UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
February 22, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
CHINA
SYRIA/REGION
EGYPT
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
UGANDA
CHINA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:09 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR TONER: Hey. Excuse me, guys. Little cough today. Happy Monday. Welcome to the State Department. A couple things at the top, then I'll get to your questions.

Beginning with the Central African Republic, the United States commends the people of the Central African Republic for their peaceful and enthusiastic participation in both rounds of recent presidential elections. The provisional results were announced just this past Saturday, and we are greatly encouraged by the statesmanship shown by both Faustin Touadera, who is the apparent victor; and Anicet Dologuele, who was his competitor. Both have shown a commitment to inclusivity, democracy, and nonviolence. We commend transitional President Catherine Samba-Panza and her government for giving Central Africans the opportunity to make their voices heard after years of silence. The United States will continue to stand with the people of the Central African Republic as they work together for a brighter, safer, and more prosperous future.

And then briefly, I did want to announce that the Secretary will welcome Foreign Minister Wang Yi and his visit to the United States February 22nd through 25th. The Secretary will use this opportunity to address the full breadth of issues in the bilateral relationship with China, including climate change, of course; our response to North Korea's ongoing violations of existing UN Security Council resolutions; cyber security; as well as other issues of concern – or mutual concern and interest.

And with that, I'll take your questions. Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Broadly – I have one broad question on the Syria cessation --

MR TONER: Okay

QUESTION: -- of hostilities agreement and then two very short but more specific ones.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I am having – the broad one is that I am having a hard time figuring out what exactly in this is new or different from the previous iterations of calls for cessations of hostilities/truces/ceasefires. It seems to me – and please show me where I'm wrong or tell me if I am wrong – that with the exception of new dates for agreeing to – for signing up to this and then it actually being – coming into force; other than the new date, which is, in fact, two weeks or a week later than it was supposed to have started the first – I don't see anything different. What – is there anything different?

MR TONER: Well, I think – excuse me – a couple of thoughts here. One is that there is, I think – I mean, this is – actually has a framework by which this cessation of hostilities will go into effect, the task force will begin meeting. And it has the agreement of all of the ISSG on how they will implement this cessation of hostilities. And it – sorry. It has specific modalities on how this cessation of hostilities will look as it's implemented on the ground, including monitoring and other aspects of how this thing will actually be implemented.

I think in terms of the date that you're asking – the question you're asking about the date is – it's going to take some time. We've talked about this a little bit. You can't just flip a switch, and so it's going to take a little bit of time for us to actually implement it.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I understand that.

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: But I don't see how it sets out – so who's monitoring it? Where does it say in here who's monitoring, and what's the enforcement mechanism?

MR TONER: Well, it's a ceasefire, so the ceasefire task force. Obviously, the two co-chairs, the U.S. and Russia --

QUESTION: Wasn't the ceasefire task force supposed to meet last week --

MR TONER: It was supposed to meet last week.

QUESTION: -- to do this precise – to outline the modalities, as you call them?

MR TONER: Correct, but --

QUESTION: So it was – so they never met.

MR TONER: They have not met yet.

QUESTION: And you guys and the Russians have taken it upon yourselves --

MR TONER: But they've agreed. All the members --

QUESTION: They have?

MR TONER: -- of the ISSG have agreed to this.

QUESTION: The Iranians have signed off on this?

MR TONER: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: They have?

MR TONER: And so what – so in the initial days, obviously, the emphasis is going to be actually getting this thing to take hold. And given, frankly, the intensity of the fighting, that's going to take a little bit of time to do. But the different members of the task force – the ISSG and including the two co-chairs – they're going to need to be in constant contact as this thing is implemented, and they're going to do that through a variety of means. But they'll also be in touch with the UN Office of the Special Envoy in Geneva, which will serve as the secretariat of the task force and kind of an information hub to coordinate all the different implementation.

QUESTION: So who actually is going to be monitoring this?

MR TONER: Well, as I said, it'll be all the members of this task force will need to be in constant touch through email, through video conferencing, through exchanging information in real time.

QUESTION: Well, who on the ground?

QUESTION: Not on the ground.

QUESTION: Who on the ground?

MR TONER: Not on the ground. No, of course not.

QUESTION: Well, then how the – how in heaven's name do you expect to monitor this if there's no observation force on the ground?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think the work in front of the task force over the next several days is to work out kind of standard operating procedures and working methods for the task force to implement the ceasefire. There's going to be a – they're going to convene, I think, a meeting in a few days to finalize those SOPs on how this thing looks on the ground. But I think a lot of it is focused on all of the various members of the ISSG working to have influence on those forces on the ground that --

QUESTION: Yeah, but this is – but I don't understand how this is any kind of progress that you can be – I mean, all that stuff that you're just talking about that they – that you say are going to be agreed in the coming days is stuff that should have been in this already, no? I mean, in the IS – and the task force never even got to meet.

MR TONER: So it's a level of detail that wasn't there, frankly, after Munich. And agree that it took a little while for us to get everyone on board for everyone to come together, the co-chairs to come together and agree on how this thing will be implemented. Obviously, there's still pieces of this that need to be fleshed out, and that's what's going to happen over the next couple of days.

QUESTION: Two extremely --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- extremely brief on the specifics in the annex. One, in the – in each part of the – what are outlined as the obligations of the participants in this, it says that they agree "to proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense."

I thought if you were – I mean, does that meant that you're allowed to continue to fight even if you're covered under the truce if you – as long as you frame it as self-defense?

MR TONER: I'm not, frankly, aware of the language that you're citing.

QUESTION: It's in the annex.

MR TONER: Yeah, I know it's in the annex. I mean, I think – I mean, again, I'd have to – you'd have to read it to me again to – for me to have an answer for it. And even I wouldn't be prepared to answer it at this point, because I think everyone is looking at how this thing is policed, how it's monitored, how violations are reported. All that's going to be fleshed out in the next couple of days.

QUESTION: All right. So there's no – so basically, no one knows what that means? It's just kind of thrown in there to allow (inaudible) self-defense?

MR TONER: Can you give it to me one more time, Matt? I'm sorry, I just don't --

QUESTION: The parties commit to – and then, quote, "to proportionate use of force (i.e., no greater than required to address an immediate threat) if and when responding in self-defense," which sounds to me like as long as you claim that what you're doing is self-defense, you're allowed to violate the cessation of hostilities.

MR TONER: Well, again, I think there has to be some mechanism in place that monitors and looks at --

QUESTION: Right, but that mechanism – exactly. But that --

MR TONER: -- how this --

QUESTION: But – and this is my second point: That mechanism doesn't exist yet.

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that's --

QUESTION: And that's precisely what this was – whole thing was supposed to be. So the last --

MR TONER: That's the work – yeah.

QUESTION: -- brief question is --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: The last, very last paragraph of the annex says, "The United States and the Russian Federation as co-chairs confirm that the cessation of hostilities will be monitored in an impartial and transparent manner and with broad media coverage."

Well, first of all – and this is kind of an aside – how is it that the United States and Russia are going to guarantee broad media coverage of something that in itself isn't news as long as it's not being violated? So I don't know how you promise broad media coverage. But more importantly, how are you going to – how do you confirm that it will be monitored in an impartial and transparent manner? That's the kind of thing – the kind of detail that I think people were expecting to be in here.

MR TONER: To be fleshed out – well, I think, again, without trying to read too much into it – into what you're citing for me, I think any kind of agreement like this would have to be done in as transparent a method or as transparent a manner as possible for it to have any credibility on the international stage. And so it's incumbent on the UN but also on the other members of the task force to ensure that information is shared in real time, transparently, with – and again, to speak to your question or your point about the international media – with as broad engagement as possible to international media.

QUESTION: But look at where this has gone for the last couple years, or last – since September since the Russian airstrikes began.

MR TONER: But --

QUESTION: You say they're hitting the wrong people, they're not hitting who they're saying, and they're killing civilians. They say no. All right? Transparency – yes, you're being transparent in your criticism of them, and they're being transparent in their denial of your criticism. But that leaves – that accomplishes nothing.

MR TONER: Well, but again, it's why there will be a UN Office of the Special Envoy who will, I would assume, be the arbiter of some of this stuff.

QUESTION: Hey Mark, can we just – I have a question on language that's both in the joint statement and in the annex, which says, "Military actions including airstrikes of the armed forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Russian Armed Forces, and the U.S.-led Counter-ISIL Coalition will continue against ISIL, Jabhat al-Nusrah, and other terrorist organizations designated by the UN Security Council." How is that not a loophole that would potentially allow any of those three groups to hit other targets that claim that they are going after ISIL, Nusrah, or other Security Council-designated terrorist groups?

MR TONER: Well, I think, again, it's partly incumbent on the United States, Russia, and other members of the ISSG, this task force, to ensure that there's some kind of monitoring mechanism and, as Matt points out, some kind of impartial structure that looks at if there is a question about whether Daesh or some other group, opposition group versus an opposition group is hit, is able to make some kind of call on whether – what's fact and what's fiction. I think that's absolutely necessary as part of this monitoring system. But what you say is – it's very true that – and we've been very clear all along as we're putting this in place that it's never going to apply to Daesh, to al-Nusrah, or to the other groups that were – have been identified by the UN.

QUESTION: Well, one problem potentially is that the Administration, as Matt pointed out, has consistently said since September the 30th that you believe that the Russian airstrikes have been disproportionately, the vast majority of them have been going after armed opposition groups, not after Islamic State or Jabhat al-Nusrah. So that's gone on for months and months now. So I don't see how it is that you hope to be able to prevent the Russians from doing what you say they've been doing for the last five months with this agreement, because all they have to do is claim that they're not doing it. So how do you make sure that the Russians don't go after --

MR TONER: Sure. Well, again, I think – and again, I'm – this is really for folks in Geneva but also for the UN itself to speak to, but there is going to have to be some kind of objective arbitration mechanism that looks at this, whether it's looking at the input of NGOs on the ground. I mean, no one's denying that this is going to be a challenging environment to monitor. As Matt pointed out, there's not going to be any kind of force on the ground or monitors on the ground to look at this other than what – where we get information from in terms of intelligence but also through NGOs reporting on the ground and journalists, frankly, who give feedback as to who's being hit by whom.

It's a challenging environment, but I think if we can get to Saturday, if we can put this in place, if we can put a mechanism in place that – and I'm not saying it's going to operate smoothly from day one – but that looks at when there are violations, who's behind those violations. And then it's ultimately on each of the parties to either buy into this or not. And so this is partly a test of that commitment, whether it's Russia, whether it's others, as to how committed they are to a peaceful cessation of hostilities on the ground in Syria, but I think you always have to have that in any kind of ceasefire. You've got to have – you've got to test whatever that is, that commitment, that goodwill, or whatever, on the part of everyone who is a stakeholder in this process.

QUESTION: Mark, is this cessation –

QUESTION: Could I follow up on the calendar?

QUESTION: Does this cessation of hostilities agreement apply to Turkey's actions as well?

MR TONER: You're talking about what, its shelling over the border?

QUESTION: Shelling Syrian Kurds, yes.

MR TONER: We have called – we have urged Turkey to stop its shelling over the border.

QUESTION: But does this agreement apply to that as well? Will it include Turkey?

MR TONER: I mean, again, we would like – a cessation of hostility is a cessation of all hostilities on the ground in --

QUESTION: Well, Turkish president Erdogan said Turkey has the right to carry out operations in Syria against Kurdish forces because they believe they're terrorists. But since the international community and the U.S. do not consider them terrorists, do you think Turkey has the right to do that?

MR TONER: What we've said, and we've said this last week as well and our policy has not changed, is that we believe the YPG is not affiliated with the PKK. However, we recognize Turkey's concerns over PKK and terrorism on the ground and its right to defend itself, but we have urged it to stop shelling over the border. We've also told the YPG that it should stop taking actions on the ground in and around Aleppo that, frankly, are counterproductive to the situation on the ground, to a de-escalation of the situation on the ground.

QUESTION: Do --

MR TONER: So – sorry, just to finish. So as part of a cessation of hostilities, it's incumbent on all the groups within Syria to either buy in or buy out, and if you buy out and if you don't – if you refuse to participate, then you're making your decision and you're making it clear that you don't, and that's ultimately the decision of each of these groups on the ground, whether it's the regime, whether it's the opposition, whoever. But it's incumbent on them to live up to the obligations and to buy into the cessation of hostilities. But we've been very clear we want to see Turkey stop its shelling.

QUESTION: Just a --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- so to the answer --

MR TONER: Yeah, that's okay.

QUESTION: -- to clarify: the answer implied in your response is no, Turkey does not have the right to attack YPG in Syria?

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: Is that a no?

MR TONER: No, no, it's okay. It's a perfectly fair question. I'm just saying that we have made it clear to Turkey while we understand their concerns about the YPG, we want it to stop its shelling.

Please.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that point --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, what if Turkey continues and in fact accelerates or intensifies its bombardments? What will you do? What – I mean, you will call on them again, and if they refuse, what will you do?

MR TONER: Well, Turkey is a member of the ISSG, the stakeholders group. Ultimately, to be a part of that, you have – you've committed to implementing the cessation of hostilities. So again, it – we've talked about this a lot – it's not just – we certainly point a finger at Russia quite often, and other members who are, we believe, taking counterproductive actions on the ground in Syria, but it's incumbent on all members of the ISSG to buy into a cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: I have two quick points just --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- to follow up. First of all, on the timing. Wasn't this, I mean, the 27th of this month – does that fit with the calendar that was initially suggested by the Russians way back at the beginning of the month? Is that – when they said, "We need three more weeks," and so on, does that fall in that timeframe or is it just coincidental?

MR TONER: I think it just – I think it's coincidental. I think it just reflects the --

QUESTION: Just --

QUESTION: All right. Now, the other thing --

MR TONER: I'll get back to you.

QUESTION: -- is that the other groups, the moderate groups – in fact, the Free Syrian Army – they say that all bombardments should end of al-Nusrah and ISIS, because there are – they're somehow – they share the same areas and they move from one area to the other. Is that something that you would support? Obviously not. I mean, you're saying that the strikes against ISIS and Nusrah will continue, but your allies, the moderates, saying that it all should end. So what is your comment on that?

QUESTION: They fight alongside each other.

QUESTION: And they fight alongside each other.

MR TONER: Look, we've been very clear and we believe we can delineate between Nusrah and Daesh and other moderate opposition groups on the ground. We need to keep up – we need to – at the same time, we – sorry, let me rewind this. At the same time we put in place a political process and end, we hope, the hostilities on the ground in Syria, we need to continue to put pressure on ISIL. We can't simply call a truce and allow them to be part of any kind of political future in Syria. Is it complex? Certainly. But you understand the principles at stake here. Everybody in the ISSG understands that Daesh represents the enemy, and that's one area of common agreement, frankly.

QUESTION: But let's say – let's say someone throws a mortar or something from areas that overlap, from ISIS, which obviously they will not cease hostilities.

MR TONER: I mean, I think there's going to be – sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: And the issue of self-defense that Matt raised --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- comes into play. How will this be interpreted then?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, so --

MR TONER: I mean, again, I think it's – and I talked a little bit about this, and Matt scoffed, but there is going to be --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) I scoffed. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: That's okay. It's okay, it's your role to scoff sometimes, Matt. It's okay. (Laughter.) No, it's okay, honestly. But --

QUESTION: Quit scoffing?

MR TONER: No, but I think one of the real challenges is you're going to have this – you're going to have to have all members of this task force under the auspices of the UN working in real time to trade information, exchange information, discuss possible breaches of the – of the ceasefire or cessation of hostilities. You're going to have to have that exchange, and you're going to have to have some kind of mechanism that declares whether it is or is not a violation. And Matt's point about whether someone can return fire as – in self-defense – it's a valid point. And so all these things I think need to be – there needs to be a mechanism or a process in place that is agreed to by all that can adjudicate these.

QUESTION: So when is the group going to meet?

QUESTION: But the problem is, though, that that's what you have now. You have these accusations, people trading accusations back and forth. And there's – and until you actually create that mechanism, I just – I don't understand how you expect it to --

MR TONER: Well, as of Saturday we'll hopefully have something in place, and then we can begin the --

QUESTION: But Mark --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: -- you said that the task force was going to meet, you believed, in the coming days. Is there actually a schedule for that, where it's going to happen, who's going to be there, at what level?

MR TONER: So for the next days, the co-chairs and, of course, the Office of the Special Envoy are going to be working together to develop, for lack of a better, more artful term, kind of standard operating procedures and working methods for the task force. And then they'll convene a meeting for the task force to review and finalize these procedures. But a date has not been yet – has not been set yet for that meeting.

QUESTION: And one other one, just to go back to --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I think Said's question: Is there not – I mean, my understanding is that at least some of these groups are commingled. You assert that you feel that you are able to delineate the territories that are inhabited by ISIL or by Nusrah or by the other groups deemed terrorist. What makes you so confident you can do that? Do you not believe that there is at least some commingling of these groups? Or intermingling?

MR TONER: I would respectfully defer to others with a better knowledge of conditions on the ground. But yes, I believe there is some commingling of these groups. I think that's a reality; we've talked about it before. All that needs to be addressed in some kind of coherent fashion that's amenable to all the members of the ISSG in a way that – again, as long as you get an actual cessation of hostilities, then you can address some of these other aspects.

QUESTION: Back to the Syrian Kurds question, please.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: What do you make of what Bouthaina Shaaban, Bashar Assad's advisor, comments when she said that the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, are cooperating with the Syrian army and with the Syrian air force, the government's air force, in north and northeast Syria to liberate them, those areas from terrorism? End of quote. What do you make of this, and do you believe that these PYD Kurds are really cooperating with the regime?

MR TONER: I don't – I frankly don't have a judgment to make. You're talking about the specific areas in and around Aleppo. We have – and I think we've been very candid about the fact that we've seen some of the moves that the YPG has made in and around Aleppo, where they appear to have seized territory, to be counterproductive. However, we've also made it clear that those groups of the YPG, the Kurds – Syrian Kurds who are fighting in more eastern Syria, are actually highly effective fighters against Daesh and are taking the fight to Daesh and are taking back territory seized by Daesh.

QUESTION: Apparently – just more on this. Not only does Turkey think that it has the right to hit Syrian Kurds, but it also expects the U.S. to go along. Turkish prime minister said, and I quote, "The only thing we expect from our U.S. ally is to support Turkey with no ifs or buts." Is the U.S. prepared to support Turkey without conditions, without ifs and buts?

MR TONER: We are prepared to support the implementation of UN Security Council 2254 and the cessation of hostilities that was agreed upon in Munich and formalized today via the task force. That's what our focus on – is on right now: implementing that cessation of hostilities and, frankly, the challenge that that entails so we can get a political process in place. Removed from that, we are working also with Turkey as part – as one of many countries that are part of the anti-ISIL, anti-Daesh coalition. That's a separate fight, a separate effort, but one that needs to continue.

Please.

QUESTION: Mark, just to clarify.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: This agreement, the – only the regime and the related opposition groups on the ground will sign the agreement, right? The other countries --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, I --

QUESTION: The agreement, the part – related part of this agreement are the regime and the opposition groups within Syria. The third parties, including U.S. and/or neighbor countries, will not sign this agreement. Am I right?

MR TONER: You're talking about the groups --

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: -- the various groups who are fighting Daesh in different parts of Syria? I'm sorry, just to clarify.

QUESTION: The opposition groups who will sign --

MR TONER: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

QUESTION: -- who will agree with this agreement and the regime. There is no any other part who will sign the agreement, including the neighboring – neighbor countries or the U.S. or Russia. So just regime and the --

MR TONER: I'd have to clarify that to – I think that's correct, but I'm not sure.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Well, is anybody signing anything, or aren't the parties to the conflict --

MR TONER: I think it's – right, exactly.

QUESTION: -- just informing the United States or Russia?

MR TONER: Exactly.

QUESTION: So nobody's actually signing anything?

MR TONER: Yeah, there's no – I don't think there's any specific agreement that they would sign to – sign up for.

QUESTION: No. The opposition groups will come to you and they said we are okay this --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and we will be involved with this process, and that's fine. And that's all for – it's not related – I mean, it's not valid for the other countries, for example, who are involved with the Syrian issue – Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar. All these --

QUESTION: But they're all – but wait a second. They're --

MR TONER: Yeah, but they're all members of the --

QUESTION: They are supporting this --

MR TONER: Yes. They're all members of the stakeholder group, yeah.

QUESTION: Tolga, did you read it? They're all in here.

MR TONER: Yeah, they're all in – yeah, they're all --

QUESTION: Okay, but I'm trying to understand --

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- if there is any binding part in terms of the involvement of others --

QUESTION: It says cease attacks by the Air Force of Syria --

QUESTION: -- for example, in terms of the legal assistance.

QUESTION: -- Aerospace Forces of the Russian Federation, against armed opposition groups, as confirmed to the United States or the Russian Federation. It – it's in there.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, they all – yeah. I mean, in terms of binding, again, it is --

QUESTION: No. Legal assistance, for example --

MR TONER: -- it's not a treaty.

QUESTION: -- provided by these countries. Will they cease the legal assistance to the groups as well as a result of this agreement?

MR TONER: I think it will be incumbent on all of these – and we talked about this before. As there are many different actors on the ground in Syria and many members of the ISSG, because they're members of the ISSG, the stakeholder support group, support various operators on the ground whether they're opposition, whether it's the regime – Iran and Russia support the regime. They – it's incumbent on these stakeholders to act in accordance with the cessation of hostilities. What level of assistance they're providing, I can't speak to whether that will continue or not, but they need to enforce the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Do you urge the other countries to stop the lethal assistance to the Syria as a result of – what is your position?

MR TONER: Again, it depends on what assistance you're talking about. I am not sure what you're referring to.

QUESTION: I'm talking about the weapon transfers, et cetera, to the Syria by countries.

MR TONER: That's for them to address or speak to. I'm not going to --

QUESTION: No, what is your position on this?

MR TONER: Again, I --

QUESTION: Is this agreement involving the lethal assistance to the groups? That's the question.

MR TONER: No, no, I understand the – well, I think I understand the question. But again, I'm not going to – I mean, you're asking about whether assistance should continue to some of these groups. I don't know what type of assistance you're talking about, but that's – what we're talking – what I'm talking about is in order to implement this cessation of hostilities, you're going to need the various members of the ISSG to exert their influence on the various actors on the ground to – in order for this to work.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Mark, back to PYD --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the U.S. Government website counterterrorism guide says that – analyzes, basically, PKK under KGK, and it says that KGK's Syria affiliate is PYD. And this entry was entered to U.S. Government website in 2014. And in 2015 entry, the PYD was taken out from the KGK's entry. I was wondering basically in 2014 for U.S., PKK and PYD was related, they had relation, but in 2015 they cut the relation according to U.S. Government website. I was wondering the story behind that.

MR TONER: Yeah, I've heard the story. I haven't actually checked the website or seen the documentation. I mean, look, for us it's – there's a process within the State Department, certainly, that – and – that formally designates Foreign Terrorist Organizations or any organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. That's kind of our gold standard, if you will, on how we identify terrorist organizations.

So I can't really speak to how a particular website or a particular agency might have been categorizing or describing the YPG. I just don't have the clarity.

QUESTION: But is there anything else that the U.S. does to stop Turkey from shelling Syrian Kurds other than sort of shyly saying, "Please, Turkey, stop hitting Syrian Kurds. They are our allies"?

MR TONER: I don't know if we're ever shy with Turkey or with any of our strong partners and allies, and Turkey is a strong partner and NATO ally and we have very frank --

QUESTION: That's a mantra. I – we've heard that.

MR TONER: Let me finish. We have very frank exchanges with them about the challenges of defeating Daesh, of – and certainly of solving the conflict – or resolving, rather, the conflict in Syria. We're not shy, we're not timid in expressing our concerns or our priorities or our – or our sense of what we believe to be the facts on the ground. We're going to continue to make that case with Turkey, as we do, frankly, with all members of the stakeholders group, whether it's the UK, whether it's Russia, whoever. I mean, part of that group's function is to bring all of the various stakeholders together and allow us all to say here's what we believe to be the way forward and to build consensus from that.

QUESTION: Mark, on al-Nusrah Front --

MR TONER: Yes, Michel.

QUESTION: -- do you call the Syrian opposition moderate groups to stop fighting alongside al-Nusrah for not being targeted from Russia or the Syrian regime?

MR TONER: Again, that's for them to – frankly, to resolve. I mean, if they're going to be – I mean, they cannot – we have been very clear that – we, the ISSG, have been very clear in saying that al-Nusrah and Daesh are not part of any kind of ceasefire or any kind of negotiated cessation of hostilities. So if you hang out with the wrong folks, then you make that decision.

QUESTION: You're going to get killed.

QUESTION: So you call on them to disengage from one another, right? You're calling for them to disengage?

MR TONER: I'm saying that – I mean, you choose your own – who you hang out with, and that sends a signal.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Mark, can I just ask you --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You seem very convinced that everyone – every member of the ISSG has signed off on this. Can I just ask, since this task force hasn't met --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- how do you know that? Did someone make a round of phone calls to run it by everyone?

MR TONER: Well, I think, I mean, without necessarily saying it was a round of phone calls, I mean, I think we have --

QUESTION: Or in person? I mean --

MR TONER: No, it's okay. I mean --

QUESTION: Are you – I mean, did everyone get a chance to say thumbs up or thumbs down on this? Or are you just assuming that because you and the Russians have agreed on it that everyone else has?

MR TONER: No, that's not the case, obviously. No, I mean, I think – I mean, partly in the Secretary's statement he says, "I want to thank all those who worked diligently to bring it about." Today's agreement.

QUESTION: Yeah. But that's --

MR TONER: "Including the U.S. and Russian delegations and other members of the International Syria Support Group." We – even though this was – the agreement was hashed out between Russia and the United States, it was certainly done in full consultation with the other members of the group.

QUESTION: And then, do you have any indication that either the Syrian Government or the opposition has signed off on this?

MR TONER: I do not yet, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Mark, is the Secretary back? Did he have any meetings, any phone calls?

MR TONER: No, he's not back yet. He's still en route.

QUESTION: Still --

MR TONER: He's still on the plane. Yeah, he's still en route back.

QUESTION: He's not back from Amman? He's still in – he was in Amman yesterday.

MR TONER: No, no, no, he's – I think he's on the way back. He'll arrive back in Washington, D.C., in the next few hours

QUESTION: Any phone calls during the last 24 hours?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. He spoke to – just today he spoke to Foreign Secretary Hammond, French Foreign Minister Ayrault, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier, Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir. Yesterday he spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov. He actually had three calls. So --

QUESTION: All right. So it sounds as though that we can assume then from that that the Secretary at least got the personal approval from those – from those ministers who were all listed?

MR TONER: I don't think we would – yes, I mean, I don't think we would – I mean, look, I mean, in all honesty and all candor, or whatever, all kidding aside, we're not going to – this isn't something that's – the U.S. and Russia decide and then the other members have to buy into.

QUESTION: Can I go back to what Matt --

QUESTION: How do you know if the Iranians signed on to it?

MR TONER: How do we know that they've signed on to it?

QUESTION: How do you know that the Iranians signed on to it?

MR TONER: I don't have in front of me explicitly saying that. I don't know if he spoke to them, but I think it's our understanding that they have agreed to it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But I don't – I don't have anything – I don't have any readout or anything.

QUESTION: Mark, can we go back to Matt's original question? I want to read something --

MR TONER: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- from the original statement.

MR TONER: Sorry. (Laughter.) I'm just kidding.

QUESTION: "In addressing incidents of noncompliance, every effort should be made to promote communications among all parties to restore compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions, and non-forcible means should be exhausted whenever possible before resorting to use of force."

My first question: What would be the non-forcible means that could be used to stop either the Syrian Army or one of the opposition groups from firing on the other?

And number two: Who would be responsible for the use of force if talking didn't work out the issues? I mean, the UN has already said there won't be blue helmets deployed as part of this.

MR TONER: Right, right. Fair point and fair question. So – and my answer is going to be that I'm going to let them flesh out, as I talked about, the standards – or standard operating procedures over the next couple of days. Hopefully we'll have clarity on a lot of these questions about how this thing is monitored, how it's policed. And it's not – I'm just not in a position right now to say it's going to happen in such a way – X, Y, and Z – at this point in time.

QUESTION: Is it – was there any thought at all to the U.S. military actually having troops on the ground inside Syria as part of trying to basically help keep both sides apart?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Why not?

MR TONER: For a lot of really – I mean, for a lot of reasons. I mean, I would defer to the Department of Defense to speak to that, but we've been very clear that we don't want – whether it's even our anti-Daesh efforts, we don't believe – or we don't want to have boots on the ground in Syria.

QUESTION: But given that both the U.S. and Russia have agreed that they're going to be, for lack of a better phrase, running this communications channel between all sides, would it be fair to assume that they would be the likeliest to use their own forces to help keep everyone in their corners, or not?

MR TONER: I don't want to make any kind of assumption like that, no.

Please.

QUESTION: What was the catalyst that allowed the U.S. and Russia to move forward and agree on this plan today? In other words, a lot of the backbone of this was come – you came to terms on this in Munich, and then both sides missed the initial deadline of Friday for some type of cessation. Was there a sticking point that needed to be resolved that was ironed out over the weekend, or some other issue that needed to be moved out of the way so that you could get to this point today?

MR TONER: Sure. (Coughing.) Excuse me. (Coughing.) Sorry.

QUESTION: Bless you.

MR TONER: So it's a good question. I think much of this was a result of ongoing fighting in and around Aleppo that we addressed many times publicly and privately last week. But it was a very complex, very violent situation, obviously resulting in displacement of tens of thousands of people, refugees, deaths of thousands, and an escalation of tensions in the area.

So I think a couple of thoughts. One is that having that set deadline for last Friday, even though we did not meet it, is still a – as we talked about before with other issues, it's important to have those deadlines because it forces all the parties to come back together and to reconnect and to say, okay, how do we get past, how do we move to the next stage? So I think that one part of it. Two, I think that there was a recognition that – and we talked about this last week – that there's no military solution overall to Syria, to the conflict, the civil war that's going on there. Everyone agrees to that within the International Syria Support Group. But how do you get there? That's a harder question. And it's going to be a hard question.

In many ways, you could say the hard work actually begins now, because as many of you pointed out, now we actually have to implement this thing. But I think there's a recognition that we've got to give it a test, we've got to try it out, there's an opportunity here, and we'd be remiss – and I mean this on the part of the U.S., but I think all members of the ISSG believe that would be a – it would be derelict not to give this thing a chance.

QUESTION: Can we change topic?

MR TONER: I'm happy to --

QUESTION: Can I change the subject, actually?

QUESTION: Can I ask you, before we change topics --

MR TONER: Okay. You because you've already got – I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Okay, yeah. Whether it's a plan or a proposal or a mechanism to reach to something, cessation of the hostilities.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you said you are expecting in the coming days talks in order to put more steps, clear steps about the monitoring and everything.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: Do you expect another declaration of the mechanism or anything related to this?

MR TONER: Oh, I think it'll be – I mean, look, what I fully expect is over the next coming days and indeed going into Saturday, I fully expect more details to emerge about how this thing will look. I mean, that's – again, as Matt read to me chapter and verse, part of this has to be the success of this hinges on the fact that we are transparent and that we're upfront with the international media about and engaged with them about how this thing will look on the ground.

QUESTION: And then for the --

QUESTION: So this is pretty much going to be a weekly occurrence, the ceasefire announcement?

QUESTION: For the --

MR TONER: Every Monday, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: For the next step or next stage, as we said, it's – you are going to wait to the complete cessation of hostilities in order to make humanitarian aid and political solution, or it's going to be parallel to this?

MR TONER: Well, the humanitarian piece of this – and let's not neglect that it's actually – while we're not all the way there yet, we have made significant progress. I mean, five of the seven regions, besieged areas, so-called besieged areas that we prioritized to receive humanitarian assistance actually started receiving that assistance last week from the UN and from its humanitarian partners. And today deliveries are planned for another area we identified, which is Kafr Batna. So five of the seven prioritized besieged areas have received assistance. One assistance is en route to, and one is still in planning. But that is progress. I mean, that's significant progress considering the dire straits or dire circumstances of these places.

Go ahead, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: The question I'm trying to ask is --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is humanitarian aid is still on even if the cessation of the hostilities --

MR TONER: Yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: And what about the political solution? Are you planning --

MR TONER: Well, that's – sure. And so that's a really good question too. So we know that the talks were supposed to resume on the 25th. That does not look likely, but we know that UN Special Envoy de Mistura is trying to get those negotiations back up and running as soon as possible. We're obviously going to continue to work with the – coordinate with the UN and with the other ISSG members to help get this – these talks up and running again, but that's obviously a huge priority going forward.

QUESTION: And my last question --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- regarding this. A few days ago UN officials announced somehow that they are not having capabilities to monitor what – any kind of cessation of hostilities. How do you foresee any role of UN, or it's going to be a U.S.-Russian monitoring process, or what? Or you don't know?

MR TONER: (Coughing.) Excuse me. So I think, again – I think that that's part of the – some of the details that we need to see emerge in the next week or so. I don't want to get ahead of that process. I think that those are all obviously legitimate questions to ask. I mean, how do you know if a ceasefire is being upheld if you don't – or a cessation of hostilities is being upheld if you don't have those eyes and ears on the ground that are monitoring it? And rightfully, how do you determine who's at fault if that cessation of hostilities is broken? So those are all I think questions, issues, challenges that the task force needs to address in the coming days.

QUESTION: Can we move to the --

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR TONER: Last question on this, I promise.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can I – thank you. Can I get your reaction on one more statement from Ankara?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkish media writes that the – a key advisor to Turkey's president, someone named Seref Malkoc, said on Thursday that the Incirlik Air Base could be closed to the U.S. military as Washington continues to support Syrian Kurds. Would the U.S. withdraw its support of Syrian Kurds in light of the threat of losing – possibly losing Turkey's cooperation on other fronts, including maybe losing access to the Incirlik Air Base?

MR TONER: Sure. Very quickly, so we – we've said this many times. We're greatly appreciative of Turkey allowing us to use Incirlik. It allows us to provide that close-in air support for some of these groups that are effectively fighting Daesh. I'm aware of the statement. We've seen no follow-up, if you will, for us to believe that that's a concern. So right now it's a hypothetical. We're appreciative of being able to use Incirlik, but I'm not going to address it further.

QUESTION: Can I move to --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: In the – in the conversation --

MR TONER: Let's do Egypt and then you, I promise.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Sure (inaudible).

QUESTION: In the --

MR TONER: Be a gentleman. Come on.

QUESTION: Absolutely. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I'm teasing. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Friend right there.

MR TONER: I know, I know.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: I know, I know. Go ahead, please.

QUESTION: So in the congressional budget justification that this building has put together to – and sent it to Congress, it states that the amount of aid proposed to Egypt, it will be $1.5 billion for Fiscal 2017, right, and that 1.3 out of that will be for military assistance. Right?

MR TONER: I think that's correct. I don't have it in front of me, but yeah.

QUESTION: So does this mean that you're rolling back on the restrictions that Congress has placed on foreign aid to Egypt --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- that are connected with the human rights conditions?

MR TONER: Sure. So we've – and I can get you the chapter and verse, but I think you know that the Secretary made a decision it's in the national security interests of the United States to provide this level of military assistance to Egypt given the threat that we both share, that we both face – both countries face from terrorism. So while we haven't lessened our concerns about Egypt's human rights record and certainly we engage with Egypt all the time and express our concerns about the human rights situation there, it was also – this particular decision about military assistance to Egyptian security forces was given out of our shared recognition of the threat of terrorism.

Now, there are, as in any given military aid – and that's why I'm talking about chapter and verse here; I don't have it in front of me – but there are always restrictions on who can receive what and how that assistance – there's monitors in place on how that assistance or those funds might be used on the ground by what groups in order to ensure that they are actually – I think it's called end use determinations – so how those – how that money and how those equipment might be used.

QUESTION: But the question is not about the 1.3 billion in military assistance with – which you have resumed as of last year.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: It's about the removing of the human rights conditions on aid to Egypt, the remaining $200 million which has been cut down to different amounts of money for different purposes. In the past, 15 percent of the aid to Egypt was taken out of the total amount of aid after the 2012 events in Egypt. Does this mean these are rolled back – you're rolling back on these restrictions that the Congress has done back then?

MR TONER: I'll have to take the question. I just don't have the information in front of me that I can –

QUESTION: Do you still take into consideration, when you deliver aid to Egypt for Fiscal 2017, the human rights aspect or no? I mean, I just want to make note of whether --

MR TONER: Of course. I mean, we always – that's always a component of how we --

QUESTION: Is it reflected in the numbers?

MR TONER: I would have to look, and I'm not sure I understand the – sorry, it's a complex question, and I want to make sure I give you the right answer. So just let me take the question. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: Very quickly on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: On the meeting with – between Secretary of State Kerry and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. First of all, the Palestinians say that Abbas made an emphatic plea with the Secretary to re-engage and break the deadlock. That's one. Second, that they submitted basically a plan for calling an international conference to end the settlements and begin a process to end the occupation. Could you – do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Sure, Said. I don't have – no. I mean, I don't have much to add. You saw the readout yesterday. If not, I can read it. But obviously, the Secretary met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. They did talk about ongoing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem. They also discussed Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. The Secretary continued to urge for calm, de-escalation; decrease in violence, incitement, inflammatory rhetoric. And he also, I think, reviewed with President Abbas the – some of the progress achieved in Geneva regarding Syria. But I don't have anything more to add to the readout that was given to folks yesterday from John Kirby except to say that the Secretary continues to urge for calm and to re-emphasize the U.S. commitment to seeking a sustainable two-state solution and to working with all parties to that end.

QUESTION: But in terms of practical steps, I mean, the Palestinians are quite panicky that you guys are really no longer interested in this issue, not like you were before. I mean, it's something that the United States was sort of taking full – sort of in control of at one point or another --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- initiating a nine-month talk and so on. So is there anything that is likely to – sort of that we are likely to see in the near future, that the Secretary may make a new initiative?

MR TONER: I mean, I – unfortunately, I don't have anything to announce or to preview. The Secretary does remain engaged, obviously, on this issue. It's certainly not off anyone's radar screen. We remain committed. We've talked about wanting to see a de-escalation in the tensions so we can get back to a place where we can begin to build towards some kind of peace process again, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the meantime.

QUESTION: And finally, the Secretary made --

QUESTION: You guys ever make a decision --

MR TONER: That's okay.

QUESTION: -- or decide how you felt about the French proposal for this new (inaudible)?

MR TONER: No, we haven't. I was just looking at that. I'll see if I have any more. I mean, we're – obviously, we've looked at it.

QUESTION: You have?

MR TONER: We have.

QUESTION: So then – presumably then, you know whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.

MR TONER: But I don't know – I don't have a review of it other than to say that we're looking forward to discussing it with the French. But I don't have anything more to add to that.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: The Secretary spoke with a lot of people, but apparently he did not speak with any Israeli counterparts or the prime minister of Israel. Has he spoken to Mr. Netanyahu at all about --

MR TONER: You're talking about this weekend or the past couple days?

QUESTION: I mean since he met with Abbas or in the lead-up to the meeting with Abbas and so on. I mean, has there been any kind of communication with the Israelis?

MR TONER: I mean, the Secretary – I mean, the Secretary – I mean, I can look to see when he last spoke, but he speaks to Prime Minister Netanyahu regularly. I mean, look – I mean, Said, I don't have anything concrete to point to, and I – but it's something that remains on his radar screen.

Please.

QUESTION: A real quick question on Uganda.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything further in relation to Saturday's election results, in particular the reported arrest of President Museveni's chief challenger, which I think broke earlier today?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, I don't, unfortunately, have much new to report, except as you say. I mean, you saw our statement over the weekend. We acknowledged numerous reports of irregularities and official conduct that was deeply inconsistent with international standards and expectations for any democratic process, and obviously we're very concerned about the detention of the opposition presidential candidate, Kizza Besigye. And we would encourage anyone who wishes to contest the election results to do so peacefully and in accordance with Uganda's laws, but we also urge the Ugandan Government to respect the rights and freedoms of its people and refrain from interference.

QUESTION: And as a quick follow-up to that, are you aware of any sort of anti-gay rhetoric that was taking place prior to Thursday's election, since Museveni was the one who signed the anti-homosexuality act into law two years ago?

MR TONER: Yeah, I'm not, frankly. But there was a lot of – as we talked about in general, a lot of intimidation, preventing of access to social media sites. I'm not sure any of it I could say was targeting the gay population or LGBT population in Uganda, but I can look into that.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Time for one on South China Sea?

MR TONER: Yes sir.

QUESTION: Did you see the comments by the Chinese foreign ministry ahead of Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit? Among other things, it said that their activities in the South China Sea are no different from the United States defending Hawaii.

MR TONER: Defending what? Hawaii?

QUESTION: Yeah, although last time I checked, Hawaii was one of the United States.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Thank you. You've answered your own question. I'm sorry, I'll just leave it there. No, I mean --

QUESTION: Well, I need your comment.

MR TONER: That's okay. I mean, I would – yes, I would make note of the fact that Hawaii is a member – or a state. Beyond that, I mean, look – all kidding aside, I mean, what we want to see China do has been made clear multiple times, that we want to see it to cease or to stop its militarization activities, its settlement activities in the South China Sea. All it does is escalate tensions. There needs to be a diplomatic mechanism in place that allows these claims, territorial claims, to be settled in a peaceful way. And in the meantime, we're going to continue to press China to de-escalate and to stop its militarization.

QUESTION: Just one other quick one.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: When is the Secretary going to meet the – Foreign Minister Wang?

MR TONER: Let me check on that. I believe tomorrow, but I'll double-check on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3.04 p.m.)

DPB # 22



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list