Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 9, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
IRAN/REGION
NORTH KOREA/REGION
INDIA
SYRIA/REGION
IRAN
DEPARTMENT
SAUDI ARABIA/YEMEN/REGION
INDIA
DEPARTMENT
GREECE
DEPARTMENT
UNITED KINGDOM
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
HONDURAS
SECRETARY TRAVEL
TRANSCRIPT:
2:11 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello, hello.
MR KIRBY: I do not have anything to open up with today, so we can get right at it.
QUESTION: Okay. Before we move to policy questions of the day, I just want to ask – and I know this will be brief, because I expect that you will have absolutely nothing to say about it --
MR KIRBY: Well, if you know that, why are you going to ask me?
QUESTION: -- but I have to – but I got to ask anyway.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: So the RNC, you are aware, filed two lawsuits this morning against the State Department, seeking email and other communications both from Secretary Clinton's time, from top staff during her time in office, and then after she left between the department and Clinton-related organizations. What do you have to say about that?
MR KIRBY: Well, we're aware, and as you know, Matt, as these matters are matters of litigation, we don't comment.
QUESTION: So the suits – both of them, I believe, but certainly one of them does – want – ask the judge to order you guys to produce the material by July 1st, which is four months or so from now. Given the amount of time that it has taken to go through and redact for FOIA purposes all of the other emails that have been coming out, is that something that is possible? I mean, even if there was no court order to do it, could you do it and would you do it if you were ordered to do it?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I don't want to comment about matters that are --
QUESTION: Forget about that, just the timeframe. Does four months --
MR KIRBY: No, I know. I don't want to comment on matters that are under litigation right now. I think you can understand that's not a good place for us to be. And I also am wary of getting into hypotheticals in terms of what can be done in a certain amount of time, simply because we're working our way through this right now.
That said, as I think we've demonstrated with the release of the 52-, 53,000 pages of documents that – even though we didn't meet every deadline, we certainly take court orders seriously, and when we can't accommodate in some way, we're open and honest about why we aren't and what we're trying to do to fix it. So we take court orders seriously. I mean, I want to make that clear, but I'm afraid I can't go into any great predictions about our ability to produce what's being asked for in these suits on a certain timeline.
QUESTION: Do you know – the reason that the RNC says that it's filing these suits is because they filed through normal FOIA channels these requests back months ago, and aside from getting just a kind of standard form letter response saying that the requests have been received, they haven't heard anything. Do you know, is that correct? Is – are these requests actively being looked at right now? I mean, are people going through and trying to fulfill these requests?
MR KIRBY: I don't have the answer to that, Matt. I'll have to look and see if I can get you something on that, and I don't know how much detail I'll be able to provide in terms of response to that because, again, now we are talking about – though it may not have always been, it is now a matter of litigation. So there may be a limit to how much detail we can provide you, but I'll ask that question.
QUESTION: Okay. I don't have anything else on this. Does anyone else?
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: All right. Can I just go to Iran quickly?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: One, so you've seen the reports of the new missile test today, including one that apparently had "Israel must be wiped off the Earth" or something written on it?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What do you make of that?
MR KIRBY: Well, we have seen these reports of additional missile launches today, and just as with the earlier ones, we're going to take a look at it and we'll take whatever appropriate response is necessary, either at the UN or unilaterally. And obviously, without being able to confirm these – the graffiti on them about Israel – I can't confirm that independently, but obviously we condemn all threats to Israel, and we stand – will stand with Israel to help it defend itself against all kinds of threats.
And I would add, under the President's leadership, the United States has invested above and beyond our FMF assistance – over $3 billion – in the Iran – I'm sorry, Iron Dome system and other – I'm reading it without glasses.
QUESTION: The Iran dome?
MR KIRBY: Iron Dome system and other missile defense programs and systems for Israel. I would also add that the Secretary did raise his concerns today with Foreign Minister Zarif about these reports.
QUESTION: You said that you will take appropriate action if it's confirmed, either at the UN or unilaterally. Why is that an either-or? I mean, isn't --
MR KIRBY: It could be an and.
QUESTION: Well, right. But if it is confirmed, it is definitely a violation of the UN – of 2231, is it not?
MR KIRBY: And as I said yesterday – yeah. And as I said yesterday --
QUESTION: Well, and doesn't that require some kind of action at the UN?
MR KIRBY: It does, and as I – but I am not in a position today --
QUESTION: Right, I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- to independently confirm. If they are confirmed, if they're true, as I said yesterday, we'll take up the appropriate action inside the UN. But I don't want to – I don't want to convey the impression that we are only looking at multilateral or UN possibilities in terms of measures to deal with it.
QUESTION: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't either/or.
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: It's and.
MR KIRBY: And I didn't mean to convey that.
QUESTION: It's and/or.
MR KIRBY: If I did, I --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Let me take that back for the record. It is and.
QUESTION: Okay. And then, on the IAEA issue which we've been going back and forth on for the past couple days, something seems to have changed. On Monday you said – and I'm not saying this to embarrass you, but on Monday you said you weren't aware of any --
MR KIRBY: No, but let's just go ahead and do it anyway.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) On Monday you said that you weren't aware of any changes in the way – in what the IAEA was reporting post-deal as opposed to pre-deal in its thing.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: And then yesterday you seemed to say that the Administration was confident that even though there were – there was not the same amount of information or breadth of information in the last report, you guys were still confident in the IAEA being able to do its job. So anyway, fast-forward to today and your envoy, the – at the IAEA came out and said that the Administration does think that more information should be included in the IAEA reporting.
MR KIRBY: He said that he believes that there needs to be a continued effort at stringent reporting, and we would agree with that. And so, look, if you want to do the forensics, when you asked me two days ago, I hadn't seen --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- those comments --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and so I answered you honestly. I had not – I didn't know.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: So in the intervening 24 hours, we did do some homework and learned a little bit more, and that's why I was able to talk to you yesterday about it with a little bit more granularity. And I would say today I'm exactly where I was yesterday, is that we continue to remain comfortable and confident that the IAEA can do its job and can do it appropriately within the confines and the requirements of the JCPOA. And obviously, we want these reports to be as thorough as they need to be and as detailed as they need to be so that the agency can have the level of confidence it needs and so that the Board of Governors can have the confidence that it needs. And as I said yesterday, we remain confident that that's going to be the case going forward, and Dr. Amano said as much.
QUESTION: Well, but now I'm confused. So you are – so what you said yesterday is still the position of the Administration? You're okay with the amount of information that was in the last IAEA report? You're not saying that the IAEA – notwithstanding the comments from the envoy this morning, you're not saying that the IAEA should provide more detail than it did in its last report?
MR KIRBY: We are – I will say it exactly the way I said yesterday. We are comfortable, confident that the IAEA has – through the JCPOA has the authorities it needs, has the access it needs, and due to an unprecedented inspection and verification regimen, will have the information that it needs to make the determinations about compliance going forward. And what matters – it's not whether it's more detail than under JPOA or less detail. It just has to be enough detail so that a proper verification can be made, a proper compliance report can be arrived at. And Dr. Amano himself said that he felt he was able to do that, and that's what matters here.
QUESTION: I understand that. So you think that --
MR KIRBY: And one more point, though, Matt, because, I mean, I know we keep getting dragged down on this, and I appreciate the dogged pursuit that you're applying to this. But what matters more than anything, and it's important for people not to forget, is that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons capability through this deal – ever, for the life of it – and as long as that's – as long as that is the outcome, we can – there can be criticism of the level of detail. I understand that, and there will – there's always been criticism of the deal. We expect there will continue to be criticism of the deal. And you and I can get into it every day on this for the next six months if that's what you want to do, but what matters more than anything and what the American people and our allies and partners need to remember is that Iran will not possess a nuclear weapon through this deal as long as they continue to meet their commitments. And thus far, in this first report, they are.
QUESTION: Right, but the point – that's not – that's all well and good, but that's not my – my question is: Was the – your guy at the IAEA this morning, was he or was he not saying that there should be more details in the IAEA report than there were in the last one that came out, or was he not saying that?
MR KIRBY: The quote that I saw – now, I did not see every word that he said. I did read some news articles about this, and the quote that I saw didn't at all – wasn't at all in any kind of, difference than what I said yesterday. I think the quote I – I wish I had it in front of me, but it was something like there needs to be a continued effort to have the detail required so that proper compliance reporting can be done, or something to that effect.
QUESTION: And you --
MR KIRBY: And if that – and I would agree, we would agree that --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- we want there to be enough detail --
QUESTION: And – but your position is, then, that the last report has enough detail in it for the IAEA to come to its conclusion Iran is in compliance?
MR KIRBY: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: Because that's the thing. It's not a question of what happens if Iran complies with the deal, and as you say, is not able to develop a nuclear weapon over the course of the agreement. It is can the IAEA accurately or – and honestly and do they have the ability to confirm that Iran is complying? Because if they cheat, then they could get a bomb, right?
MR KIRBY: If they cheat, we'll know because of the inspections.
QUESTION: Yeah, but they still could get a bomb.
MR KIRBY: If they cheat, we'll know. And then, as you know, sanctions get snapped back. There's a whole range of issues that then reverberate through the Board of Governors that deal with any cheating. But if they cheat, we will know. And the short answer to your question is yes, we're comfortable, we're confident that the agency has what – the tools it needs to make these determinations. And again, I would point you right back to what Dr. Amano said himself.
QUESTION: And then – and you're comfortable that the report that came out recently – the just released report – has the appropriate amount of information and detail and scope and granularity to come to the conclusion that the IAEA did, that they are in compliance, yes?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Kirby. Do you know that – already know that North Korea announced that yesterday North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said it had to completely downsize nuclear weapons? How do you – in response on what he's saying?
MR KIRBY: He said what? That --
QUESTION: The downsizing of nuclear weapons they have.
QUESTION: Miniaturization.
MR KIRBY: Oh, the miniaturization.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Oh, yeah. No, we saw those comments. Obviously, as you know, I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters about what we might know, but I think, once again, we've got provocative rhetoric and statements coming out of Pyongyang that are doing nothing to decrease the tensions on the peninsula. And again, I'd say that the young man needs to pay more attention to the North Korean people and taking care of them than in pursuing this – these sorts of reckless capabilities. And because he has proven unwilling to do that, the international community has, again, spoken now with one voice in the form of this latest Security Council resolution, which is meant to hold him to even more account for his pursuit of these capabilities.
But we've seen the comments, and as I've said before, I mean, we take this rhetoric seriously. We take his threats seriously. We have to. But nothing's changed about our resolve in terms of, again, acting in concert with the international community to raise the costs on him for this behavior, and inside the alliance to continue to stand by our South Korean allies in defense of the peninsula.
QUESTION: But the U.S. believe this – what he's saying, or you don't believe it?
MR KIRBY: Again, we've seen the comments, and as before, we take these comments seriously. We have to. I mean, this young man has proven that he is perfectly willing and able to flout and to violate international – his international obligations. So of course we take it seriously. I'm not going to get into an intelligence analysis of the specific capability that he alluded to.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: This phrase, "young man," that you're using to refer to Kim Jong-un --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that's a new and deliberate thing? Let me – if it is, your rhetoric is not yet close to the North Koreans on it. I think you should probably get a little bit more flowery and bombastic if you want to – (laughter) --
MR KIRBY: Young dictator?
QUESTION: Young man.
MR KIRBY: Young dictator --
QUESTION: I wonder, on the young man --
MR KIRBY: I mean, factually, it's true.
QUESTION: Yeah, no --
MR KIRBY: He's young and he's a man.
QUESTION: Are you seeking to be insulting --
QUESTION: But young, he's more dangerous.
QUESTION: -- when using that phrase?
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: He doesn't have a mature – his mind, so --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: -- so he can use like --
MR KIRBY: I wasn't – when I was talking about --
QUESTION: It's like toys, nuclear weapon is like his toy.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, well I --
QUESTION: So he using his --
MR KIRBY: I didn't want to get into a psychoanalysis of it.
QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: But look, clearly, this young dictator continues to violate international obligations and continues to ignore the desperate needs of his own people, and continues to increase the tensions on the peninsula rather than work to decrease them. He has a choice, and we've talked about this before. The onus is on the North. The international community, at least those in the Six-Party Talks process, are ready to come to that table and to renew Six-Party Talks and to pursue a permanent, verifiable denuclearization on the peninsula. The onus is on the North to be willing to show that they too, he too, is willing to come back to that forum, and he has proven time and time again that he's not willing to.
QUESTION: But Six-Party or Four-Party or Three-Party talks doesn't working, because since 23 years we doing this way. But he made all the nuclear weapons, so --
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we're --
QUESTION: -- what do you expect for the party talks?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'd point you back to the – these latest – this latest UN Security Council resolution, which is not insignificant. It's the most stringent that's been applied in, what, some two decades, and there's a much stronger enforcement mechanism that is included in it. And look, we need to let it – it's not insignificant that it passed, and as quickly as it did. And now we have to let it play out, now we have to see it enforced. But it doesn't mean we're not going to keep trying to put pressure on them.
QUESTION: Have you seen the photograph of the young man with what is purported to be either an actual warhead or a mockup of a warhead?
MR KIRBY: I have not. What --
QUESTION: Okay. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts about that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I have not seen the photo.
QUESTION: I saw that.
QUESTION: Are you seeking to belittle him by the use of that phrase, the "young man," or the young – is that a deliberate effort to be belittling?
MR KIRBY: No, no. He belittles himself with his own conduct and the way he treats his own people.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: On India?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The Indian foreign secretary was here this week and he had a few meetings in the building. Do you have any readout for his meetings?
MR KIRBY: He did meet – he had a chance to meet with Deputy Secretary Blinken as well as other government officials, and I think you can imagine that – or expect that they talked about a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I don't have a detailed readout of those discussions. He met with many officials, not just Mr. Blinken. But I think the full range of issues in the U.S.-India relationship were discussed – economic, political, security.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that? Earlier this week, you said you are disappointed by the fact that India did not give visas for the commission on religious tolerance. Was that issue discussed in talks with the foreign secretary?
MR KIRBY: As I said, I'm not going to get into great detail here about the discussion. We had good, productive talks about a wide range of issues facing both our countries as we continue to try to deepen this relationship and deal with very common challenges. As for the commission and the visas, we've made our concerns known at various levels. I made them known right here from the podium. So we've not been bashful or shy about stating our disappointment.
QUESTION: The Indian – well, Indian embassy issued a statement in that – the effort to – counterterrorism issues was being discussed. In that context, was Pakistan discussed and the sale of F-16? Did India bring up the issue of sale of F-16?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to get into a detailed readout here. I said they discussed a wide range to include security issues. I can scarcely think of a time when we haven't sat down with our Indian friends that we didn't talk about counterterrorism, but I'm not going to get into a detailed readout.
QUESTION: But do you believe, in view of the F-16 and also the visa issue, you are not having a smooth ride with India?
MR KIRBY: No, I would actually disagree with that. I think we have had and we look forward to continuing to have a good, strong relationship with India writ large and with the Modi government specifically. And there are a lot of common issues, common challenges, common threats, quite frankly, that we and the Indian people face. So no, I would absolutely not characterize that at all. I think we've got a good, honest, candid, productive relationship with the Modi government, and we look forward to that continuing. In fact, we look forward to it deepening.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, on Syria. The head of CENTCOM, General Austin, said yesterday about YPG and Russia relations in Syria – he said that "I have observed that the YPG groups and Russia have been in cooperation in Syria's northwest part." And I was wondering, what is the State Department's position on YPG and Russia relations?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I'm not going to talk about military matters and tactical issues here from this podium. I've seen the general's comments. I think, though, your questions are really better posed to the Pentagon. What we have said – I'll just say, broadly speaking, what we've said all along is that from a military perspective – and this is as about as far I'm – as I'm going to go militarily, but as a – from a military perspective, we want to see the efforts in Syria directed against Daesh. And we've said that if Russia wants to and proves to be willing and able to play a constructive role in helping eliminate that group, degrade and destroy their capabilities inside Syria – well, that's a welcome addition to the effort, and we'd be willing to have conversations with them about that. And so I think I'm just going to leave it there. I mean, I'm not going to get into further parsing his assessment.
Yeah.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MR KIRBY: Who are you?
QUESTION: Oh, yeah. Bricio Segovia, RT Spanish.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, following a little bit this issue here, yesterday General Lloyd Austin and today as well Army General Joseph Votel said in front of the Senate that there is support actually to revive the training of Syrian opposition fighters. Is that something that the U.S. might consider at this point?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, you really should be talking to my colleagues at the Pentagon about this. This is a U.S. military program that was, as you know, suspended. But even back then – again, I want to be very careful not to tread on their equities. But I would remind you that even back then, when the decision was made to stop the program, there was talk right away of considering a revival of it at some point after a careful review of lessons learned had been had and there had been an opportunity to see whether there was a way to move forward with it in a different way. So if that's in fact what our military commanders have decided to do, well, then they should speak to that. But I would point you back to what they said before, which was that it wasn't – it wasn't killed outright as an idea; it was simply stopped because it wasn't having the effect that we all wanted it to have. And they even said then that it could be revived.
QUESTION: Do you think that now that there is a ceasefire is the right time maybe to bring up this topic again?
MR KIRBY: The ceasefire is very important because it's giving us an opportunity to begin to have – well, first of all, a reduction in violence – without question a significant reduction in violence – and provide some space for a political process to get going. And I would let the military speak to decisions that they are making or they are not making. But we believe that – we still believe that the answer here to the civil war in Syria is, in fact, a political process. And we're – our focus here at the State Department is on helping make sure that that political process moves forward.
QUESTION: How do you feel about the opposition not confirming taking part in the talks yet?
MR KIRBY: I would point you to comments I've seen them say today, that they're – they actually feel like the direction – at least the spokesman, the comments that I read by the opposition spokesman today indicated that they are prepared to make a decision very, very soon about their participation. I'll let them speak to the timing of that. But he also said that their view is that things are moving in a very positive direction in Syria, and that there has been a reduction in violence. And those comments mirror very closely what Dr. Hijab mentioned to Secretary Kerry himself, that things – that the cessation of hostilities did appear to be largely holding, that there was a reduction in violence, that all of – and that humanitarian assistance, let's not forget, was getting to people, increasing numbers of people. Now I think the number is more than 225,000. There was another convoy earlier this week. That all of those things are vectors that are moving in a positive direction and that they were encouraged by that movement, by the direction of these events.
So again, they – I'll let them speak for themselves. We obviously want to see them participate, we want to see them go, but these are – that's a decision they have to make and for them to announce when they're ready.
QUESTION: Do you think it's a good sign though that, I mean, talks are expected to be resumed on Monday and we don't have an answer yet from such an important party, which is the opposition?
MR KIRBY: Well, today's Wednesday. We got a few days till Monday. And again, I would point you to the cautiously optimistic tone of their own comments. I'm not going to – I can't predict what their answer is going to be. We obviously think it's important for them to be there. Staffan de Mistura said the same thing I think today. So we're planning on these talks resuming. I know Mr. de Mistura is planning on these talks resuming in Geneva, and we obviously want to see them participate. We certainly hope they will. And there's still plenty of time between now and Monday for them to reach a decision about whether they'll come.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: Yes, please.
QUESTION: In your understanding, what kind of government Mr. de Mistura will work on through these talks in Geneva – unity government, a transitional government?
MR KIRBY: These talks – as you know, they got started only to then stall, so this is the second attempt to try to get them going. And I think your question's missing the essential point, which is that we want whatever the transition process looks like, and if that includes a transitional government, that that is determined by the parties and that the opposition gets their voice heard on that, and that's not something that Mr. de Mistura is going to legislate to them. That's the whole reason for having these talks, is to try to be able to answer that question. So you're asking me a question that I couldn't possibly answer at this time.
QUESTION: Because Russia is talking about a national government, not a transitional government.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments, Michel. All I can tell you is we want the parties to work this out. We always recognized that there would be some transitional structures in place as we go from the regime to a post-regime government. What that looks like and whether you call it a unity government or a transitional government or whatever, we haven't – we, the United States, haven't laid down a policy on that, on what that ought to be called, what it ought to look like, how it should be – what it's comprised of. What we want, and the Secretary has said this many times, is we want to make sure that the key institutions of government, the key functions of a government are at least preserved in some form or fashion. And he specifically mentioned the security forces and the need to have some – some security forces in place, because that's obviously critical to an increased sense of stability.
But what the other institutions look like, feel like, how they operate, all that stuff has to be ironed out, and that's why it's important, so important, for these talks in Geneva to get started so that they can start to have those discussions.
But if you go back and you look at the communiques, they've consistently said that it's got to be Syrian-led, Syrian-determined, and that means the opposition too. They need to have a voice in what the transitional process looks like and what the governing structures as we work through a transitional process function like, okay?
QUESTION: John, can I go back to Iran for just one second?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: In the call, was there anything else raised by the Secretary with Foreign Minister Zarif other than the concern about the missile launch?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of anything additional. I mean, the purpose was to communicate his concern about --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- about these reports on ballistic missiles.
QUESTION: All right. Well, the reason is because the Secretary, the White House, and the FBI all put out statements today about the ninth anniversary --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- of Bob Levinson going missing. The Levinson case did not come up in the Secretary's call to Foreign Minister Zarif?
MR KIRBY: I – what I'm – what I can tell you for sure is that the purpose of the communication with Foreign Minister Zarif was to relay concerns about these ballistic missile reports. I didn't get a full readout of everything. As you know, it is something we routinely bring up – Mr. Levinson's case – we routinely bring up. And there was a statement by the Secretary today as well.
QUESTION: I understand, but can you check to see? Because it would be a – I think it might be a little unusual if it didn't come up given that today is an anniversary, and there were statements from this building, from the White House, and the FBI all talking about it.
Now, and related to that, in all three statements I think it talks about how the Iranians have – had, as part of the prisoner swap deal from January, agreed to help – agreed to do what they can to see if they can find out where he is. Are you aware, since that pledge or promise was made, have the Iranians actually done anything?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you, Matt, is that we definitely want to hold them to their commitments to provide as much information as they can. And I would tell you, without getting into too much detail, that we believe that they can do more, that they could --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but have they done --
MR KIRBY: -- they could do more to help us gain more information about his whereabouts.
QUESTION: But do you believe that they have done anything at all since making that pledge? Not going back pre-January, just since they made their promise as part of this agreement, have they done anything?
MR KIRBY: I think it's, again, fair to say that we think that there's certainly more assistance, more information that we'd like to see coming from the Iranians.
QUESTION: Yeah, but I --
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: I can't tell from that answer if they've actually done anything, or if they've just blown this off and just kind of forgotten about it and need to be constantly reminded.
MR KIRBY: Well, let me put it this way: We haven't forgotten about it.
QUESTION: I understand that.
MR KIRBY: And we haven't forgotten about their promise to do more and their commitment to do more, as was agreed upon. I don't have any specific information that I can tell you was provided.
QUESTION: Okay, I'm not asking for what the information is, just do you think that they have acted on their pledge at all or have they just ignored it? That's the question.
MR KIRBY: I think I'm going to have to leave it where I did --
QUESTION: All right. And then --
MR KIRBY: -- that we think they can do more.
QUESTION: Okay. And then this came up at the White House briefing as well. But the FBI statement about him, about Mr. Levinson, described him as America's longest-held hostage. Neither the White House nor the Secretary's statement described him as a hostage. It just referred to him as having gone missing and that the last time he had been seen was nine years ago today on Kish Island in Iran. Is there a difference of opinion why – about what his status is?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I'd let the – I mean, certainly the – what I would say is this, that when you look at the FBI's statement, we would certainly agree with the FBI that he's been gone too long and that he needs to be returned to his family. He needs to be able to come home. And that's a consistent message that we've had with the Iranians and with the family. It has been too long. What we also believe is that we'd like more information about his whereabouts, and that's why we've pressed the Iranians to provide that – more information about his whereabouts. And we're not going to stop trying to press the case for more information about where he is and what condition.
QUESTION: Right, but that doesn't – I mean, does the Administration regard him as a hostage?
MR KIRBY: What I'll tell you, again, is we think it's time for him to come home and we want more information about his whereabouts.
QUESTION: The reason that this is the – the reason that people are asking this question, not just me, is because throughout the Iran deal negotiations, the State Department and the White House refused, or would not, or decided – did not use the term "hostage" as it related to the other Americans who were being held there. And I just want to know if you – do you regard him – does the FBI's statement calling him a hostage mean that his case is demonstrably different in your view than the case of the others, who their location at least was known if – even if you didn't agree with why they were being held? Or should we just assume that – or should we come to the conclusion that, in fact, they all were hostages and there's still one left?
MR KIRBY: What we know is that he disappeared, and he disappeared in 2007 from Kish Island. Unfortunately, there's not a lot more that we do know. And that's what we're trying to learn, and it's why we're going to continue to hold Iran to its promise to provide more information about his whereabouts. I appreciate the question, I do. And I understand exactly what you're asking me. What I can tell you is he's been gone too long; the information that we have is imperfect, to say the least, about where he is; and we're going to keep pressing the case to try to learn as much as we can. He needs to come home. He needs to come home.
QUESTION: One more on Iran. Did you see Secretary Clinton's comments about --
MR KIRBY: -- I'm sorry, Secretary --
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton's comments – former Secretary Clinton's comments about the need for sanctions against Iran because of its ballistic missile tests? And do you have any comment on those?
MR KIRBY: I did not see her comments. As you know, I'm simply not going to react to campaign rhetoric one way or another from any candidate. But what I can say, Arshad – and I talked about this earlier, because the Secretary raised his concerns today with Foreign Minister Zarif about these reports – that we're obviously continuing to analyze this as best we can and get as much information as we can. That's why he reached out to the foreign minister in the first place. And if it's true that these are in fact ballistic missile launches that they've conducted, there's no question that that's a violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and we will take the matter up with the UN – absolutely, no question about it. I also said, and happy to repeat, that we'll – we won't take off the table unilateral actions that – any unilateral tools that we have at our disposal to deal with these kinds of violations of this capability.
QUESTION: John, a couple more about the – pardon me – the Kerry-Zarif phone call. Did the Secretary make any reference during the phone call to the reported anti-Israel language on the side of one of these missiles?
MR KIRBY: As I said to Matt – and I only learned about his communication with Foreign Minister Zarif just before coming out here. I understand it to be about – the prime mover was to express concerns about these reports. I don't have additional information to share with you at this time.
QUESTION: Is there any U.S. concern about the timing of this, whether or not it might have been – Iran might have done this to coincide with Biden's visit to Israel?
MR KIRBY: I think you'd have to ask officials in Tehran. I mean, clearly they did something here. I don't think – well, nobody's disputing that actions were taken here by the military. As for the motivation to do it, you'd have to talk to Tehran about that. I would be loath to try to predict what was in their minds when they did it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Change of topic, if I could? Do you have any comment on the Global Respect Act that was introduced yesterday that would allow the U.S. to issue sanctions against government officials, foreign government officials who are responsible for LGBT rights abuses? And then a second question that's a little bit different: Have you seen the petition on the White House website about urging the President to remove U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Wally Brewster for, quote, "promoting in his official duties an LGBT agenda inconsistent with the Christian cultural values and traditions of the Dominican Republic?"
MR KIRBY: On the second one, you're going to have to let me get back to you. I have not seen that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: On the first one, I think you understand we don't comment on pending legislation. That said, the United States remains committed to protecting and promoting the universal human rights of all persons, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons around the world. And that is a significant principle that we're going to continue to promote, because we believe that this is about human rights, universal human rights.
Matter of fact, I had a meeting yesterday with Mr. Berry, our special envoy. And some of you may know he's approaching now the anniversary of his time in this job, and I think we're going to be able to get him to come on out and talk to you a little bit more about some of the conversations he's been having around the world with other countries and some of the progress that other countries are making, as well as, quite frankly, some of the challenges that he sees in many places around the world as well. But the United States is a leader in this regard in terms of promoting these very basic human rights. And we're going to continue to stand up for that.
QUESTION: Can I just – I take issue with this "we don't comment on pending legislation." That's just, frankly, not true. You comment on it all the time. The White House routinely issues veto threats about legislation that's being proposed on the Hill. I don't understand – I mean, you comment on pending legislation if you feel it's in your interest to comment on it. Why do you not feel it's in your interest to comment on this piece?
MR KIRBY: We're not – I'm just not going to comment on this particular piece of legislation, and we routinely decline to comment on pending legislation – routinely.
QUESTION: Well, you also routinely don't decline to. You also routinely comment on pending legislation.
MR KIRBY: I'm having a hard time remembering times when I've myself talked about pending legislation.
QUESTION: Really? All of the Iran stuff that was up before the Hill --
MR KIRBY: That was about – that wasn't about pending legislation. That was about the deal itself --
QUESTION: No, no, no, no.
MR KIRBY: -- and defending the deal as it was being constructed.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it was stuff that you said you opposed because it would ruin the deal. That was pending legislation.
MR KIRBY: We routinely refuse to comment on pending legislation, Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, when it's not – I just don't understand why it's not in your interest to comment on this.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout about the visit by Under Secretary Shannon to Saudi Arabia yesterday and --
MR KIRBY: I can confirm that he's in the region. I don't have additional details right now.
QUESTION: Yeah, but what about the reports about the Houthis and the Saudis reach an agreement about having a truce on the border between --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we've seen those reports and welcome them. I mean, if through some measure of dialogue, the Houthis and the Saudis have been able to reach a cessation of hostilities of their own there in Yemen, we obviously welcome that because, as we've long said, we want a political process to move forward in Yemen.
QUESTION: This happened during the visit of Under Secretary Shannon. I mean, he met with the Yemeni foreign minister yesterday. Did he play any role --
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I don't have additional details to talk about with respect to his visit. I can tell you that he's in the region, but again, I – as I said the other day, I would point you to Saudi authorities to speak to conversations and consultations that they might be having with Houthi representatives.
Goyal.
QUESTION: John, thank you. Two questions. One, as far as this nuclear summit is coming up and India's foreign secretary, Dr. Jaishankar, was in Washington meeting and greeting U.S. officials on the upcoming visit of Prime Minister Modi, who is going to be participating in this nuclear summit. My question is here, that what is the future of U.S.-India civil nuclear now after now almost 11 years? Do you think this issue will be solved at this summit, that U.S. trucks will be rolling to India for this nuclear – civil nuclear --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any specific agenda items to read out to you on the nuclear security summit. Obviously, we're very much looking forward to that and to our ability to participate in it. But I don't have anything specific with the Indian civil nuclear program to discuss today, Goyal. I just don't.
QUESTION: The Secretary supported, the President supported, and the U.S. Senate and establishment of course supported, and as the law was changed for – between the U.S. and India as far as the civil nuclear agreement is concerned, but Indians are still waiting and asking when this will happen after 11 years – a long time.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I'm afraid I just don't have an update today.
QUESTION: And second, if I may --
MR KIRBY: That was your – was your second one.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Now we're on number three. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yesterday was International Women's Day, and according to the UN, still millions of womens are suffering around the globe, and they are – many of them are victim of honor killings. And this recent Oscar-winning movie by a Pakistani Canadian was on this issue. Any comments on that issue now?
MR KIRBY: On the movie or the issue of --
QUESTION: Movie and the – plus the honor killings (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: We talked about this after the – we actually talked about this after the Oscars. I mean, I think – and I said any spotlight that can be shone on issues like that, like honor killings, is a good thing if it increases awareness among the public about this practice and about the maltreatment, the abuse – physical, emotional, and mental – of women and girls around the world. I mean, that's – if it raises awareness on those issues, then that's a good thing, and we talked about this in the wake of the Oscars.
And again, back to the issue of human rights, it is – it remains a key principle and one that we're going to continue to advance and support here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: John, you announced yesterday that Mrs. Nuland is going to Athens, Greece, and since all the international media today are talking about the humanitarian disaster in northern Greece with the refugees, can you tell us if she's planning to visit the refugees in northern Greece?
MR KIRBY: I actually don't have additional detail. We did put out the notice that she's traveling, but I don't have any additional detail on her agenda or itinerary. I don't. But look, clearly, though, the issue of the refugee situation in Europe will be a topic of discussion. There's no doubt about that. But as to her physical agenda and schedule, I just don't have anything.
Abbie.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the top subject? The --
MR KIRBY: Which is what?
QUESTION: Oh, Hillary Clinton's emails and the RNC court filing. Part of that was a request for text messages. Does the State Department require employees to hold onto or archive their text messages?
MR KIRBY: What we require is that there's a proper – and employees are trained into a proper way of preserving and maintaining records of your official communications, and that is the employee's responsibility to do that. So, I mean, everybody here and working here knows that they have to do that.
QUESTION: So if text messages were retained by the employees at that time, it is possible they could be part of the material that would be handed over?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm going to be careful not to talk about a matter that's under litigation. I can just tell you what the requirements placed on employees here are in terms of records preservation and management.
QUESTION: Well, aren't text messages regarded as official communications?
MR KIRBY: They can be.
QUESTION: So therefore, it would be incumbent on the employee to retain any such --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- official text messages?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: How far back does that go? Would that cover the period in question from 2000 to --
MR KIRBY: I don't know when it exactly started, Matt. I'd have to find out for you.
QUESTION: So this is --
MR KIRBY: That's certainly the -- that's certainly the --
QUESTION: 2011 to '13.
QUESTION: It is now, but it's been three years since and things have changed somewhat, so --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don't know exactly when the policies – so, certainly, look, I've been here less than a year and I can tell you certainly I've always been – it is what I was trained when I got here. So I just don't know how far back it went. But I won't comment on a matter that's under litigation.
Yeah.
QUESTION: A different topic. So some lawmakers are drawing attention to what they consider wasteful spending by the federal government. One report that we've received highlights a $90,000 expenditure by the State Department for the expressed purpose of fostering good relations with the United Kingdom. Apparently, the Department of State is using this grant for subawards between $250 and $40,000 to help with student and faculty exchanges, speakers, art programs, and the like, all under a 1961 law. Does the State Department have any reaction to this, and can the department justify such a use of taxpayers' money?
MR KIRBY: Do I have a reaction to the notion that we would want to keep facilitating a good, healthy relationship with the United Kingdom?
QUESTION: A special relationship.
QUESTION: A special relationship.
MR KIRBY: A special relationship with the United Kingdom.
QUESTION: One that critics are saying that is already a good relationship.
MR KIRBY: Look, I'm aware of the concerns expressed about this program and about that dollar figure. And what I would tell you is that we have programs like that all over the world. Some are managed right out of the posts and the embassies and the budget that they're given rather than out of a central pot. Doesn't matter, but I mean, it's just a point to make. And we have cultural exchange programs and education programs and other public diplomacy programs with countries all over the world, and we believe they're very important. And I would remind you that the State Department's operating budget is about 1 percent of the entire federal budget. So the – we believe the American people are getting a heck of a bang for their buck out of the money that's spent in the State Department's budget, considering the wide swath of our responsibilities around the globe.
So we also believe that we have to be good stewards of that 1 percent. It isn't a lot of money. But every dollar matters to us probably because it isn't a lot of money. And the Secretary's been clear that we're going to use every penny that we get to the maximum extent possible. And you're talking about the UK; we do have a special relationship with the UK, and they are very good friends. It's a deep and abiding relationship that goes way, way back in our dual histories. And like any friendship, all friendships need to continue to be cultivated and need to be, continue to be advanced and to improved.
And so we absolutely believe that efforts to contribute to cultural exchanges and public diplomacy initiatives, we – it's money well spent, and it can lead to entire new generations of young people who might otherwise not know or realize or fully appreciate the depth of this special relationship we have with the UK as they grow and as they become future leaders and future members of parliament or future members of Congress about the importance of preserving this very special relationship.
But as I said, there are other relationships around the world that we, likewise, very carefully and, I think, respectfully shepherd dollars to to help improve awareness and understanding. But it's – you have to continue to cultivate the roots of those relationships to keep them healthy.
QUESTION: All right, I'm going to break out of the "God Save the Queen" there for a second.
MR KIRBY: If I knew the words, perhaps I may – (laughter) --
QUESTION: Well, the relationship isn't so special after all, is it?
MR KIRBY: No, of course it is. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Can you – are you --
MR KIRBY: It's just I'm not a good singer.
QUESTION: Are you actually aware of the specific program that she's talking about? I mean, are you aware of this --
MR KIRBY: I have a general understanding of it. I don't have how --
QUESTION: How much was it for again?
MR KIRBY: -- every one of it is broken --
QUESTION: It was 90 – apparently $90,000.
QUESTION: Ninety thousand dollars?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Which is how – what percent of the 1 percent that you get? Just curious.
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: You don't? All right. I've got two very brief --
MR KIRBY: I don't even know how to balance our checkbook at home. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I'm going to give you the IAEA report from last time and see if you can come to the same conclusion they did based on the information in it.
MR KIRBY: Are we going back to that again?
QUESTION: No. No, no, no, no. I've got two --
MR KIRBY: Three days in a row, man.
QUESTION: I've got two extremely brief ones. One, on Israel as it relates to the American citizen who was killed in this attack at --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- Jaffa yesterday, do you have any more detail on that? And is – apart from what you regularly – the department and the embassy and the consulate do normally, I know and understand that the Vice President is there and he's spoken to it and everything. But has there been anything else done, like has the Secretary called – made any calls, or is this basically because the Vice President's there, he – the White House is handling this specific incident?
MR KIRBY: Well, you're right. I mean, the Vice President is there and I know that he has certainly spoken to this. I don't have a whole lot of additional detail to offer. Mr. Force's name is out there, as you know. We are aware of reports that at least another one single American might have been injured. I don't have any more detail on that, but we're obviously working with Israeli authorities to learn as much as we can. And we are, of course, providing consular assistance to the families. And again, I want to express, as I did the other day, our deepest condolences and sympathies. And I don't have additional details about the attack itself, though.
QUESTION: All right. In his comments with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Vice President was critical of the Palestinian Authority for not condemning or not being condemnatory enough about this. I presume that this building shares the Vice President's sentiments on this. But I want to go – so that's the first question: Do you?
And then the second question is: This is not the first American citizen who has been killed in these circumstances – these kinds of – kind of circumstances, and you routinely say that there needs to be an end to an incitement – an end to incitement. But in this case, the arms of the Palestinian Authority seem to have congratulated him, the assailant, as a martyr, as – and this is an American citizen we're talking about, so it's – this person is your responsibility, for lack of a better word. Is it – is there anything more that you think you can do to tamp down the incitement?
MR KIRBY: Well, so first – to your first question, we absolutely agree with the Vice President. And as we – we condemn these attacks. I know he did, but he also, as you said, condemned the failure to condemn the attacks, and we share those sentiments. We agree with him. We've consistently called on the Palestinians to condemn the violence, and this incident is no different. There just can't be any justification for this kind of hateful violence. And I would say that we have raised our concerns about this particular incident with the Palestinians, in addition to the Vice President doing it. We have.
QUESTION: Okay. Then can you elaborate a little bit?
MR KIRBY: I won't – I'd rather not elaborate with any more detail, but I can tell you that in addition to him raising it, we have raised it. And I'll let the Vice President's office speak to more detail about his conversations. But it's absolutely unacceptable.
And your second question, what more can you do – I mean, we're going to – we're obviously going to continue to press the case here that incitement is intolerable.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: From --
QUESTION: But is there any consequence that the Administration would be willing to consider?
MR KIRBY: I don't want to speculate, and I certainly don't want to get ahead of decisions that haven't been made yet or may be made, and I just – I don't think that's a healthy thing. But I can tell you that it certainly has everybody's attention here in Washington at the very highest levels. And you can hear that sense of frustration just listening to how the Vice President talked about it.
QUESTION: Right. On the other side of the coin, there have also been incidents in which Israeli authorities have – you have complained about Israeli authorities' treatment of Palestinian Americans.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Not just at the airport or in transit or things like that, but also in custody. So I guess a similar question: Is the Administration willing to consider any consequence for that?
MR KIRBY: Again, I think my answer will be the same.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: We – you're right, we have been open and honest about our concerns with respect to certain issues of treatment of Palestinians. And we're not going to shy away from continuing to express our concerns when we have them. But I wouldn't get ahead of speculative or hypothetical reactions to it.
QUESTION: All right. Last one, extremely brief: The Honduras question I asked yesterday – did you get an answer to that?
MR KIRBY: I did look into it. What I can tell you is we have offered assistance to Honduran authorities with respect to their investigation. We have communicated and continue to communicate our desire to see that this investigation proceed, proceed expeditiously but yet thoroughly, and to be done in a credible way. And without predicting the outcome, I can just tell you that we are in close touch with Honduran authorities, and we will stay in close touch with them about this.
QUESTION: Until it's resolved?
MR KIRBY: Until it's resolved. Absolutely.
QUESTION: One quick question, John. French foreign minister has said that there will be meetings during this week and in Paris with the participation of Secretary Kerry on Libya and Syria. Do you have anything?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any official travel to announce today. I'd say stay tuned. I think there's – there – we may have more to say about that in the next day or so, about the Secretary – about potential travel by the Secretary.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)
DPB #39
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
