UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
February 26, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

MIDDLE EAST PEACE
SYRIA/REGION
GREECE/EUROPEAN UNION
CHINA
SYRIA
DPRK/CHINA
BAHRAIN
EUROPEAN UNION
MISCELLANEOUS
PAKISTAN/INDIA
IRAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:17 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey everyone. Happy Friday. Although – well.

QUESTION: It's not going to be a very happy Friday for long, though.

MR TONER: I was just going to say my --

QUESTION: Some of us are going to have to be --

MR TONER: -- the only thing I have at the top is --

QUESTION: -- poring over emails.

MR TONER: The only thing I have at the top. Thank you, Matt, for the cue there. Today at approximately 6 p.m. the department plans to produce approximately 1,500 additional pages of former Secretary Clinton's emails. As you know, we received instructions to produce emails – I'm sorry, from the court to produce emails on February 13th and 19th, which we did, as well as to provide an additional interim production today before completing the entire production by February 29th. And we take our obligations to the court seriously and are making every effort to comply with this order. We do intend in that spirit to make a final production on Monday, February 29th.

That's all I have at the top.

QUESTION: I have an email question. Do you have an assessment at this point how many of the documents contain classified information?

MR TONER: I would say at this point we're not aware that any – I don't have an assessment of how many contain classified information at this point. I can say that we're not aware that any additional documents in this tranche will be upgraded to top secret.

QUESTION: I have an additional question on that. Isn't it true that there are more emails that will be withheld in full?

MR TONER: In tonight's --

QUESTION: No, by the end of the process on the 29th.

MR TONER: Well, let's let the process finish. We're still reviewing some of these emails – a lot of them, frankly. We're going to be working hard through the weekend. So I don't want to preview what may or may not happen on the final release on Monday.

QUESTION: But you're aware that there are some in a pool that may be withheld in full?

MR TONER: Some in a pool? I'm not aware of that.

QUESTION: There's a group.

MR TONER: I'm not aware of that.

QUESTION: At least two.

MR TONER: Again, I'm not aware – I'm aware that there are, in fact, still conversations taking place between the various parts of the interagency talking about some of the emails. Those are ongoing, but we hope to resolve them by Monday.

QUESTION: I just have a final one on that.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Mrs. Clinton is referring to the FBI investigation as a security inquiry or a security review. Is that also the language of the State Department?

MR TONER: I would not attempt to characterize what the FBI investigation is or isn't. I'd refer you to them. Thanks.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- realizing that you guys don't like to get involved in any kind of politics, I have to ask this question anyway because it directly relates to the Secretary and to the building – about last night's debate, in which the three leading candidates each kind of took turns taking shots at the Secretary. And one of them said that, "John Kerry has been the most anti-Israel Secretary of State this country has ever seen." What does he make of that kind of language? And what do you, what does the building think about that?

MR TONER: (Coughing.) Excuse me. Honestly, I haven't had a chance to talk to the Secretary about those comments. I'm sure he would disagree. And certainly, in all seriousness, we would profoundly disagree with that kind of assessment. I just would say Secretary Kerry has a proud record of over three decades of steadfast support for Israel's security and well-being, including a staunch opposition to boycotts. We think his record speaks for itself.

QUESTION: Okay. And then just one other thing, and I don't expect you to know the answer to this off the top of your head because it does go kind of back – it goes back a while, but if you could look into it.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: The same person who said that also said that when – last year when the FAA briefly banned flights, U.S. airlines from flying into Tel Aviv because of the shelling that was going on --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: He said – at the time, this candidate said that it was an economic boycott of Israel. He called for the Secretary to resign, I think. And then former – Michael Bloomberg went on a commercial flight to Tel Aviv. And then he said, "Together the heat and the light that was put on the State Department was so great that within 36 hours they lifted the ban on air flights into Israel." Did the State Department have any role at all in the FAA's decision to either put the ban in place in the first place or remove it later?

MR TONER: Yeah, I would want to really --

QUESTION: If you could --

MR TONER: -- look at that, for precisely I think the reasons you pose the question. Certainly given the security situation at the time, part of our normal role is to obviously caution American citizens traveling abroad anywhere --

QUESTION: Well, that's specifically talking about the FAA flight ban.

MR TONER: But – no, no, I agree with you. But just to finish on that, I don't know that we would have any --

QUESTION: So, okay.

MR TONER: -- direct involvement on that.

QUESTION: Well, I know, but could you check?

MR TONER: So I'll check. Yep.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: I'll take the question.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Israel?

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR TONER: Do you just --

QUESTION: Oh, Israel-Palestine? Sure, sure, sure.

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: A couple issues --

MR TONER: Of course. Yeah.

QUESTION: On Wednesday the Secretary said that basically the French proposal is driven by the international community being really frustrated by the deadlocked peace process. Is that the feeling, or does that mean that you guys might be inclined at one point or another in the future to go ahead and support such an effort in the face of such a deadlock?

MR TONER: I'm sorry, he said what precisely? You said the Secretary --

QUESTION: The Secretary said that the French proposal --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- which I asked you about last week --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- was largely driven by frustration, a frustrated international community. So does that mean in any way that you are walking away from, let's say, insisting on direct one-on-one negotiation and perhaps supporting at one point because of the deadlock, supporting such an effort?

MR TONER: No, look, I would say that – I mean, as I think I answered you last week, we're going to continue to engage our partners with the hope of finding a constructive way forward and advancing what's a shared goal of a two-state solution. And there have been considerable challenges, as we've talked a lot about over the various months, to overcome. And frankly, right now, given some of the tensions and the need for de-escalation in order to get to a point where we can even start a process, a legitimate process towards a two-state solution, again – rather, start a legitimate process towards a two-state solution, it's always a priority. It's always a priority for this Administration. It's always a priority for this Secretary.

QUESTION: Sorry, just bear with me. I have a couple more questions on this issue.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Also the Secretary said that although that you guys received a copy of the proposal, he had not been able to look at the details. Does that still remain the case? He says that he did not look – he's still looking at some details and so on? Although, I think you said that you guys looked at all the details last week.

MR TONER: Well, we are aware, obviously, of the French proposal. We're talking about it. We're looking at it, studying it, and we look forward to engaging them further on some of the ideas that it presents. But as I said, our focus is on – ultimately is on a process towards a two-state solution and how do you get there. How do you get to the point where you can restart that process?

QUESTION: And today the former envoy Dennis Ross and former aide to Martin Indyk in the negotiations wrote an article where they really are calling on you guys to restart the process but without insisting on stopping the settlements, basically, that leave those blocs. Is that – has there been any change in your position on the settlements?

MR TONER: There's been absolutely no change in our belief that settlements – settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine the core goal of a two-state solution. That has not changed.

QUESTION: And finally, can you confirm that today an American citizen, a teenager, was killed, Mahmud Mohammed Ali-Shaalan, in Ramallah by the Israeli Army? Could you confirm that?

MR TONER: I cannot, Said. I'll take the question.

QUESTION: Could you find out?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you.

MR TONER: I was unaware of that. Please. You wanted to go to Syria and then I'll --

QUESTION: So who – we're now beyond the deadline by which groups were to have told the United States or Russia whether or not they would comply with the cessation of hostilities. Who has told you that they will comply?

MR TONER: So you – okay. You're absolutely right; there was – I believe the deadline was noon Damascus time and we have gone past that. I can say that as many of you are aware, the full task force of the cessation of hostilities task force did meet today. I'm pretty sure that meeting is ongoing. And more broadly speaking, the cessation of hostilities is scheduled to take effect at midnight in Damascus, so about three hours from now or two and a half hours from now at 5 p.m., in Washington.

So just to very clearly state what's at stake here, everybody knows this is an important moment. It's an opportunity, to put it mildly, for all the parties to step up and to do what they must do to stop the violence and bloodshed in Syria and truly press for an end to this conflict, which has cost so many lives and so much suffering, via a political transition in accordance with the Geneva communique of 2012.

Now, speaking to your question which was about the specific --

QUESTION: Who said they will abide by the ceasefire?

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: The cessation of hostilities. Who told you, rather?

MR TONER: Right. So let me just see what I have on that. So we do continue to work with the HNC, and we're aware that they have announced that they would participate in the cessation of hostilities. We've also seen the SDF say it would also take part in the cessation of hostilities. I would, without obviously giving a list or naming – going through a list of names, I would just say the vast majority of Syrian armed opposition groups have told the U.S. that they have accepted the terms of – for the cessation of hostilities. And as I said, many of these groups have made this confirmation either directly to us or through the HNC.

QUESTION: Why not release the names?

MR TONER: Well, it's frankly – sure.

QUESTION: If they're going to depart on the cessation of hostilities, why not make – let them – hold them to account if they don't?

MR TONER: So – well, due to security considerations that they have, we're not going to list their names. We obviously have the names. We're aware of the groups on the ground, but they, for a number of reasons, don't want their names public.

QUESTION: Are you confident – yeah, well --

QUESTION: And how does that – I mean, then how do you know if – who's going to judge whether they're in compliance or not then?

MR TONER: Well, the task force that's been set up --

QUESTION: The task force knows the names?

MR TONER: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

QUESTION: Yeah, you're sure about that?

QUESTION: So is this --

MR TONER: I'm fairly certain. I'm looking at this right here and it says that they have expressed – that – sorry.

QUESTION: But no one outside the task force knows the --

QUESTION: Let him finish.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, that these groups have made it known to the U.S. or to – or via – either via the HNC or to us directly, and that there is this list, but we're just not going to publicize it.

QUESTION: I just – I don't understand how this is transparent or how you get any kind of an accountability. What – I mean, you – I mean, I – I don't think either of us – well, maybe Arshad wants you to read the full list, but here --

QUESTION: Well, I would like that actually. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But it would be – but it would be nice if you could provide one. More than nice, it would be – it would make – it would give the world some confidence that this is – that this --

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean --

QUESTION: -- cessation of hostilities is actually a real thing and is going to be monitored and enforced.

MR TONER: But it will be. I mean, that's partly the role of the task force.

QUESTION: Well, says you.

MR TONER: But I mean --

QUESTION: But there's no way to tell from outside if we don't know who's signed on. Anyway, the HNC --

QUESTION: Who hasn't --

QUESTION: The HNC --

MR TONER: What's that? Who hasn't? Well, I mean, obviously al-Nusrah --

QUESTION: The HNC put out a statement that said 97 groups had signed on. Is that your – correct to your understanding?

MR TONER: I'd have to look and make sure that that's an accurate assessment.

QUESTION: Are you confident that the number of groups, which they did say was 97 --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- are you confident that the groups, regardless of the number, have indeed conveyed to their – the HNC their intent to participate? Or are you making your own checks directly with the groups to ensure that what the HNC reports is accurate?

MR TONER: Excuse me. So again, just to be very clear, so there is this – we do have a good understanding of the various opposition – armed opposition groups who have committed themselves to the cessation of hostilities. For a variety of reasons, these groups don't want to necessarily put their names out there publicly or have their names shared more broadly, out of concerns, frankly, that the ceasefire – the cessation of hostilities doesn't manifest, doesn't hold. So I think as we – as this thing progresses, the cessation of hostilities, we will have the opportunity, in response to Matt's question, to see these groups self-identify. There will be mechanisms in place that will identify when there are reports of cease – cessation of hostilities being broken by one group or another, and the task force, the cessation of hostilities task force, will look at these violations and adjudicate them.

QUESTION: When you say that --

MR TONER: So I guess my point – sorry, just your direct question was what – do we have confidence --

QUESTION: That the groups that the HNC says are going to participate will.

MR TONER: Yes. Yes, to a degree, yes. I mean, I think we're – and we are certainly following up as much as we can with the various groups on a bilateral basis, or however you want to put that, or directly with the groups to verify. So --

QUESTION: And when you say that one of their concerns is about being publicly identified, is the fear that a cessation of hostilities doesn't manifest, does that mean that they are afraid that they would be targeted? That they're saying, "Well, we'll lay down our arms," and that somebody's going to come after them?

MR TONER: So my answer to that will be: Given the climate that has preceded the run-up to the cessation of hostilities, I think it's understandable that some of these groups would be cautious about putting their names out there in that manner. I think that as this – if it does – and I'm not trying to – I'm not going to be overly optimistic here. I mean, nobody – no rose-colored glasses here, and the President spoke very clearly about this yesterday, the challenges that we face in actually implementing this cessation of hostilities. But I think if this thing does find some purchase, if it does get traction, I think then you will see more of a public acknowledgment of what groups are part of this.

QUESTION: Have you --

QUESTION: So have you – sorry, I got two more here.

MR TONER: That's okay.

QUESTION: Have you gotten any explicit assurances from the Russian Government that they will cease targeting moderate rebel groups?

MR TONER: Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were finished with your question. So that's been part of the last couple of days, frankly, is just really working with the Russians directly, but also as part of this larger task force which only began meeting today, to work out who those groups are. But absolutely, yes, with the acknowledgment that we won't know until we're past 12:01 in Damascus time and we see whether this actually bears fruit.

QUESTION: What – so you don't – so do you believe their assurances?

MR TONER: But yes, the Russians have committed themselves – sorry, just to finish your – directly answer it, yes, the Russians have committed themselves to not carrying out strikes against groups that we don't – that we consider part of the moderate opposition.

QUESTION: Why do you believe them?

MR TONER: We've said many, many times that this is – I don't know how to put it any better than saying it's "put up or shut up" time. It is time for them to show, through action rather than words, that they are serious about what they profess to be serious about, which is a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities and a political process that leads to a transition.

QUESTION: Mark, can I follow up on Arshad's question?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. I'll get to you.

QUESTION: During the Secretary's testimony on the Hill this week, a number of lawmakers raised concerns about Russia's commitment to this ceasefire. What is the U.S. Plan B if there is Russian noncompliance? Is the U.S. considering a track of – that would be putting additional sanctions or penalties on Russia? Or is the U.S. looking at beefing up its support of the opposition?

MR TONER: It's a fair question, Pam. It's just – I don't want to, today, talk about any Plan Bs or Option Bs or however we've heard it bandied about in the media. I think our clear focus right now is in the days, hours, in fact, ahead of us, trying to get this cessation of hostilities into place, and then what that would entail in terms of a political transition.

Ultimately, the price for increased bloodshed, ongoing hostilities, the risk that Russia would bear from those kinds of actions we've made very clear. There's no long-term solution that involves military force in Syria. But I don't want to conjecture about how we might --

QUESTION: Is there some kind of a --

MR TONER: -- what we might turn to if this doesn't work out. I think our focus right now is on getting this cessation of hostilities in place.

QUESTION: Is there some kind of a metric or guidepost in place in terms of how far the U.S. would allow Russia to go with any violation before you did consider action?

MR TONER: So --

QUESTION: When would they cross the line?

MR TONER: What I – I mean, maybe this – I could talk a little bit about what I know about the monitoring process and monitoring compliance. The first line of monitoring compliance would be the parties themselves. They would report violations or potential violations to the International Syria Support Group's ceasefire task force, either through one of the co-chairs or through the UN itself. Excuse me.

So networks and focal points, I guess I'd describe it as, are being set up now among all these various actors to be able to exchange information quickly – and we talked a little bit about this on Monday but this has been fleshed out further – to track when these violations or alleged violations occur and then to respond quickly. And obviously, especially in the early days, these focal points, for lack of a better word, need to be in constant contact with each other – going to be working out of capitals. There's obviously the group working in Geneva – I'll get to you in a second – and then they'll also be working or coordinated by the UN Office of the Special Envoy. There will be a small in-country presence in Syria which will serve as the secretariat of the task force, and that'll also serve as kind of a conduit or hub of information for everyone.

So we've been consulting with the task force members ever since it was established on February 11th. And then obviously, as we talked about, that particular task force, the cessation of hostilities one, met today – earlier today in Geneva to confirm the parties' acceptance of the terms for the cessation of hostilities and to review SOPs, standard – how the process would go – look going forward.

QUESTION: How would you characterize the U.S.'s evolving relationship with YPG?

MR TONER: How would I characterize the --

QUESTION: Colin Campbell with TRTWorld, yeah.

MR TONER: -- our evolving relationship?

QUESTION: With YPG.

MR TONER: I mean, yeah, sure --

QUESTION: Have there been modifications? Are they being more cautious? How would you characterize it?

MR TONER: Are they being more cautious?

QUESTION: Is the U.S. being more cautious with its relationship with YPG? Would you --

MR TONER: So – okay, I mean, just kind of widening the lens a little bit, you know that we have supported the YPG as part of a larger group of actors, groups, working mostly in northeastern Syria, really effectively pushing back against Daesh. They've proven to be very capable fighters. Part of, really, our re-think about how we're combating ISIL in Syria involves providing more support, mostly airstrikes – through airstrikes to these groups on the ground, which include the YPG. They've proven to be very effective among other groups.

Obviously, as you know, there have been disagreements between us and Turkey about whether they are, in fact, affiliated with the PKK, who we recognize as a foreign terrorist organization – a designated foreign terrorist organization. We talk about that quite a bit with Turkey. They have different views on it. But we've also been very clear in the past several weeks where we've seen elements of the YPG in and around Aleppo trying to seize territory that we felt was only exacerbating the situation, and we asked them to de-escalate or to stop that – those actions.

So, the evolution of our relationship with YPG – look, we still view them as an effective fighting force that's taking on Daesh in many respects and many areas and parts of Syria very effectively, and we continue to support those efforts, but that's always been with the understanding that they're not going to seize territory or hold onto territory, but rather, liberate territory that then can be returned to the groups that have been displaced.

QUESTION: And so you're not close to designating it as a terrorist organization?

MR TONER: No, no.

QUESTION: Turkey's --

QUESTION: Mark (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Please. Go ahead, Said, then I'll get back to you.

QUESTION: Has that even --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, David. Said.

QUESTION: Has that even --

MR TONER: Matt.

QUESTION: Has that even – has that ever been contemplated?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: And it probably --

MR TONER: No, and it's a long – and it's a --

QUESTION: And it won't be?

MR TONER: It's a very – sorry, I was just trying to be concise in my answer, but I can get into – I mean, it's a long process by which you designate any organization that's a foreign terrorist organization. We're not even there with the YPG. We don't consider them to be one.

QUESTION: I want to follow up on --

MR TONER: Please. And then I promise, David. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: -- very quickly on the 97 groups. You're saying that you are in contact with them somehow, right? Are you saying that you're in contact with all 97 groups?

MR TONER: I can't say that we're – we're working through the HCN and other groups – or HNC, rather – and other groups we have direct contact with. I can't say that we specifically have contact with all 97 members.

QUESTION: So you have – you at least have a list of who they are. My question is: Do you share this with Russia? Do you tell them, "These groups are off limits, we don't want you to strike them," that their location --

MR TONER: So those are the kinds of coordination conversations that are taking place within the task force.

QUESTION: Right, okay. And my last --

QUESTION: Yes, it's been --

QUESTION: Can I ask, do you have a list? Do you have a list of the 97?

MR TONER: I assume there is one. I mean, we have to know who is identified on the ground.

QUESTION: Are you sure?

MR TONER: But I'm not sure, no.

QUESTION: But of who?

MR TONER: And I'm not going to --

QUESTION: And the answer to Said's question, I mean, isn't it blindingly obvious that if there is a list and it's been shared among the ISSG, that the Russians, as the co-chair, would have the list? Is that right?

MR TONER: Well, again, part of this is – the kind of coordination that needs to take place is --

QUESTION: Exactly. So is that not – I mean, I'm just trying to figure out if this --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is even a question. Of course, they do, they know?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: I think that information has been shared. And David?

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: But – really, I'm sorry, David, just very quickly. Listen, in the areas where they actually intersect, I mean, these groups, let's say they overlap with, let's say, like Jabhat al-Nusrah and they continue to strike, or Daesh. So what should, let's say – you expressed your intent that you will continue to fight them, there will be no easing of striking Daesh – the United States did; the President in fact did. And the Russians are saying the same thing. So in these areas where there is overlapping or intersection with one another, how would you handle that?

MR TONER: (Coughing.) Excuse me. Well, exactly as we've talked about before, which is that these groups will have every opportunity to separate themselves from the hardline actors on the ground – the al-Nusrahs, the Daesh, a couple of other groups that we've clearly identified as having no part of any cessation of hostilities. That's part of their responsibility to do on the ground.

Now David.

QUESTION: Well, actually that does fall at a good moment, because it's a second follow-up to that.

MR TONER: Great, we'll go on to somebody – I'm just kidding. (Laughter.) Not a good joke.

QUESTION: I'm not – it's a slight difference in the language implied by the Russians and by Secretary Kerry this week. The U.S. officials say that obviously Jabhat al-Nusrah and Islamic State are not included in this ceasefire. The Russians say the same thing, but then they say "and other terrorist groups." Is there a disagreement between you and the Russians as to which groups are going to be involved in this, or is it just a way of phrasing – you yourself have just said "and some other smaller groups."

MR TONER: So there – excuse me – those are – and I talked a little bit about this last week.

QUESTION: I was on the beach.

MR TONER: That's okay. (Laughter.) So what I – the longer answer is groups that have been identified by the UN as other – I think it's one or two other groups.

QUESTION: So which groups?

MR TONER: I don't have those names in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: And we talked a little bit about the fact that there was this process the Jordanians were leading and made a good, solid effort to coalesce a group of good and bad groups operating on the ground, but ultimately it was decided that the UN should probably take the lead in that. And frankly, where there was broad agreement – unanimous agreement – is Daesh, al-Nusrah cannot be part of it, and then two other groups.

QUESTION: Al-Nusrah forces are very close geographically in places like Aleppo too.

MR TONER: Understand that – I understand that, and that's what I think Said's point is, it's going --

QUESTION: Do you think there's an attempt by Moscow to develop wiggle room in case they end up striking groups on the 97 list who are living next door to Jabhat al-Nusrah in certain places?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look – I mean, that is – that's the challenge of how we monitor this thing going forward is – and it's a challenge both for the various stakeholders – and that includes Russia, and trust me, we've been very clear with Russia about the fact that their ongoing strikes are not aimed at either al-Nusrah – the vast majority of them are aimed neither at al-Nusrah or Daesh. We've been very clear going forward that needs to stop. But also on the ground, it's incumbent on some of these groups to disentangle themselves, realizing that's a challenge.

Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Mark, the Russians have produced some maps, or at least one map --

MR TONER: Yeah, I'm aware of the --

QUESTION: Yeah, that show basically Nusrah, Daesh, ISIL, and these other terrorist groups as in a fairly large swath and only small pockets of areas that would be included in the cessation of hostilities. Has the United States or the ISSG signed off on these maps or map?

MR TONER: I cannot confirm that we've signed off on any maps. I just don't have the answer.

Please.

QUESTION: Different subject?

MR TONER: Are we done with Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah, I --

MR TONER: Oh, you have a --

QUESTION: Oh, I have a --

QUESTION: Real quick to the YPG.

MR TONER: Great. Go ahead, and then I'll --

QUESTION: No, no, just what you --

MR TONER: That's okay.

QUESTION: You said that the ISSG was going to have an office in Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah. Let me find that. I thought it was the UN is going to have a – well, but the UN --

QUESTION: Where, in Damascus? Is it in, like, their building that they already have there, I presume?

MR TONER: It may well be. Let me double-check on that.

QUESTION: I thought it was the ceasefire task force, no?

MR TONER: Let me double-check, because I want to give you guys the right information.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) about a small ceasefire task group office, their secretariat?

MR TONER: That's right, exactly. That's what I was talking about. That I believe we'll have, but I just want to double-check to make sure that's correct. Sorry, guys. Just give me a second here. I apologize; I can't find the darn thing. Monitoring – okay.

So yes, they will also be in touch with the UN office of the special envoy based in Geneva and with a small in-country presence in Syria which will serve as a secretariat of the task force. That's the UN.

QUESTION: Where is that going to be?

QUESTION: Of the ceasefire task force?

MR TONER: Yes, that's right.

QUESTION: But where is that going to be? Is it going to be at least based --

MR TONER: I don't know. I don't have an answer.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) the Russians have set up this coordination --

MR TONER: I don't know where in Syria. I don't.

QUESTION: Do you --

MR TONER: I'll try to get that answer. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry --

QUESTION: Can I ask a question there? If it's in the part of Syria that is still controlled by the Assad government, are you not concerned about the possibility that its activities may be compromised?

MR TONER: I think these – again, not – without knowing where it would be, I would hope that we would be looking at all those factors, obviously, and we would be concerned about access.

Please.

QUESTION: On the YPG --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- just to follow up and make clear, not to beat a dead horse.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the --

MR TONER: No, that's okay. Beat away.

QUESTION: The question about the caution and the changes, Turkey's presidential spokesperson today said that Turkey has seen a change in your relationship with the YPG and that you're being more careful. Do you agree with his sentiment, his – has there been a change?

MR TONER: No. I mean, I – again, I think if the question is have we changed our viewpoint or our --

QUESTION: Attitude?

MR TONER: -- position or attitude towards the YPG, I would say no. We've always been somewhat clear-eyed about where they are effective, where they benefit from our support, and where, in some areas – and I spoke about Aleppo – where we found some of their actions – and these are different groups, obviously different groups of the YPG that are operating in some of these areas. Some of them are not all that linked up – part of this complex situation we have on the ground – but we've been very clear when we find their actions to be counterproductive.

So, I mean, I wouldn't say there's any shift --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: -- in our assessment or our --

QUESTION: One more on Syria?

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Syrians – Secretary Kerry brought up the safe zone yesterday. Has this been – and I know he's talking to other countries about ground operations in – against ISIL.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: But this idea I know you're considering, but have you started discussing this with other --

MR TONER: No, we haven't, and I think his answer was pretty clear on the safe zone. Our – ultimately, our safe zone is to get a ceasefire – full ceasefire implemented starting with cessation of hostilities and then a political process on track. But we've talked about some of the difficulties in putting together a safe zone. We just feel like if we can get an actual ceasefire in place, that's – that would obviously be the coin of the realm.

Michael.

QUESTION: I have a question similar to the refugee crisis.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Greece has been threatened by a temporary, if not a de facto, exit from Schengen due to the wall being built on the northern part – on Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Does the U.S. have a position? And are you worried that this might lead to more instability for the European unification project?

And also, in your opinion, is this fair for Greece, a country who is suffering from the economic crisis and now the refugee crisis?

MR TONER: So, just to be very clear, Michael, your first question about – is about the wall --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- for – to prevent refugees from --

QUESTION: And they are – Austria and some other countries, they are --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- threatening Greece to throw them out from the Schengen.

MR TONER: So I'd answer it this way: The migration crisis, as we've talked about, in Europe is part of a much larger global crisis. It requires global attention. President Obama has said this. It's a humanitarian crisis that none of us can ignore. And we applaud and thank those countries throughout the Middle East, and in Greece's case, who have responded to the refugee crisis with generosity, with compassion, and provided these immigrants – or migrants, rather – and refugees with shelter, safety, and vital aid in times of urgent need. It's been our longstanding process, as the EU attempts to grapple with this challenge, that all of these migrants should be treated humanely, with dignity, and should have access to asylum screening processes.

But I just think that in terms of your second question, which is about Schengen and the border control debate, we think those are really internal questions between Greece and the European Union. I think EU President Donald Tusk, or Tusk rather, has said that expelling Greece from the Schengen area would not solve EU's migrant crisis, again, recognizing that these are difficult circumstances and that each nation has a right to control its own territory. But we would just ask that all nations, as Greece has done, continue to show generosity in accepting these – in dealing with these migrants.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up, Mark.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: You said, and I quote, "Each nation has a sovereign right to control its territory." And in your recent question you told me, "Including the regulation of individuals seeking entry." Do you mean that it's okay for some European countries to close their borders to the refugees?

MR TONER: What I meant by that comment was that, just as we strive to do in the United States, it's important to have some kind of screening process or some kind of process by which these folks are registered as they come across the border.

Please.

QUESTION: Thanks, Mark. On the recent meeting between Secretary Kerry and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, did United States give any concession to China such as the promise of THAAD missile in South Korea?

MR TONER: Did we give any concession to China?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: In terms of what, THAAD?

QUESTION: Yes, with – in terms of sanctions, strong sanctions, Chinese involved with strong sanctions.

MR TONER: Well, I wouldn't obviously talk about the details of our diplomatic exchange with China. We've been very clear that we're continuing consultations with the Republic of South Korea regarding THAAD in response to a series of provocations that North Korea has taken in the past several months. We've made our position on why we're pursuing these consultations very clear to China.

QUESTION: But also Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi wants to have the United States and North Korea sign a peace treaty. What is the U.S. position on it?

MR TONER: We continue to believe – and we spoke about this earlier this week – where the focus needs to be is the – is to – is, rather, to get the DPRK to engage on denuclearization.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: That's okay.

QUESTION: Are you done?

MR TONER: I'm done. Nothing to add.

QUESTION: Okay. I just wanted to get back to Syria for just one second.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: There was supposed to be a Security Council meeting today on Syria about this Russian resolution to basically once again endorse the cessation of hostilities. It's been postponed just now. And I'm just wondering, are you guys okay with this resolution? Because I had gotten some hints that you didn't really think that it was necessary.

MR TONER: We want to see the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. That's --

QUESTION: So you are opposed to this new one; is that correct?

MR TONER: I would just say without – I don't want to say how we're going to vote. We don't talk about those things in advance.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you if – how you're going to vote. I'm asking you whether you support it or not.

MR TONER: I would just say we believe that the focus should be on 2254.

QUESTION: In other words, you're going to veto this resolution?

QUESTION: A quick question, but he interrupted my questions.

MR TONER: I know.

QUESTION: I've tried not to. I tried to wait till you were done. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well wish. You're talking on it, but quickly. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: For shame, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I mean, what can you say? Hey, that's very important to us.

MR TONER: I'm sorry, I apologize. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do the United States be consider on Chinese foreign minister's suggested U.S. and North Korea peace talk?

MR TONER: No, I think we want to see the Six-Party process start again. And again, this is something we addressed the other day. We were very clear to North Korea when they came to us to talk about – to engage in direct talks, we want the focus to be on denuclearization and the fact that it has pledged to undertake this, and that's frankly – we're not going to have other conversations with them without addressing that core issue.

QUESTION: But the U.S. not consider it yet, I mean, even if it's for their suggestions?

MR TONER: Would not consider direct negotiations or --

QUESTION: Direct, yes.

QUESTION: No, there's a set process in place, the Six-Party Talks, that we could – that's where we would pursue any kind of talks with North Korea.

QUESTION: On China and the foreign minister?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I presume, as it always does, or as you say it always does, the issue of human rights came up in the meeting with Secretary Kerry. Yes?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So today there is a report that this Christian lawyer, Zhang Kai --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- who was detained in August, the day before he was supposed to meet with your special envoy, Ambassador Saperstein --

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: -- that he has been – that he has confessed to breaking the law by disturbing social order, and there is – and endangering state security, and there is some concern that this was a coerced confession. Do you share that?

MR TONER: We are very concerned about Chinese state media's airing of a purported confession by Zhang Kai prior to any indictment and, frankly, any judicial process whatsoever. Such confessions are counter to the standards of a rule of law society. And you're right that he was detained, as you noted, before he could meet with U.S. Ambassador-at-Large David Saperstein during his August visit to China.

We urge China to release Zhang and others detained for seeking to peacefully uphold the freedom of religion guaranteed in China's constitution.

QUESTION: Do you know if that – this case was raised by Secretary Kerry when he met with the Chinese foreign minister?

MR TONER: We have raised our concerns multiple times. We'll continue to do so. I don't have – I can't say with certainty that his specific case was raised in Secretary Kerry's conversations with the foreign minister.

QUESTION: And then just back on the UN resolution, I presume since Samantha Power, the ambassador, said yesterday that – talked about how good this new North Korea resolution is, that you'll be voting in favor of that, I guess tomorrow? Is that correct?

MR TONER: I believe --

QUESTION: Or is it still your policy, like with Syria, that you don't talk about how you're going to vote on UN resolutions?

MR TONER: I didn't say we couldn't characterize our views, but we're not going to say how we're going to vote for it. I mean, clearly, as you noted, Ambassador Power put out a very eloquent statement that spoke to the fact that the new Security Council resolution on DPRK is a very good one, a very strong one, would break new ground and represent really the strongest set of sanctions imposed by the Security Council --

QUESTION: So you're obviously going to vote no, right?

MR TONER: -- in more than two decades. I'll just leave my comments for themselves.

QUESTION: On Samantha Power, on Samantha Power very quickly, she also issued a statement saying – basically denouncing the arrest of Bahraini opposition leader Ibrahim Sharif. Do you have any – I mean, what else are you doing beside that? She says it's --

MR TONER: You're talking about Ibrahim Sharif?

QUESTION: Yes, Ibrahim Sharif.

MR TONER: So we are very, very disappointed that he was convicted on February 24th to one year in prison on charges of incitement to hatred and contempt of the government, based on a speech he gave in June 2015. We're following his case very closely. We believe strongly that Mr. Sharif should be released, and we don't believe anyone anywhere should be prosecuted or imprisoned for engaging in peaceful expression or assembly. And we do understand that he can still appeal his sentence, and should he do so we – it's important, I think, that the legal process be carried out in a transparent and legitimate manner.

QUESTION: Is it not correct that you guys called for him to be released like more than a week ago?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: And what does that have – what does this now say about your leverage with your ally and Fifth Fleet host Bahrain?

MR TONER: We've been very forthright about our concerns about Bahrain's human rights record, at the same time recognizing that they're an important U.S. partner in the region. As you note, they host the Fifth Fleet and that relationship is built on common interests, including efforts to fight violent extremism. But that does not exclude a frank and frequent exchange where we have disagreements or concerns on human rights.

QUESTION: Well, it sounds as though because you have these shared interests and they host the Fifth Fleet that they get a pass.

MR TONER: I --

QUESTION: That you don't really expect them – I mean, you talk – you make statements like this, but that you don't really expect them to --

MR TONER: I mean, we've --

QUESTION: -- to follow though.

MR TONER: Well, we – without overstating it, we've seen some positive steps taken by the Bahraini Government in the past couple of years, but clearly not enough.

QUESTION: Mark, there is a statement now, I see, from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He calls on all countries to keep their borders open and to act in a spirit of responsibility, sharing, and solidarity, including through expanding legal pathways to access asylum. Do you share his concerns?

MR TONER: The last bit I just missed, Michael. Please.

QUESTION: The last bit is the bit that you like, I think. But the most important thing is that he calls on all countries in Europe to keep their borders open. Because they closed the borders in Greece, there are thousands of refugees. They sleep in the fields.

MR TONER: Michael, I'm – we've talked a lot about this. We're obviously very sympathetic to the incredible burden that Greece has taken on by accepting these migrants. We have said many times that we would like to see Europe, the EU approach the refugee crisis in a cohesive and comprehensive manner because right – as you note, right now you've got different countries taking different steps in order to deal with the crisis. We want to see a more comprehensive approach.

Please, in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you. A couple of questions. So first it's about the conflict between Apple and FBI over unlocking the phone of a terrorist.

MR TONER: Uh-oh.

QUESTION: So sir, in your opinion, are the privacy of a tech company's customers important, or the security of the whole nation is important?

MR TONER: I'm going to refer you to the FBI.

QUESTION: Sir, I have another question.

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: So Pakistan and U.S. are going to start their strategy talks from Monday. Secretary Kerry is leading the U.S. delegation.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So what will be the agenda of these talks? And secondly, what would be the U.S. new wish list, especially after the F-16s deal?

MR TONER: Especially after the --

QUESTION: F-16s deal.

MR TONER: You are correct, sir, that that strategic dialogue will take place on Monday, and we obviously look forward to it. It's very important. I don't have a set agenda in front of me. I mean, obviously some of the issues won't surprise anyone. It's about strengthening security and stability in the region, about increasing trade, looking at the many different problems and threats in the region, including terrorism that we've talked a lot about. But as we – we'll have a better readout to give you on Monday.

QUESTION: I have one more.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So the Pakistani foreign minister Sartaj Aziz said that a police report has been lodged against the chief of the banned organization Jaish-e-Mohammad for his involvement in Pathankot attack, and Pakistani authorities kept him under protective custody. Sir, such kind of cooperation between India and Pakistan is very rare. How much you appreciate such cooperation, especially like these terrorist type of incidents?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, obviously we have been very vocal in the past when we – in encouraging greater cooperation between India and Pakistan. I mean, clearly terrorism is a threat to both countries, and so as they can cooperate on these kinds of issues, we see it as helpful to the region.

QUESTION: Any comment on Iran's parliamentary elections?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: No?

MR TONER: I mean, other than – that is we expect – (laughter) – I don't get a pass on that? I just --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

MR TONER: We hope Iran conducts its election in a manner that not only conforms to international standards of transparency and accountability, but also represents the will of the Iranian people.

QUESTION: And do you think that's possible?

MR TONER: Let's let this thing run its course. Frankly, my understanding before coming out here was that polling stations were kept open. There's been a large turnout, but we won't really have any judgment to make for several days before we --

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, but just objectively, do you think that it can be – that it's possible for it to be a reflection of the will of the Iranian people given the fact that the rules and regulations and vetting that have – that has to take place for candidates to be eligible?

MR TONER: I'm not going to --

QUESTION: And the exclusion of so many reformist candidates.

MR TONER: Obviously, we believe strongly that all Iranians should have the opportunity to express themselves freely, but I'm not going to prejudge the outcome yet.

QUESTION: Yeah, but if --

QUESTION: A follow-on, please?

QUESTION: Wait, wait. You believe that they have the – that they must, but you think that it's an open question, that they might or can?

MR TONER: Again, I'm not going to give them a grade either way at this point. Obviously, there are significant challenges within Iran given the political climate, but I'm not going to say much beyond that.

QUESTION: Did you hear the extremists saying that Rouhani and Zarif and others are no more than stooges to the West because they signed the Iran deal? I mean, do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: No. One more.

QUESTION: I just wanted, as a follow-up to yesterday's comments from the Secretary about Cuba, do you have any more information about the timeline of his potential trip and whether he would specifically meet with dissidents and other critics of the Cuban Government?

MR TONER: No, not at this point, no. Hopefully in the next couple of days we'll have more to say about that.

QUESTION: Next couple of days.

MR TONER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Sorry, I wanted to get an Iran --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: The IAEA report --

MR TONER: Oh, yeah.

QUESTION: -- that has just come out on – this is the first compliance report since the – since implementation day. Do you have anything to say about it?

MR TONER: Well, as you note, it did – they did release their first post-implementation day report. I think it's a quarterly report. The report demonstrates the many steps that Iran is taking to implement the JCPOA and confirms, in our estimation, the IAEA's capacity to monitor adequately the deal's implementation.

QUESTION: Well, it looks as if there are some gray areas about whether or not Iran has been in full compliance with it. Do you have any concerns?

MR TONER: I think you're talking about – if you're talking about the heavy water issue, so there was, and I think it was noted in the report that Iran did briefly exceed its 130 metric ton heavy water stockpile limit by less than 1 ton, I think .9. And – but the IAEA has now verified that Iran has shipped out 20 metric tons, so it's well back with under the limit.

QUESTION: So this is – you don't think that that's an issue?

MR TONER: Again, it's – it was – yes, in that that limit is there for a reason. But the IAEA was able to track it, monitor it, and the Iranians were responsive.

QUESTION: Right. So there isn't any consequence?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: All right, thank you.

MR TONER: Great, thanks guys. Happy weekend.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:12 p.m.)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list