Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
February 9, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
TURKEY
SYRIA/TURKEY/RUSSIA
AFGHANISTAN
EGYPT
LIBYA
NORTH KOREA
ETHIOPIA
INDIA/PAKISTAN
TURKEY/GERMANY
TRANSCRIPT:
2:20 p.m. EST
MR. KIRBY: Okay. I do not have an opener today. That was my opener. So we can just – we can get right to whatever your questions are.
Arshad.
QUESTION: Can I get one just out of the way? Is it correct that the U.S. ambassador to Turkey has been summoned by the Turkish foreign ministry? What were the circumstances? And what is your view on their comments?
MR. KIRBY: Well, I can confirm that Ambassador Bass did meet with the – senior Turkish officials today. As you know, we don't talk about the details or specifics of our diplomatic conversations. But obviously, there's plenty to talk about, given the complexity of the fight against ISIL in Syria. So yes, there was a conversation today, but I wouldn't go into more detail than that.
QUESTION: And last one on this. You do stick to your previously expressed view that the PYD is not a terrorist group in the estimation of the U.S. Government?
MR. KIRBY: That's correct. Nothing's changed about the – our policy on that. However, we do consider the PKK a foreign terrorist organization and continue to be very firm about our desire to see their terrorist attacks on Turkish citizens cease.
QUESTION: A follow-up on the same question. Today, Turkish foreign minister in Budapest stated that Turkey presented all the documents to Vice President Biden during his recent visit about the PYD and how the PYD is affiliated with the PKK. Would you confirm that you have seen any documents? If you --
MR. KIRBY: I have not.
QUESTION: You have not.
MR. KIRBY: And I certainly can't confirm reports that documents were given to the Vice President. You'd have to talk to the White House about that.
QUESTION: Again, foreign minister today said that it is naive to see PYD and Turkey as equal partners. I am paraphrasing. Do you have any further comment? This comments came just yesterday – today.
MR. KIRBY: What was the comment again?
QUESTION: Foreign minister, Turkish foreign minister, says U.S. approached the PYD were naive.
MR. KIRBY: We approached the PYD – I'm sorry. I'm just having trouble. That we approached --
QUESTION: Your approach to the PYD --
MR. KIRBY: Is what?
QUESTION: It is naive.
MR. KIRBY: Well, look, I haven't seen those comments. And all I'm going to say is what I said yesterday, that we continue to have conversations with Turkey about their concerns. We understand those concerns. We appreciate the assistance that Turkey continues to provide and the contributions that they continue to make in the coalition against Daesh. And we're going to continue to have these discussions and look for ways that we can improve our partnership with Turkey to, as a coalition, intensify our efforts against Daesh. But I'm not going to respond to every comment that's made, certainly comments that I haven't seen.
QUESTION: Are you still opposed to Syrian Kurdish forces crossing to western – from Tishreen dam to western part of the Manbij region?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to speak to specific operational matters. I think you know I won't do that, Ilhan. Everybody who's contributing in the fight against Daesh has a role to play, or sometimes many roles to play. And we're going to continue to have discussions with everybody about how we can all put the proper amount of intensified pressure on this group. But how that manifests itself wouldn't be wise for me to talk about it publicly from the podium. And again, you're talking about military issues that are not appropriate coming from this podium.
QUESTION: As the Syrian forces supported by the Russian – Russia continuing to expand on northern Syria, do you think that U.S.-supported rebels on the ground, including U.S. ally Turkey-supported rebels on the ground being bombed every day – does it look U.S. weaker and unreliable when it comes to supporting its allies on the ground?
MR. KIRBY: Do I think it makes us look weaker because the Russians continue to bomb innocent civilians and opposition groups?
QUESTION: And you do not support --
MR. KIRBY: No, I don't, quite frankly. And this isn't about image, okay? It's not about reputation. It's never been about that. It can't be about that. It has to be about the Syrian people and about finding ways to stop the suffering, finding ways to stop the flow of refugees out of the country so that they can stay home and have a home. And that's why we're working so hard here at the State Department on the diplomatic track here to trying to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria, and the United States has been a leader in that effort, as we have been a leader in the military effort against Daesh. The U.S. has led that coalition of now 66 nations. And we are a leader in the political process, too, in terms of trying to find a diplomatic solution.
This isn't about reputation or image, and the moment it starts to become that, then you start to lose focus on what really matters and you set yourself up for failure. What Secretary Kerry is focused on very, very hard is about trying to get to a political solution. And he, above all others, understands how hard that's going to be and how complicated that this is. And that's why in two days we're going to – actually, tomorrow, we're flying to Munich for a meeting on Thursday with the ISSG to try to solve some of these thorny problems and to get at a solution that matters for the Syrian people, okay?
Michel.
QUESTION: But now, meanwhile thousands of Syrians – refugees are trapped now on the border with Turkey; they're not allowed to get in. Are you reconsidering establishing a buffer zone on the border with Syria to protect these refugees?
MR KIRBY: I dealt with this again yesterday and my answer is going to be the same today as it was yesterday, as it was in days past. There continue to be discussions about all manner of different options that we can take to try to improve the condition on the ground for – particularly for the Syrian people. We have had and we will continue to have discussions inside the coalition and inside this government about no-fly zones, buffer zones, safe zones, call them whatever you want. But there's been no decision to put one in place right now, and as the commander-in-chief and leaders of the Pentagon have pointed out, that doing so is – it's resource-intensive and there are some issues that need to be completely, thoroughly vetted and thought through before you can implement something like that. But there's been no decision to do one.
QUESTION: When can we expect a decision?
MR KIRBY: We continue to have discussions about this. Your question presupposes that we're arriving at some sort of decision point on that, and that's not the case.
QUESTION: That's because the situation is dire on the border and there are more than --
MR KIRBY: Nobody's --
QUESTION: -- 30,000 or 40,000 refugees.
MR KIRBY: Nobody's disputing that. Nobody's disputing that. What I'm saying is that there hasn't been a decision that leads us to believe that that – a zone of some kind – is the right answer. Nobody's disputing that the situation is getting worse. It would be a lot less worse if the Russians weren't continuing to bomb opposition groups and civilians and civilian infrastructure. That would be a big help to try – to alleviating this problem along the border. That's a real immediate thing that could happen. A ceasefire would do wonders to help alleviate that concern.
As for buffer zones, yes, we continue to talk about that. But your question presupposes that we're advancing to some decision point on that, and I just don't see that right now on the horizon. There continue to be, again, consideration of all kinds of options here. But the one that needs to happen first and foremost is a ceasefire.
QUESTION: You've been --
QUESTION: Because you said – sorry, Matt – you said that you were considering or you are considering different options. That's --
MR KIRBY: We can – we will always consider all different options. I mean, nobody wants to rule anything in or out here. I can tell you that these particular ideas have been discussed, and there have been no decisions to implement them. Therefore, you can say that there have been decisions not to implement them, and therefore, that's a decision. But that doesn't mean that the idea is shut down forever. It doesn't mean that there won't still be consideration of it. There will be. But what the Secretary firmly believes is that the best way to alleviate that suffering and that flow of refugees is a ceasefire.
QUESTION: John, though – you've been carefully vetting this and not making a decision about it, though, for the better part of five years, and the situation has gotten – gone from horrendous to even more horrendous. So – and at the same time, you keep saying that you're not – you haven't made any decision, you're not at a decision point.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Why not? I mean, I don't know if you've been seeing what people have been writing or saying over the course of the past couple of days, but there have been some really, really devastating columns by foreign policy experts and former officials in this Administration about a lack of coherent policy here. I mean, the latest one today says that the U.S. policy as well as the rest of the West is morally bankrupt and that Aleppo is the new Srebrenica or Sarajevo.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: How do you respond to that? I mean, why aren't you at a decision point?
MR KIRBY: We have – we are at decision points, Matt. We're at a decision point on – in terms of trying to get to a ceasefire. We're certainly at a decision point where we need to get the humanitarian access and aid to people that are in need. That's why we're going to Munich tomorrow. We were at a decision point in December when the UN Security Council passed a resolution, 2254, which codified the Vienna peace process and mandated that ceasefire and mandated that humanitarian access which still hasn't occurred.
Your question presupposes the idea that a safe zone, buffer zone, no-fly zone is the antidote, is the right answer. I can assure you that we have looked at it from all different sides across the interagency, and that if it was believed to be the antidote that some say it is, we probably would have executed it by now. But there are legitimate concerns about the ultimate effectiveness of those kinds of zones. Now, that doesn't mean that in some iteration going forward it could still be considered a viable option. I'm not ruling anything in or out today. I'm just saying that we have looked at it very, very hard, very, very stringently, and have decided thus far that it isn't the antidote that some say it would be. What is, clearly, is a ceasefire --
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR KIRBY: -- when nobody's being barrel-bombed.
QUESTION: Right. But that requires the cooperation of countries who don't seem like they want to cooperate. The other, the discarded option, the one that you say has been decided against, is something that could be done with difficulty but unilaterally. It would be something that you and the Turks, who have been pushing for this for four years, could do just by yourselves and perhaps with some --
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: -- some NATO assistance. Your solution, the one that you're pushing, a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, requires the agreement of Russia, which you're not – you haven't gotten so far; Iran, which you haven't gotten – so even though they sign on to the principle of it, what's happening on the ground belies their interest in it; and the Assad regime itself.
MR KIRBY: Well, that's not --
QUESTION: Plus, I think there are questions about whether the rebels that are being backed by the Turks and the Saudis are really interested in the ceasefire.
MR KIRBY: Okay, so there's a lot there. Not one question, but I think I know what you're trying to drive at.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: First of all, it hasn't been discarded as an idea. As I said, it continues to be an option that we continue to discuss and to think about. So it's not discarded. There has been no decision as of yet to implement it because there's been a lot of careful study of this. And I mean deep study about the kinds of resources and intense effort that would be required to do that over a sustained period of time, and we haven't come to a conclusion that it is the antidote that some say it is. So it's not been discarded.
Number two, you said "your solution." It's not the United States' solution; it's the international community's solution to the situation in Syria signed up to in two communiques and a UN Security Council resolution. That's not just the United States' view or position; that's the international community's view and position. And we believe it's important to keep working through the international community to try to get at a solution here.
And what we've said is we want everybody who signed up to that, to include Russia, to meet – all we want them to do is meet their own commitments.
QUESTION: Okay --
MR KIRBY: And then you talked about unilateral.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Can the United States military enforce a no-fly zone by itself? Absolutely it can, but not without cost – and I don't just mean dollars, and not without risk, and not – and not necessarily – at least so far we've not been able to show that it would have the kind of effectiveness in a sustainable way that some say it would. Again, it doesn't mean that it's been discarded or it's off the table. I'm just saying thus far it hasn't been viewed as the antidote.
QUESTION: It doesn't seem as – I mean, communiques, whether they're from Geneva or Vienna or some other European city, and resolutions from the UN or elsewhere, are just pieces of paper. They don't actually do anything on their own, particularly when people are unable or unwilling to fulfill the commitments that are outlined in them. So the point of these – what the people who are complaining or criticizing the policy or what they see as a lack thereof a policy isn't that you haven't gotten pieces of paper that you can wave and say, "You signed up to this, Russia. You signed up to this, Iran. Now you have to follow through on it." It's not that. It's that nothing is actually being done on the ground.
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: Is that --
MR KIRBY: Again, I would disagree two things. First of all, pieces of paper do matter. I mean, there's a little couple of pieces of paper just a few blocks from here, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, kind of important pieces of paper, kind of matter. These communiques matter. More importantly, that UN Security Council resolution matters, because it isn't just about a piece of paper. It's about commitments that these countries have signed up to do. And all we're asking is that they meet their commitments. And if they would simply just meet their commitments, then we wouldn't be dealing with the whole complexity of the problem that we have. I'm not saying it would solve everything, but it certainly would get us to a better position.
And you said nothing's happening on the ground. I couldn't disagree more. An awful lot's happening on the ground.
QUESTION: Well, you're right. Aleppo is about the fall. It's encircled.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Why?
QUESTION: So yes, because --
MR KIRBY: Why? Why is it about to fall, Matt?
QUESTION: Some would say because of the U.S. and Western inaction or inability to do --
MR KIRBY: They wouldn't say because the regime continues to surround and strangle the city with support from Russian aircraft in the air?
QUESTION: No, I think that they would.
MR KIRBY: Exactly.
QUESTION: But the reason that that's happening is because of a --
MR KIRBY: That's exactly why.
QUESTION: -- because of the perception that you guys just aren't – you, meaning you and your allies, aren't willing to do what's necessary to stop this kind of thing. And the other thing is --
MR KIRBY: What's necessary --
QUESTION: -- the pieces of paper down the – the pieces of paper in the National Archives down the street are valuable and mean something because people actually acted on them to fulfill their commitments.
MR KIRBY: Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Couldn't agree more.
QUESTION: So these communiques and resolutions right now mean nothing because no one has moved to act.
MR KIRBY: But we want them to and they need to, and that is what – you're exactly right. That's what makes the Constitution and the Declaration matter, and that's why we want these documents to matter the same way, for people to meet their commitments. Couldn't agree more with you on that.
QUESTION: And if they don't --
QUESTION: One more on this?
QUESTION: If they don't meet their obligations --
QUESTION: If they don't --
MR KIRBY: Hang on, hang on.
QUESTION: If the Russians don't meet their obligations?
MR KIRBY: We answered this a few days ago. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals here. We – what we need them to do --
QUESTION: It's not hypothetical. It's happening.
MR KIRBY: No, it is. You're asking me what's going to happen if. What's going to happen if? Okay, so I'll engage the hypothetical one more time. What happens if they don't? You have more refugees, you have more violence, more bloodshed, and Syria falls further and further in this death spiral that it's on. That's what happens, because there's no other alternative out of that.
QUESTION: And what do you do?
QUESTION: But what happens if Russia --
MR KIRBY: There's no – there's not going to be – there's not going to be a military solution to this conflict. We've said it time and again – it has to be solved politically. And more importantly, it has to be solved by Syrians. That's why this political process matters – so that it's not legislated from a third country or from the West, but actually decided by Syrians. That's why those talks in Geneva were important to get going. I understand that they paused. That's why we want to see them resume by the end of the month.
QUESTION: But the Secretary – just to consider the thought, please. But the Secretary just said today that the Russian actions on the ground are not creating the climate where the Syrians --
MR KIRBY: Exactly right.
QUESTION: -- can do what you're asking them to do, which is to negotiate a peace process.
MR KIRBY: That is exactly right.
QUESTION: Okay. And when you're saying that you'd like Russia to meet its commitments, it's not. So the question is what will do you – it's not some hypothetical. It's: What are the consequences for Russia for not stopping the bombing, for not doing anything? Are you going to commit to what the Secretary said that he's been trying to do along, is change the Russians' calculus, and how do you do that? I mean, just asking them to stop and saying you need to meet your commitments clearly is not doing the job. So --
MR KIRBY: We didn't say we'd like them to meet their commitments. We said they need to meet their commitments.
QUESTION: Oh, excuse me.
MR KIRBY: And the consequences for Russia – and we've talked about this. They – first of all, they'll get dragged into a conflict that won't end, which I don't think anybody believes would be good for the Russian people or the Russian country. They will inspire the attraction of foreign fighters and jihadis, not just to Syria but even perhaps in their own country, which I don't think is in the interest of the Russian people or the Russian Government.
We continue to see them act as if they believe there is a military solution to this conflict, when both communiques and the Security Council resolution, certainly our policy here in the United States, is there isn't one.
QUESTION: Well, there may not be a military solution to the conflict, but clearly, these actions are aimed at changing the equation on the ground so that that strengthens their hand at the negotiating table.
MR KIRBY: Well, you'd have to ask the Russians for their motivations about what exactly they're doing. Clearly, the practical effect is that it's bolstering the Assad regime, making it less likely for the regime to want to sit down and discuss political solutions. The Secretary said that quite clearly today. And it's certainly making it harder on the opposition to represent the people that they're trying to represent in those kinds of talks.
So it is certainly, without question, prolonging the conflict. And it's hard for us to imagine how Russia could think that that's in their interest, to have a conflict in Syria prolonged.
QUESTION: Going exactly to that point, we interviewed an advisor to Assad, Bouthaina Shaaban, who said that it is their hope to continue their offensive until they get to the Turkish border. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments, so I'd be loath to comment to it and lend credence to those thoughts without having seen them. Again, what we want to see is a political solution here.
QUESTION: John, Russian foreign minister has said today that Russia has proposed a concrete plan to resolve the Syria crisis to the United States, and he added that Washington was studying that proposal. Can you say anything about the proposal? Have you received a concrete plan from the Russians about the solution in Syria?
MR KIRBY: I can – without getting into detail, I can tell you that certainly Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russians, as they participate in the process, do so by offering views. And they continue to do that. And frankly, that's why we're going to Munich tomorrow – to sit down with all the members of the International Syria Support Group and talk about proposals, plans, perspectives, whatever you want to call them, for trying to get at two big things – a ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian assistance and aid where it's most needed.
And so without getting into specifics of what the foreign minister believes he has sent forward to the United States, what I can tell you is we're very much looking forward to having these meetings in Munich and to hearing whatever proposals the Russians might have to get at a political solution, as we are willing and interested in hearing the proposals, plans, and perspectives of every other member of the International Syria Support Group.
QUESTION: Last week – last week the Secretary said that he has some indications from the Russians that they were prepared to accept a ceasefire. Is this part and parcel of the --
MR KIRBY: I won't speak to the specifics of it. I think Foreign Minister Lavrov should speak to whatever his proposal might be.
QUESTION: Well, without speaking to specifics of it, the Secretary seemed to think that he had an understanding from the Russians about the way forward. And we're just asking if that understanding is based on some proposals, without getting into specifics, that the foreign minister has said it.
MR KIRBY: Certainly his understanding at the time that he said it was based on conversations that he had with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
QUESTION: Why are you hesitant – why --
MR KIRBY: I won't get into great detail about that.
QUESTION: -- I mean, we're not asking you for, like, bullet points of the --
QUESTION: I am. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, I mean, we know you're not going to give them to us, so – but we're just asking whether the Russians have submitted a proposal or a paper or something for consideration. We're not --
MR KIRBY: They have offered throughout this process many views – sometimes in writing, sometimes not. And I'm simply not going to lay out what another nation-state is proposing or thinking.
QUESTION: We're not asking you to lay it out, but he specifically --
MR KIRBY: Have they offered ideas about moving forward? Yes, they have. I'm not going to speak to the specific proposal that Foreign Minister Lavrov is addressing. He can --
QUESTION: He's talking about a plan, a plan to resolve the whole crisis.
QUESTION: The crisis.
MR KIRBY: He can call it whatever he likes. That's for him to speak to. What I'm saying is we're looking forward to having these discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the rest of the International Syria Support Group in Munich. And as the Secretary also said this week, that Thursday's meeting will be very telling in terms of how far we can get on both those fronts and how serious all the players are to arriving at real solutions.
QUESTION: Are you able to say --
QUESTION: So, I mean, just to finish – just – Ros, just to finish that one point – sorry. So it'll be telling. So based on what it tells you, where do you go from there? I mean --
MR KIRBY: Well, let's see what – let's see how things look on Thursday before we try to answer that question.
QUESTION: John, are you able to say whether what the Russians have put forward is helpful to the process, or would the U.S. consider it a diversion from the terms of 2254?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into, again, the details here. This would be for Foreign Minister Lavrov to speak to. But --
QUESTION: But in light of the criticisms that the Secretary himself put forward today about Russian military action essentially stalling the peace talks --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- would it be fair to say that what Minister Lavrov has suggested is helpful to the process of trying to get those peace talks restarted, or are – or is simply another diversion by the Putin government?
MR KIRBY: No, you're asking me to grade the homework, and I'm not going to do that. What we want to get to is a sustainable, executed ceasefire that everybody signs up to so that the suffering can stop. The second thing we really want to get to is humanitarian access so that the suffering that already has occurred can be alleviated to some degree. And so meaningful proposals, plans, call them whatever you want, that can get us to that, that the international community can get behind, we will support and we will contribute and be a part of that discussion. But I'm not going to get ahead of discussions in Munich that haven't happened yet. And I can't predict how things are going to go on Thursday. We're going to have to get there and see.
QUESTION: One more. Is there a sense going into Thursday that getting the peace talks started before the 25th of this month is a more realistic possibility, or are we still going to have to wait until the end of the month for these talks to resume?
MR KIRBY: It's too soon to say with any specificity, Ros. I mean, obviously we want the resumption of these talks to occur before the end of the month. And I think Special Envoy de Mistura set a target date of the 25th of February. Obviously, if they could happen sooner than that, that would be valuable. But I think Thursday's discussion is going to give us a little bit better perspective on the – on where that's going to sit. And I just can't predict it right now.
But clearly we want them to come back to the tables. We want them to come back to discussions, because that is really – I mean, that really is the heart of this issue, of trying to get a political solution – you've got to have the parties sitting down and at least having an opportunity to have a dialogue, even if it is by proxy. And we want to see that process restored. Exactly when it would happen, I just couldn't --
QUESTION: What do you mean by proxy? By Russia?
MR KIRBY: I meant by proximity talks, the fact that when they met in Geneva, they weren't sitting down at a table across from each other.
QUESTION: Because, I mean – but speaking of proxy, I think – don't you think it's kind of ironic that, like, you're talking about Syrians needing to figure out the way forward for Syrians themselves, but yet you're talking about a meeting in Munich where no Syrian is going to be there about a decising factor in whether the talks are going to resume?
MR KIRBY: No. There's – first of all, the – we always said that the talks in Geneva that started were going to be proximity talks, that they wouldn't be sitting across from one another the way you and I are.
QUESTION: No, I'm not talking about that.
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. But that Mr. de Mistura communicated on all their behalves. That was the first start. Obviously, eventually, you're going to want to get a point where they are sitting across from the table one another. We're just not at that stage.
QUESTION: I'm not talking about --
MR. KIRBY: And in Munich, the International Syria Support Group hasn't, to date, included members of the opposition or the regime. And it's been about creating enough inertia in the international community to try to make things happen. And it's no secret to anybody that there are nations or entities there in that room and will be in that room in Munich that have influence, significant influence, over the regime; significant influence over the opposition groups. And those discussions will continue in that vein.
Yeah.
QUESTION: The Turkish prime minister said Turkey will defend Aleppo, just as Aleppo at one time defended Turkish cities during World War I. He said, quote, "We will repay our historic debt." The statement suggests some kind of military action that Turkey may be planning. Does the U.S. advise Turkey to move forward with this or not to do that?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to speak to military matters or intentions or statements by another foreign government. I haven't seen those comments, and the Turkish Government can speak to that. What we continue to believe – two things. One, there's not going to be a military solution to this conflict. That's not going to change. Our view of that is not going to change. And Turkey has been a key player in the political process. They are a member of the – one of the founding members, if you will, of the International Syria Support Group and have, like the Russians, signed up to those two communiques and signed up to the decisions out of the UN about the way forward, which is that there's got to be a political solution, it's got to start with a ceasefire, and humanitarian access needs to flow. So the Turks have signed up to all those principles, to basically the issue that this has got to be solved politically.
The second thing I would tell you is that we do look for Turkey's assistance on the military front when it comes to fighting Daesh in Syria. And they have been a contributor and they have helped. And we're going to continue to look for ways to improve that.
QUESTION: Well, the statement suggests – implies that it would be military action against Assad, not Daesh. Would the U.S. approve of Turkey's unilateral military action in Syria?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not good at implications in somebody else's statements. You should talk to the Turks about what they're implying or inferring or suggesting in that statement. That's for them to speak to. I'll go back to what I said. Point one, we still believe that there's not going to be a military solution to the civil war in Syria. Nothing's changed about our view. Here in the United States --
QUESTION: Does that mean that you would not approve of Turkey's unilateral military action in Syria?
MR. KIRBY: I've answered the question. I've answered the question.
QUESTION: John?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yes?
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Good to see you again.
QUESTION: Josh Rushing with the show Fault Lines on Al Jazeera.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, good to see you, Josh.
QUESTION: We've just flown in from Afghanistan. We've been interviewing the interpreters that worked U.S. military. They are hiding while the Taliban is actively hunting and killing them. The Congress has directed for State Department to consider their S visas within a nine-month period in the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009. But the processing, the administrative processing of these visas, is taking far, far longer than nine months for everyone that we've interviewed.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: In fact, we were with someone named Sakhidad Afghan – we were with his family because he was murdered by the Taliban while waiting for his visa to be administratively processed. It's still being administratively processed today and it's been in the system for over three years. When someone like that is killed, does the U.S. take some sort of responsibility when they're beyond that nine-month period for leaving these guys where the threat is?
MR. KIRBY: Well, first of all, let me say that we're grateful for the assistance and service that these interpreters have given. You've seen that up front. I know you have not just in Afghanistan but in Iraq as well. I've certainly seen it up close and personal, and it's a vital service and we're grateful for it. And it requires more than just translation skills. As you know, it requires moral and physical courage as well. So we're very grateful for that and we're mindful of the concerns that some of them have about getting these visas, and we're mindful of our obligations to them in kind.
There is some legislation now that codifies some of the process here in terms of waiting – application period and timeframe. We worked with Congress on that. And we still – we understand that there's still concerns about that. But we also have to follow the law of the land here, and it is legislation now that we have to follow. But I don't want that in any way to be construed as a lack of our sense of commitment and obligation to these individuals.
QUESTION: Another one was killed yesterday in Kandahar. No one seems to be considering this an imminent enough threat to get the translators out of the country. In fact, when they emailed the embassy there to say, "Hey, I'm under threat," the response they get is a form letter that's the same as the last time that they sent that email in.
MR. KIRBY: Well, look, I'm not familiar with this particular case. I think you can understand that our embassies and posts are not equipped to conduct rescue missions or to shelter individuals on an emergency basis. We just – that's just not only not our function, we don't have that capability. Again, we're not unmindful of the physical danger that these individuals have – are facing. We know that. And we know that the U.S. military knows that. We obviously have a commitment and we know we do. But here at the State Department, our commitment is to try to make sure that we're working with members of Congress to make sure that this processing of these visas is done as fairly and as evenly as possible. Again, we've got legislation now; we have to follow this law, and we will.
QUESTION: You didn't have legislation three years ago.
MR KIRBY: There are – in a situation like this, a dire situation like – that you're describing, I mean, there are other options available to individuals aside from just the embassy.
QUESTION: But wait, can I just follow up? I mean, I understand the legislation that you have in place now, but this guy is talking about stuff – people have been waiting for visas for three years, before the legislation was in place.
MR KIRBY: I can't speak to past cases, Elise. I just don't have that depth of detail here. But we have a law now that we have to execute and we will.
QUESTION: The law says nine months. And so for guys who have been waiting for over three years and they're under an imminent threat --
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: -- what do say to them? What do you say to the families for the guys who are getting murdered now while waiting over three years?
MR KIRBY: Look, obviously, I can't speak to each case. And I – again, we're mindful of the danger they have taken on and the danger that they face now --
QUESTION: They feel like they've been left behind, though.
MR KIRBY: I understand that, and I can assure you that that's not the case. We hold them very close, as their families – and their families, and for those that have unfortunately been harmed or killed, certainly our thoughts and condolences go out to them and to their families, absolutely. I can just tell you that we're focused on this very keenly, but again, we also have an obligation to follow U.S. law. And so we're going to have to do that. But I can tell you we'll – inside the bounds of the law, we'll do everything we can to try to help these individuals who have given so much of their own service to our country.
QUESTION: Can I follow it up?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have figures, how many Afghan translators are waiting for visa to the U.S.?
MR KIRBY: I do not.
QUESTION: Can you take this question, please?
MR KIRBY: I'll take it. I don't know if we've got that kind of data.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Egypt. Today Secretary Kerry met the Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Secretary said that there is challenges and issues that Egypt and the United States are working on together, so what kind of issues? Is it war on terror, human rights, Libya? Now we know that there is like big talking about how to deal with the Libya issues.
MR KIRBY: Yes, yes, and yes, as well as Syria. They talked about all those things today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you – sorry, can you elaborate on the human rights concerns that the Secretary may have raised?
MR KIRBY: We routinely raise, as you know, Arshad, human rights concerns with many different nations. And we've been very open and candid about that with Egypt. The Secretary again raised our concerns about certain human rights issues in Egypt today and will continue to do so.
QUESTION: Did he, by chance, raise the case of the Italian citizen who was found tortured and killed? Did that figure in the conversation at all?
MR KIRBY: The issue came up, yes. The issue came up.
QUESTION: And can you elaborate on what the Secretary said? Did he call for a joint investigation, or --
MR KIRBY: No, I won't elaborate on the details of the discussion, but it came up.
QUESTION: What specifically (inaudible) in Libya in particular?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: In Libya – what kind of cooperation between Egypt and the United States?
MR KIRBY: I won't speak to the specifics here. I can tell you they did discuss Libya. Obviously it's in Egypt's interest to see Libya more stable, more secure. It's obviously in our interest to see the same outcome. And there was a healthy discussion about finding a political way forward in Libya through a government of national accord that we now need all the representatives in Libya to adopt. So there was a general discussion about that, as you might expect.
Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: On India and Pakistan.
MR KIRBY: I wasn't looking at you. I was looking at him.
QUESTION: Oh, I thought you were looking at --
MR KIRBY: I already asked – you already got one.
QUESTION: On North Korea. In his worldwide threat assessment, DNI Clapper said, "We assess that North Korea has followed through on its announcement and expanded the Yongbyon enrichment facility and that it could begin to recover plutonium from reactor spent fuel within a matter of weeks to months." Does State have a comment on this, and does this increase the speed at which sanctions should be placed on North Korea?
MR KIRBY: Well, certainly not going to be in a position to differ at all with Director Clapper's assessment. I mean, I think that pretty much speaks for itself. It underscores to us the very strong sense of urgency that we have here at the State Department to see that the North is held to account and that tougher measures are put in place through the international community.
QUESTION: And just to follow up, what's left to sanction on North Korea? I mean, we've sanctioned pretty much everything – trade, practically everything that's good. What's left?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get ahead of sanctions that haven't been written. The UN is taking this up, and we need to let that process move forward. I will say, as I said yesterday, though, that in the past not all sanctions have been evenly applied or enforced by all parties. And so part of this is not only coming up with tougher measures but making sure that there's a strong enough enforcement regimen in place so that everybody is applying them in the same manner. Okay?
QUESTION: Can we stay here in North Korea?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Sure. Go ahead. Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: The Senate --
MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you, Ros.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: The Senate is expected to take up a bill tomorrow that would tighten sanctions on North Korea. These are --
MR KIRBY: Who – I'm sorry, I missed the first --
QUESTION: Senate.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And these are penalties that would largely target Chinese interests that work with the country. First of all, what is your response? And secondly, would this be a sufficient U.S. response to North Korea's two recent tests?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to certainly get ahead of legislation pending or being discussed on Capitol Hill. I mean, you'd have to – I would refer you to members of Congress for what they may or may not be considering to do. Obviously, the United States has, as we always have had, the ability to unilaterally apply sanctions to meet certain ends. And the Secretary certainly is willing to continue to consult and communicate with members of Congress about potential unilateral actions as well. But we – it doesn't change anything about the fact that we still firmly believe that the international community has got to apply more pressure on the North.
Ros.
QUESTION: I have a second one, but I think Ros – is yours North Korea still?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: It's also North Korea.
QUESTION: Okay, all right.
QUESTION: I just wanted to find out, since you keep saying that there needs to be a more – what's the expression – applying the sanctions regime, enforcing it equally and as fairly as possible --
MR KIRBY: Evenly.
QUESTION: Evenly. Yes, that's the word. What is the U.S. prepared to do persuade China in particular to hold up its end of the bargain? What's it prepared to offer? What's it prepared to do in retaliation?
MR KIRBY: I mean, it's not about – it's not about trying to muscle them one way or the other here. One of the reasons we went to Beijing --
QUESTION: I was thinking more sweet persuasion.
MR KIRBY: I mean, one of the reasons we went to Beijing, quite frankly, was so that we could have a serious and sober discussion with Chinese leaders about the North's recent actions and about trying to enact tougher measures. And even the Chinese said publicly after that meeting that they agree that the North needs to be held to account.
Now, that doesn't mean that there's necessarily uniform agreement between the United States and China on what that means. The Chinese have influence but they also have interests, and we recognize that when it comes to that border. But we believe that all nations can do more to hold the North to account, and we believe that all nations have a responsibility when sanctions are put in place to apply them evenly and stringently so that they can have the effect it's intended to – that they are intended to have. And that hasn't always been the case.
This isn't about strong-arming China. It's about trying to seek an international consensus on a way forward.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Different topic. Yesterday several Ethiopian American groups demonstrated outside of the State Department. They were asking for the Obama Administration to press the Ethiopian Government to open an independent probe into the killing of opposition demonstrators in Oromia. Does the U.S. believe there should be an independent investigation into this violence?
MR KIRBY: Here's what I can tell you about that: that we remain, obviously, deeply concerned about the situation in Oromia, particularly following the recent widespread protests, many of which escalated into violent clashes between security forces and protesters. The government's heavy-handed response resulted in the death of numerous protesters and the arrests of many others, including journalists and political party leaders. We've raised our concerns both publicly and privately with the Government of Ethiopia, and there is universal agreement that the loss of life, including police officers and local officials, was unnecessary.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Tom Malinowski – their visit to Addis Ababa at the end of January as part of a U.S. delegation to the African Union summit had meetings with Ethiopian Government leaders and members of the Oromo community. There was general agreement that there needed to be better communication with that community and particularly with the young people there, and a recognition of the root causes of the protests.
I think we all understand that these protests are about more issues than just the plan. We note that the Government of Ethiopia's decision to cancel on January 14th the master plan – this was an important first step. This is an important first step.
So we're concerned by the continuing stifling of independent voices there in Ethiopia and the arrests. They have a chilling effect on a much-needed public consultation to resolve legitimate political grievances there. We reaffirm our call on the Ethiopian Government to refrain from silencing dissent, and to protect the constitutionally enshrined rights of all citizens – including the right to gather peacefully, to write, to speak freely as voices of a diverse nation.
Okay, yeah.
QUESTION: On India and Pakistan again. Director James Clapper today told the Senate committee that the relations between India and Pakistan remains tense, number one. And he said India's – India will talk to Pakistan depends on Pakistan's willingness to take action against the Pathankot terrorist attack. So I have two questions. One, do you agree with his assessment?
MR KIRBY: That the situation between India and Pakistan is tense? Obviously, yes.
QUESTION: And about the second assessment about India's talks with Pakistan depends on Pakistan's willingness to take action against Pathankot's network?
MR KIRBY: The Pakistanis have said themselves publicly that they're not going to discriminate amongst terror groups, and we know that this is a threat they face as well. And what I've said before still stands, that we want both sides of this to continue the dialogue that has started, understanding that it's still a tense situation, but we want them to continue the dialogue that they've started to try to get at what is very – a very common challenge to both countries. But I would point you back to what Pakistani leaders themselves have said, that they're not going to discriminate between groups.
QUESTION: But that hasn't for about a month or – more than a month or so. Do you see Pakistan taking action against these networks?
MR KIRBY: We think it's important for everybody facing these kinds of threats to take the actions that they need to do to protect, obviously, their own people and their borders, but also to eliminate this very trans – transnational threat that terrorism is. And the Pakistanis have taken additional steps in the recent past. Can they do more? Every nation fighting terrorism can obviously do more because it's still a very real threat out there in many parts of the world. But again, what we want is for India and Pakistan to continue to work together.
QUESTION: How does the tension between India and Pakistan affects your interest in Afghanistan?
MR KIRBY: The tension between India and Pakistan affect – well, obviously, both countries have interest in regional stability and security. And the degree to which Afghanistan is not stable – and we all recognize that Afghanistan is still a dangerous place – obviously, it affects the calculations of India and Pakistan with respect to their own national security concerns. And we recognize that.
India has played a helpful role in Afghanistan in the past in terms of mostly a training capacity or a willingness to participate in that, and Pakistan has played – in ways has played a useful role in terms of that – getting at the cross – the cross-border threat there in the border regions.
So what matters most, though, to the United States in terms of our interests in Afghanistan is making sure that from a military perspective we are continuing to support the Afghan National Security Forces, improving their capability and their confidence to secure their own people, and then diplomatically to try to get the relationship on a more normal basis. What we want with Afghanistan is the kind of normal bilateral relationship that we have with nations all over the world, that so far it's been very heavily dependent on the security component. And nobody is arguing that that doesn't still matter today. But we want to continue to support President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah as they make the necessary reforms that must be made in Afghanistan and as they continue to foster the growth and development of Afghan National Security Forces.
QUESTION: On the budget --
MR KIRBY: I've got time for just one more.
QUESTION: One more. On the budget, the Secretary has proposed 856 million for Pakistan, and one of the reasons he says there are several reasons for giving money to Pakistan. He says about improving relations between India and Pakistan and then working with Pakistan to improve the nuclear security. And there's another 256 million for foreign military sales. What kind of foreign military sales are going to provide to Pakistan?
MR KIRBY: We never talk in advance of foreign military sales before they've been – before they've been finally decided or executed.
One more.
QUESTION: And on his comments on nuclear --
QUESTION: Thank you. On Turkey, please. Mrs. Merkel was in Turkey yesterday, and the news from Ankara is that Germany and Turkey will call on NATO on Thursday to help Europe cope with the refugee crisis, especially the Prime Minister Davutoglu said that Turkey and Germany will present to NATO as an agenda item that NATO should step in regarding the results of the refugee flow from Syria, and in particular a common effort so that NATO's monitoring mechanism should be used effectively on the border with Syria and in the Aegean Sea. As far as the U.S. is concerned, do you believe that could be a role for NATO to play in the Aegean Sea and maybe even at the Syrian-Turkish border?
MR KIRBY: First of all, many European nations are dealing with this heavy refugee flow, and we recognize that. The Secretary was in London just last week at a donors conference to try to not just increase our commitments but to encourage increased commitments by other nations to deal with this crisis. It's also why we're going to Munich tomorrow so that we can try to resolve the crisis from the heart of it, which is in Syria, get a political solution so there doesn't need to be this refugee flow.
I won't get ahead of decisions that NATO has taken up or not taken up or decisions that NATO may make. That's for leaders of the alliance to speak to. As I understand, there's a defense ministerial this week. And to the degree to which this is an agenda item is really for NATO to speak to and the defense ministers, not here at the State Department.
What we do believe in general that all nations have – as the Secretary said in London, all nations have a responsibility to try to come together and deal with this crisis in ways that are most appropriate. The United States is a leader on this, particularly from the financial perspective. We're going to stay a leader on this and we're going to stay involved. And again, for our part here, that's why the meeting in Munich is so important. That's why it's – we're driving so hard at trying to get a political resolution to this.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
