to having discussions with them and the other members of the ISSG in Munich on Thursday.

QUESTION: John, two simple questions, if I can. Do you see PYD as an ally or partner?

MR KIRBY: PYD.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you see PYD as an ally or partner?

MR KIRBY: The – we see Kurdish fighters on the ground that have been successful against Daesh as an important partner in this fight.

QUESTION: And the second question: Is senior PYD official who was present at the meeting with Special Envoy McGurk said, "With this visit, the nature of the partnership between Kurds and the U.S. changed. Now it's not just a military partnership, but also a political partnership." Would you agree with this?

MR KIRBY: I wasn't there for the meeting. I would – I would say that our partnership with Kurdish fighters exists in terms of the effort to go after Daesh. That's the focus of that partnership.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Quick one. India?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Mr. David Headley, who is in Chicago there in connection with Mumbai attacks, he was asking in the past that if the Indian corps or Indian Government gives him immunity of – or free him, then he will tell all, everything he knows of whatever was going – who was behind that. And he did. And now he was testifying before the Mumbai high court from his jail cell from Chicago by a video conference. My question is that: What role you think the State Department played in this special arrangement, or if the Indian Government had requested the State Department about this – that they are now ready to talk to him?

MR KIRBY: No, we didn't have a role in this, Goyal. This is – his – it was the Department of Justice that made Mr. Headley available by video link to a court in Mumbai to provide his testimony on his involvement in the Mumbai attack. For our part, the United States has committed to doing all we can to assist the Government of India in pursuing every possible lead to bring to justice those responsible for that attack to the fullest extent permitted by U.S. law. But this was a decision and this was an event set up and established by the Department of Justice. We wouldn't have gotten involved in that.

QUESTION: And finally, the Indian law enforcement authorities are very thankful to the FBI because some role was – because of the U.S.-India now cooperation on terrorism and also on (inaudible), among others. You think this has played a role? Because now – U.S.-India is now more cooperating on these issues?

MR KIRBY: I think we have a very strong relationship with India on a lot of levels, and law enforcement's one of those. Obviously, we'll always look to try to improve our cooperation across all different aspects of the relationship. I don't want to prejudge or presuppose here based on this testimony that it's – that it has a strategic value here. That's not for me to speak to. Certainly it's indicative of our commitment to making sure the perpetrators of that attack are brought to justice, and I think it's indicative of a close relationship with India, again, in a law enforcement realm, but across all others as well.

QUESTION: And finally, you think because of this testimony and – emerging from the Indian Government and Indian courts, you think Mr. David Headley will be freed from the Chicago jail or he still will remain under the U.S. law which he has been convicted of?

MR KIRBY: I would have nothing to say with respect to that. You really have to talk to the Department of Justice. That wouldn't be a State Department thing to comment on.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: John? John?

MR KIRBY: Back in the back there. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, on North Korea missile launches. China expressed regret about the North Koreans' missile launches. And also China opposed to (inaudible) missile on the Korean peninsula. What the United States China to play a role?

MR KIRBY: Well, we talked about this. China has a unique influence inside North Korea because of the border they share and because of the trade which exists between them. And China is a regional power, a regional leader, and we've said before that we look to China to use that leadership and to use that influence to leverage as best they can bilaterally on the North to meet its international obligations but also to contribute in meaningful, productive ways to the international mechanisms that we're pursuing, the international measures through the UN to hold the North to account.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that question?

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: But China to actively participate in the North Korean sanctions at the UN Security Council, but the – when the (inaudible) Chinese really (inaudible) about UN Security Council's sanctions. So what is the United States put pressure to China at this time (inaudible) introduced the sanctions on January 6 if they have a hydrogen test after this, they have second sanctions going on?

MR KIRBY: I just want to make sure I understand the question. You're asking me what we expect China to do with respect to new sanctions?

QUESTION: Yes, yes, (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: We said when we were in Beijing and continue to assert that we want China to be a full partner, a full cooperative partner in an international effort through the UN to take tougher measures against the North, which would include sanctions, for their January 6th test. It is an effort that is now underscored by this launch over the weekend that it's even that much more important that the international community come together to hold the North to account with a set of tougher measures through the UN, and that's what we want China to do. We want them to be a part of that effort, and not just in the adoption of tougher measures but in the enforcement of them. And as I've said in the past, enforcement hasn't always been evenly applied with respect to resolutions against the North and their provocations. So we want to see both the support for tougher measure and support for the enforcement that goes along with it.

QUESTION: John, Secretary Kerry spoke to his counterparts from Korea and Japan yesterday. How come he did not talk to his Chinese counterpart?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional calls to read out, but I can assure you that in the wake of the launch over the weekend and in the announcement made in Seoul about the beginning of formal consultations on high-altitude air defense, that the proper notifications were made in the region to include China. I don't – I just don't have any additional phone calls to read out to you. And if – when I get to the point where I can, I will.

QUESTION: Is there any indication that they did not see eye-to-eye?

QUESTION: Did the President talk to the president of China?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I'd have to go look, Matt. I'm not sure. I'm not --

QUESTION: How would you – are you satisfied with the response to the international community thus far?

MR KIRBY: To what?

QUESTION: To the – first the nuclear test, and now to the missile launch?

MR KIRBY: It's – I think you probably saw Ambassador Power had some comments yesterday. We believe that the UN – obviously, the members of the UN Security Council are taking this seriously, and we're encouraged by that. But now the hard work of actually drafting these new measures has to be done and enforcing them.

QUESTION: So in other words you're not – you're not satisfied yet with --

MR KIRBY: Well, there hasn't been a set of measures agreed to yet.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: But clearly, there is a building consensus that we have to get there.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I heard your colleague at the White House describe the response so far as robust, and I'd just like to – do you share that? Do you think that it's been a robust response from the Security Council or --

MR KIRBY: We believe that there has been certainly – we believe there has certainly been a high level of focus on this and every intention in the international community to take it seriously and to act accordingly. And again, I'd point you back to some of the things that Ambassador Power said yesterday.

QUESTION: Yeah, but there hasn't actually been any. There hasn't actually been any action.

MR KIRBY: There have been active discussions on pursuing measures. Now, has there been a vote in the UN? Has there been a vote --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) That goes down – that's going to be in the book, "active discussion on pursuing measures."

MR KIRBY: That's exactly right.

QUESTION: And that's action?

MR KIRBY: There have – you asked me has there been anything. I said there's been active discussions in terms of pursuing measures.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But are we there yet? We're not ready for a vote but --

QUESTION: All right. So the –

MR KIRBY: Look, we want this to move forward as expeditiously as possible.

QUESTION: Understood. But where – you're not where you want to be yet, correct? Am I right?

MR KIRBY: If you're asking me do we have measures in place now that are tougher and will hold the North to account that we know are going to be fully enforced, no, of course not, we're not there yet. But we do have every expectation that we can get there.

QUESTION: John, I want to follow up on that. So do you know if the satellite that North Korea's claimed it's put into orbit, do you know if that's operational?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I know – I think DOD has acknowledged that it is, in fact, in an orbit around the Earth. As for its operational status, you'd have to talk to the folks in Pyongyang. I don't have an update for you.

QUESTION: Isn't this something that the U.S. –

QUESTION: You haven't got – do you have a number?

MR KIRBY: I'll get you one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible?)

MR KIRBY: I'll tell you what. I'll buy you a plane ticket –

QUESTION: Hey, AP's got a bureau there.

MR KIRBY: -- and you can go there yourself and ask. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: And the – I've got one more, sorry. Do you maybe know where they would get this technology from to build this, given that this is a country that's under sanctions?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't get into matters of intelligence here from this podium. But look, these are – the ballistic missile technology that was used to launch this thing is obviously a capability we know that they've been trying to improve. It's something that we've watched closely. But again, I wouldn't go beyond that right now.

QUESTION: High-level officer in State Department – I don't know – I forgot his name, but he had a interview with a Korean newspaper two weeks ago. He said that if diplomatic option is not working, then like the sanctions against North Korea, he must need taking other options to North Korea. Do you know what is the other options? Maybe military options or more strong –

MR KIRBY: I think you can understand why I wouldn't hypothesize here about other options. We believe that the focus right now should be on tougher measures through the UN. We're going to continue to pursue that to hold the North to account. And as for hypotheticals beyond that, I just wouldn't speak to it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: So when you say that you're not actually for (inaudible) in the UN, the only conclusion one could draw is that there are still disagreements between China and the U.S. on the matter. Is it the right conclusion to draw from that?

MR KIRBY: When we came away from Beijing I think you might have seen that the Secretary had a press conference with Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and out of that I think there was general agreement – and they said so themselves – that, obviously, the North needs to be held to account for this activity.

China is and has every right to be deeply concerned about what the North is doing. And this missile launch on the weekend of the new year I think can be seen rightly as a slap in the face right at Beijing. So they have every right to be concerned, and they are. And the Secretary talked about that when we were in Beijing, that through the discussions we had it is apparent that even the Chinese agree that there needs to be some tougher accountability.

Now, they didn't get into a great, lengthy discussion about what that's going to mean. And so I can't sit here and tell you that we have unanimous agreement between Beijing and Washington about exactly what those measures ought to be, or in which way they need to be enforced. That's why it's important for the UN to continue to have these discussions and to move forward to propose some tougher measures. But it has to be something that the UN does collectively.

So we believe that the Chinese certainly share the same sense of urgency that's shared in the region. They may not have the same view in terms of exactly what measures ought to be adopted, but that's why it's, again, important to have discussions inside the UN.

QUESTION: One more question. On this basic strategy principle, the U.S. has always maintained that any negotiation should lead to North Korea dismantling its nuclear facility altogether. On that principle, is the U.S. – are the U.S. and China on agreement, on same page?

MR KIRBY: On what issue?

QUESTION: On the fact that any discussion with – on North Korea should eventually lead to North Korea dismantling its (inaudible) nuclear facility.

MR KIRBY: We believe that the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula is key to this. We've always said that we're willing to return to the Six-Party Talks, Six-Party Talks that would lead to that effort. But the onus is on the North to get there. I – and I will say broadly speaking that the Chinese also don't want to see a Korean peninsula that is any further destabilized than it already is.

QUESTION: John, can I just ask you this? You and other officials have both used this line about how it was a slap in the face right at Beijing. But I'm not sure I understand how – the logic behind that statement. Because if it is true, as you complain, that the Chinese are not using their leverage to the fullest extent on the North Koreans and aren't doing as much as you would like to, how is this a slap in the face to Beijing? Why isn't this more of a slap in the face to you guys, to Washington? Because if the Chinese aren't doing as much as you think they should be or could be, then the North Koreans aren't really slapping them in the face, they're slapping you in the face –

MR KIRBY: Well, they're certainly flaunting international commitments. There is no question about that –

QUESTION: Well, that's true, yes. But –

MR KIRBY: But I mean, I think, again, without getting into too much greater detail, I think the timing of this particular launch one can assume had something – was deliberate, and we continue to believe that it – that in addition to whatever message it might be sending about their willingness to continue to flaunt their international obligations, it certainly was a message to China as well about the – about their willingness to flaunt that, as well.

QUESTION: So you think that they timed it deliberately with the lunar new – with the new year festivities --

MR KIRBY: Well, I think you'd certainly have to --

QUESTION: -- and not with the Super Bowl? I mean, there's – this thing flew over the site of the Super Bowl about an hour after the game ended.

MR KIRBY: Look, as for exactly what went into their calculations, you'd have to talk – and again, I'm happy to help you get travel there to Pyongyang if you want to go --

QUESTION: Thank you. I've been.

MR KIRBY: -- and be the bureau chief there. But the – but look, we believe that – we continue to believe that this was, among many things, a slap in the face of the Chinese and --

QUESTION: Well, I know that that's what you – how you would like to present it, because you want the Chinese to be angry and upset.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no, it's not how I'd like to present it. It's how I'm presenting it.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: Not like to present, I am presenting it that way.

QUESTION: Right. So you're trying to rile up the Chinese to goad them into doing more, right?

MR KIRBY: No. It's not about --

QUESTION: By saying they just got slapped in the face when --

MR KIRBY: No. I'm just stating what we believe to be a fact. It's not about goading. It's just what we believe to be a fact. But clearly --

QUESTION: So you don't think that this is a slap in the face to you and the rest of the Security Council?

MR KIRBY: Clearly, it represents their willingness to continue to flaunt their international commitments, and all it's going to do is – we want it to do is strengthen the resolve of the international community to deal with them in tougher measures.

QUESTION: But one more – one more (inaudible). But what is the big difference of temperature between U.S. and China sanctions against --

MR KIRBY: What is the difference in temperature?

QUESTION: Yes, yes. Temperature is different. They said, well, Chinese have their own thoughts --

MR KIRBY: I think I've dealt with this question. I mean, I'm not going to speak for Beijing. I can tell you coming out of our meeting there that they recognized the same sense of urgency that we have, and they recognized the need to hold the North to account. They recognized the need for tougher measures. But what those – what they're going to be and what the Chinese would be willing to vote for or consider, I think I'd let them speak to that. I wouldn't speculate on that.

QUESTION: John, could I ask a quick question on Kuwait?

QUESTION: Could I just do one final follow-up on North Korea, then?

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: Is there any sympathy in this building for the broader argument that effective sanctions on North Korea could trigger its – the regime's collapse, and that a failed North Korea could be just as hard or even harder to deal with than a recalcitrant one?

MR KIRBY: I think when you consider a sanctions regime, you always have to think through intended and unintended consequences. And again, I wouldn't speculate about what that might look like here going forward. There are discussions right now at the UN about what these measures ought to be, and I wouldn't want to say anything that would prejudge that outcome. But clearly, you have to look at – when you consider sanctions as a tool, you have to think about the possibility of them having an effect, an effect that you want to see as an outcome.

QUESTION: When you say "flaunt," do you mean flout their international obligations?

MR KIRBY: I don't know.

QUESTION: I think you mean flout.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Thank you for the English lesson. The point's the same. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, John, very quickly on Kuwait. As we – you and we're getting ready to make ready to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait, at the time it was looked upon as potentially a bastion of tolerance and democracy and so on. Well, today there are dozens of activists, of parliamentarians – Musallam Barrak is one of them. He's been in prison for one year for being critical of the royal family. There is a well-known attorney – in fact, known in this building – Khalid al-Shatti, who has been imprisoned for basically criticizing sources of finance and so on that aid Daesh and other terrorists and so on.

So I wonder – I mean, the United States sent in half a million soldiers to liberate Kuwait. You would expect that you guys would have the leverage to exert some sort of pressure on them, say that you must do this or you must release this and you must abide by these human – international human rights values.

MR KIRBY: Again, without getting into these specific cases, Said, our track record on human rights issues and our ability to speak frankly and candidly, privately and publicly, about these things are well sustained and proven, and I just don't have anything specific with respect to those individual cases.

I'll take one last one. You had your hand up.

QUESTION: John, I want to go back to the refugee crisis again, and what the United States to try to stop this tragedy, especially for Greece, because this price is unbearable, as you know, for Greece. Every day thousand of refugees arrive in Greece, and because of the economic crisis, the country cannot afford this problem. My question is this: Did you talk to the Turks? Did you try to stop this refugee tide that started from Turkey? And as you may know, many of them – many children – are end up dead in the sea. I'm asking – my question is this: Did you talk to the Turks to try to stop this flowing of the refugees?

MR KIRBY: We have talked to every nation that's been touched by this crisis.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: And Greece is one of them, you're absolutely right. And Turkey is absolutely one of them. And that's why the United States remains the world – the world's leader when it comes to contributing funds and resources to help nations that are dealing with this, including Turkey and Jordan, deal with the refugees that they have that they are trying to care for. So yeah, we talk about this all the time.

If you're asking are we pointing fingers and blaming, no --

QUESTION: No, I'm asking this.

MR KIRBY: -- we're not.

QUESTION: I'm trying to find out if you asked the Turks to try to stop this --

MR KIRBY: The --

QUESTION: -- because they are – I mean, they are using – they take boats from Turkish ports, okay?

MR KIRBY: I – listen, I – look, I --

QUESTION: Who is helping them to go from Turkey to Greece and then to Europe? This is the question.

MR KIRBY: I understand the question. These are desperate people, and they are pursuing desperate means to escape violence and death and the destruction of their homes and their property. The real source is Assad and the regime and the continued fighting there in Syria. We've talked about that, which is why our effort here at the State Department is to get to a political solution, to get to a resolution of the conflict, so that we can do – so there can be an end to this civil war and conflict so that people don't have to leave Syria. We want them to be able to have a home there. That's the whole purpose here. So yes, we're of course talking to all nations and other nations in Europe that are deeply affected by this refugee crisis. It's why we continue to contribute more resources. The Secretary announced additional resources for Syrian refugees in particular when he was in London. We're going to continue to look for ways, as he said there, to even increase our contributions.

But this isn't – back to what I said before – you brought up Turkey. This isn't some theoretical exercise for them. I mean, they're dealing with millions of desperate people on their side of the border, and then others – hundreds of thousands, perhaps, maybe even more than that – on the other side. And so we're very committed to working with them to try to help them address this in the best way possible.

Okay, thanks everybody. Gotta go.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:54 p.m.)

DPB # 21