Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 14, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
IRAN/REGION
SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
ETHIOPIA
JAPAN
SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
IRAN
MEXICO/REGION
CUBA/REGION
DEPARTMENT
COTE D'IVOIRE
SYRIA/IRAQ/REGION
UNITED KINGDOM/REGION
BAHRAIN
DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
1:37 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: How are you? Did everybody have a good weekend?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Everybody lose an hour?
MR KIRBY: You lost an hour.
QUESTION: So did you --
MR KIRBY: That's true.
QUESTION: -- unless you live in the alternate universe.
MR KIRBY: No, no, I lost an hour too. But I got to watch almost the entire NASCAR race so I was – Sunday was good.
Okay, on Syria. As the Secretary said yesterday in Paris following his discussions with European counterparts, we strongly support the UN-led negotiations underway in Geneva, and we look forward to their continued progress. We understand that UN Special Envoy de Mistura held some initial consultations already today with both HNC and regime representatives, and I think, as you saw, he actually talked about that a little bit. He said that he plans to focus the agenda this week on how to actually implement what has already been indicated and agreed to by the international community.
It's worth noting that this week marks the fifth anniversary of the Syrian revolution, which was really about freedom and dignity, and that spirit endures today with the same peaceful protests that are now ongoing – the first peaceful protests that we've been able to see in Syria for quite some time – and calls for basic rights, reform, and justice that started, again, five years ago. We believe these negotiations represent an important step toward fulfilling these aspirations, stopping the violence and the suffering, and bringing about a Syrian-led political transition in accordance with the Geneva communique of 2012, and of course, the follow-on communiques and the UN Security Council resolution.
The parties must seize this opportunity. We urge all sides to support these negotiations so that we aren't back here next year or the year after facing a region with even more refugees, even greater numbers of dead and displaced, and even more suffering and erosion of hope. So there's an opportunity today in Geneva, a big opportunity, and the Secretary spoke to that. And we want to see all parties seize it and try to move forward to a better Syria for not just the Syrian people but for the entire region.
With that --
QUESTION: I want to start with, unless someone wants to go --
QUESTION: John, I have something on Syria.
QUESTION: On Syria.
QUESTION: Did you see the conference by Syrian Government officials over the weekend saying that the question of President Assad's future was not up for discussion --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- notwithstanding everything that you've said and notwithstanding what the Geneva communiques say about a transitional governing authority?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What's your reaction, and what makes you hopeful that you'll actually get to an agreement when that's their perspective?
MR KIRBY: Well, for one, we're not going to react to every comment made by the parties who have the opportunity to speak publicly. And we're not – I'm just not going to react to each and every one of them. What I would rather do is point to the fact that they're there in Geneva, that they are being represented in Geneva, and there's – it's beyond dispute that there are still differences of opinion. I think that's obviously very clear to everybody. That's why you negotiate. That's what the purpose of negotiations is all about, to reach a compromise, to try to bridge gaps, to try to see if you can't close some of those seams. Now, they just started so we'll see where it goes. But as Special Envoy de Mistura said today, he's encouraged that we – that he is able to get these talks underway and to have these discussions.
So those comments are not unusual. They're not surprising. They are similar to what we've heard in the past. And again, rather than react to every assertion made by each side, I think what we want to do is see how the actual proximity talks go.
QUESTION: Well, does that mean that you just regard this as their opening bid, so to speak, and to do you expect them to climb down on it? Because they've had this opening position for five – more than five years.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don't know that I would call it an "opening position." I think it has – they've said these things before --
QUESTION: So what gives you --
MR KIRBY: -- even before – even when there wasn't talk of talks.
QUESTION: Right. Exactly.
MR KIRBY: So, again, it doesn't come as a surprise.
QUESTION: But they say it's non-negotiable and you say it is. Well, you can't have it both ways.
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to react to every comment that they made, Matt – or they make, and they will continue to make comments. There's no question about that. But again, I'd point you back to what Mr. de Mistura said today himself, which is that the purpose for these proximity talks are to try to make progress on a transition and a political process that leads us not only to a constitution – a new constitution for Syria, but eventual elections. And that's the whole purpose for getting people at the table, and that's what his expectation is going into it.
Now, the regime will have their views and the opposition will have theirs. We know what the unifying negotiating principles are of the opposition since they agreed to them in December in Riyadh, and so now we need to let the process go. But the whole purpose for a negotiation is to go into it understanding that both sides don't have the same view and to try to work out compromises so that you can get to some sort of process.
QUESTION: I said that I didn't have anything on Syria, but I just remembered something, and that is Foreign Minister Lavrov I believe over the weekend made a comment to the effect that Russia and its allies would – could or should or here's an idea: We, meaning Russia and the Assad regime, will take Palmyra, focus on that, and the U.S. and its coalition can – should focus on Raqqa. Is that something that you guys are amenable to?
MR KIRBY: I saw those comments. I don't have anything to add to them except to say that we've --
QUESTION: Well, I don't want you to add to them, I just want to know --
MR KIRBY: No, I --
QUESTION: -- if that's something that you think is a good idea.
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) I can appreciate that you don't want me to add to it, that you'd rather just have a straight-stick answer. But I do want to comment on it a little bit because while I don't have a specific reaction to that recommendation, I think it is worth revisiting the idea or what we've said in the past, which is that we're not presently coordinating militarily with the Russians. There is a level of coordination here, obviously, because of the cessation, which makes perfect sense. And like we've long said, if the Russians are going to direct all their military attention against Daesh, then that's a conversation we're willing to have. I know of no – and I would refer you to the Pentagon – but I know of no specific plans right now to divvy up the geography the way it was suggested by Foreign Minister Lavrov.
QUESTION: Have you seen any indication that the Russians and the regime, the Assad regime, are – have modified their strike plan post the cessation of hostilities?
MR KIRBY: Well, without question we've seen a change in Russian military activity and Russian air operations since the cessation. That – and I've said that before. Just mathematically, it's beyond dispute that they have – that they have made an effort to abide by the cessation of hostilities. And we have seen – in this period of the last two weeks, we have seen them take some strikes against Daesh targets. The – we've also seen and continue to see allegations and claims of violations of the cessation, predominantly against the regime. Again, we're not going to litigate all those in public. The Secretary talked about that as well yesterday. But the short answer to your question is yes. I mean, it's beyond dispute, mathematically speaking, that the Russian aircraft are flying less in Syria and --
QUESTION: And when they do?
MR KIRBY: -- appear to be holding to the principles of the cessation.
QUESTION: Right. You say flying less, but when they do fly, they're flying against – taking action --
MR KIRBY: I don't have --
QUESTION: -- against targets that you would agree with that are legitimate?
MR KIRBY: I don't have a daily analysis of every strike that they're taking or every mission or every sortie that they're flying, but we have seen them in the – let me just put it this way: We have seen in the two weeks of the cessation that they have conducted airstrikes against Daesh targets.
QUESTION: John, and just to follow up on that point. If there is some sort of coordination between you and the Russians to retake Raqqa, how would you conduct it? What form would it be? Would it be your air assets, their air assets, ground forces? What is likely – I mean, what are the parameters of that coordination?
MR KIRBY: I mean, I am supremely unqualified to answer that question, Said. First of all, it's a hypothetical, and as I told Matt, there are, at least that I'm aware of, no plans militarily to divvy up the labor in the same – with those geographical parameters as suggested by Foreign Minister Lavrov. And as for whatever coalition military support there might be in terms of retaking Raqqa, that's really a question for the Pentagon and for the coalition to speak to out in Baghdad. I just wouldn't be able – I don't have access to that level of information.
QUESTION: I mean, seeing how the last time the Russians and the Americans cooperated in the battlefield was World War II, really – I don't recall any events. How would that take place in such a complex area without sort of (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, your question presupposes that it will take place.
QUESTION: Okay. So that's fair enough.
MR KIRBY: And I've seen no indication that it will.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I've just seen no indication that it will. I know that coalition planners continue to look at Raqqa and – but I'm not privy to the military planning cycle right now or sort of – or what the thoughts are with respect to how you would go after that.
QUESTION: All right. And Matt raised the point that the Syrians may be aiming to retake Palmyra or attack Palmyra, and then maybe possibly Deir al-Zor, which is close to the Iraqi border and so on.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: Actually I don't, no. I mean, I won't – like, I don't even speak for our military. I'm certainly not going to speak for Russian military.
QUESTION: And my last point on this: Also, today there were reports that you guys blamed the Syrian regime for jeopardizing the cessation of hostilities – you and the French have done that. Is that based on violations or what?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of --
QUESTION: Yeah, I --
MR KIRBY: I mean, where I think this could be coming from is from comments that the Secretary made yesterday in Paris with respect to --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- comments made by some Syrian leaders about these talks. And I think he said very candidly that it would be a lost opportunity if these comments, if these going-in statements were somehow meant to spoil the effort to get at real, meaningful talks, or were to torpedo them before they've even started. Now, again, I'd say – I got you. You don't have to jump out of your seat. I got you. I know you want the next one.
The – it's encouraging that they did start, that they are there, and that Mr. de Mistura was able to come out and talk publicly about the fact that initial conversations did get started. And again, they're proximity talks. I understand that. But I think he struck a note of optimism that at least there was a beginning. Now we'll see where it goes. We'll see where it goes.
Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. I want to ask about --
MR KIRBY: I'll come back.
QUESTION: -- the American citizen who was captured by Kurdish forces in northern Iraq and who was said to have been fighting for Daesh. Is the State Department trying to get hold of him?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the reports that an American citizen has been taken by Peshmerga forces, and I – what I can tell you is we're working closely with Iraqi and Kurdish authorities to try to get more information to confirm the veracity of these reports. I just don't have any additional information right now.
QUESTION: Do you know how many Americans are with ISIL right now in – approximately?
MR KIRBY: I do not.
QUESTION: For those Americans with Daesh who want to get out, what's the procedure? What should they expect?
MR KIRBY: You're asking me to advise Americans --
QUESTION: Americans who are fighting --
MR KIRBY: -- that will be fighting with Daesh?
QUESTION: No, who would like to get out, who would like to defect. What should they expect? What would be the procedure?
MR KIRBY: I have no idea. And I don't know how anybody could have an idea how I could divine a process for defection. What I'll tell you is this: We have long recommended against travel to Syria by American citizens, point one. Point two, we've been very clear that if you go to fight for a terrorist organization, then you're a terrorist and then you do that at your own peril. Because the one thing the United States has proven time and time again is that we're capable of and willing to go after threats to our country and terrorism threats in particular where and when we need to. So you want to go take this up as an occupation, it's a short-lived occupation and you do it at your own peril.
Number three, while I couldn't begin to tell you, and I wouldn't even – it would be beyond the scope of this institution to advise Americans who might be fighting for Daesh sort of how to get out of it – what I will tell you is we do see and have seen over the last several weeks reports of more and more defections from the group, that – increasingly, for a variety of reasons. Fighters are becoming disenfranchised, certainly disenchanted with the effort that they claim they signed up for, and are in increasing numbers deciding to leave the group. And you see that borne out in numbers of ways – first of all, reports that we're getting from the ground that there are more and more defectors, but also that increasingly Daesh is relying on child soldiers. And originally they would rely on children for intelligence streams, getting information, some – and then turned to using them to conduct suicide attacks, which they still do. And now we get more reports about them using children in the actual – in actual engagements, side-by-side with adult fighters. So all those are good indications that they are struggling with their ability to recruit and to retain manpower.
I'm not at all suggesting that we don't still take the group seriously, that they aren't still lethal, that they aren't still capable. We've seen them conduct attacks in and around Baghdad just a week ago. So we're still taking the threat that they pose very, very seriously, but there does appear – at least anecdotally – to be some cracks here in their – in the foundation of their manpower and their resources in that regard.
QUESTION: Can you take this? This has just been reported, but Putin has apparently ordered, starting tomorrow, the start of withdrawal from – of Russian troops from Syria. I don't expect you to have anything to say about it now, but can you take that and see if you guys have any reaction?
MR KIRBY: Sure. Happy to do that. You got that, Elizabeth?
QUESTION: Yeah, that's what I was going to ask, whether the Russians – that President Putin has apparently just ordered his military to start withdrawing from Syria, saying they've fulfilled their objectives, and whether they had told you ahead of time that this is the plan and what sort of reaction – what sort of impact you might --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, you're going to have to let me take that question, guys.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I did not see that report before coming out here today, so I'm going to have to reserve comment until we have a chance to take a look at it and make an assessment.
Said, let me come back to you, but – because I already got you, so --
QUESTION: I'd like to change topics.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Pam. That's okay. I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: It's a follow-up question. Has the Secretary had any conversations with Lavrov over the past couple of days?
MR KIRBY: Let me consult the handy-dandy phone call list here. The last call that I have showing to Foreign Minister Lavrov was Thursday of last week, and I think we talked about that phone call. It was obviously about Syria, but it was also about Yemen in advance of the Secretary's travel to the region.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we change topics?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. Palestine-Israeli issue?
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, today – just a little while ago – reported that there were meetings conducted between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government under the – your auspices, under the American auspices, that was aimed or designed to have the Israelis withdraw from Area A and partially from Area B in exchange for maintaining security coordination between the two and so on, but that the – apparently the talks collapsed because the Israelis insisted that they will withdraw from Ramallah first and Jericho second and then the rest of the areas that they took back after the second intifada. Do you have any comment on that? Are you aware of this? Could you --
MR KIRBY: No. I haven't seen those reports and I'm not aware of any such talks, as you've put it. We obviously have --
QUESTION: Okay. Right.
MR KIRBY: -- routine discussions with all the parties about looking for ways to get the violence ratcheted down and to try to see in place not just rhetoric but actions that lead us to a two-state solution, but I have nothing specific to address with respect to that.
QUESTION: So it wouldn't be out of the realm of reality that talks may have taken place under your auspices?
MR KIRBY: I just don't have anything on that, Said. I'm not aware of any --
QUESTION: But it would not be --
MR KIRBY: -- organized talks the way you've described it there.
QUESTION: -- completely unusual or abnormal that you would actually do this.
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything for you. I'm not aware of any such effort.
QUESTION: Can we move to Iran?
MR KIRBY: Iran.
QUESTION: Yeah. So today the – or the Security Council began discussions about what to do about the Iranian ballistic missile tests, and it looks like you guys are not going to be able to get to anything, not even a council statement saying that Iran is in violation, much less a resolution that might impose more sanctions on them, at least international sanctions – the reason being, at least as explained by opponents, is that Iran didn't actually violate 2231 because 2231 calls on Iran not to do this instead of says that they can't or says "shall not."
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What's your take on that?
MR KIRBY: So it's a good question, and I think you might be referring to comments I think the --
QUESTION: Ambassador Churkin.
MR KIRBY: -- Russians said, yeah. So look, I'm – I don't know that it's fruitful to get into a back-and-forth over the technical meaning of "violation," but as you might have noticed, Ambassador Power addressed this very issue this morning, and we are very much associating ourselves with what she had to say, that – one, that we're in the process of preparing a report on these missile test launches to the Security Council, and we're going to raise the matter directly at the council on Monday. We believe the council is the right forum to have this discussion and we still remain deeply concerned about their recent ballistic missile test launches, which we continue to believe are provocative and destabilizing.
They are also, at the very least, inconsistent with but more practically in defiance of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which of course codified the Iran deal. So we could have an interesting discussion about the degree to which it's technically a violation. It doesn't mean, though, that it's okay, and it doesn't mean that the council should look the other way, and it doesn't mean that it isn't – that their actions are still not inconsistent with the obligations in that resolution, which calls on them to refrain from that activity. So we're still going to bring it up with the council and we still believe we have a strong case on that.
QUESTION: Well, that – I mean, really?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Because, I mean, look – I went back and I looked. 1929, which is what replaced – sorry, which was – 2231 replaced, at least in terms of the missile technology – UNSCR 1929, number nine, and it says "decides" – this is quote – "decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology." 2231, which replaced it and enshrined the Iran deal, says, "Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology." How is it that you're – that you can have any kind of a logical disagreement with what Ambassador Churkin said? You have "shall not" and then "is called upon." And as Ambassador Churkin said, you can't violate a call. You can ignore it, but it's not a violation.
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to get into a rhetorical debate about "violate" or "not violate."
QUESTION: Well, you're going to have to, because if you're going to push this at the Security Council, you're going to have to convince people – like the Russians and the Chinese --
MR KIRBY: Matt.
QUESTION: -- and others – that they're wrong and your interpretation is right. And if you can't --
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: -- do that, then you're going to lose. You're not going to be able to get anything through the Security Council.
MR KIRBY: We're comfortable we have a strong case.
QUESTION: Well, no one else --
MR KIRBY: These launches --
QUESTION: -- these other people don't --
MR KIRBY: These launches are clearly in defiance of that resolution. There's no question about it. And again, we can have – you can have a debate about "shall not" or "will not" or "called upon to not do it" or "violation" or not. And that's great, and I can debate that with you all day happily, and I'm happy to do that. What I'm telling you is we believe that there – these actions are not consistent with the obligations that they are called upon to meet in that resolution, and therefore, we have a case going forward and we want the council to bring it up and have that discussion. And look, let them have that discussion, and we'll see where it goes. But as Ambassador Power said this morning, and the Secretary very much associates himself with her views, is that we – there is a case to be made here. Clearly these are in defiance with that resolution.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the point is --
QUESTION: Why --
QUESTION: -- is that it's very difficult to see how you can claim that, one, the two resolutions say the same thing when they clearly don't, and --
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that the language was exactly the same, and I did not say it said the same thing.
QUESTION: Well, you had the Secretary and other people up on the Hill when people – when members of Congress asked about this language --
MR KIRBY: I did not say --
QUESTION: -- asked whether this was binding, and you made – they made the same argument that you're making now and that Ambassador Power made. However, the language is clearly different, and so I don't know how you're able to say that they are in violation of something that they're only being asked to do. They're not being told not to do it; they're being asked not to do it. So your argument, unless you can get into the back and forth of it and make a convincing argument that – for why the Iranians should be punished for this --
MR KIRBY: If we're saying – you're saying that because the resolution says we call upon them to not participate in any activity, ballistic missile-related, that that could lead – that can lead to the development of nuclear warhead capability (inaudible), right?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: So does – do you interpret that to mean that it – that that sentence means it's okay to do it?
QUESTION: Uh, no, but I interpret it --
MR KIRBY: Okay, right.
QUESTION: -- hold on --
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no.
QUESTION: But wait a second. But I also don't interpret it, if they go ahead and do it, you don't – I don't interpret it as to say that Iran is definitely in violation and because of that is definitely subject to more penalties.
MR KIRBY: But clearly you can see, given the language as it's written in 2231, and given their activity, that it is absolutely not in – it is not in keeping with that language.
QUESTION: But look, this is what – but diplomats negotiated this for – maybe not long enough, if you want to – if the case that you guys were trying to make in the negotiations is that they're the same, because they're clearly not the same.
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I am not – I'm – look, I'm not a – I didn't do well in grammar, so I'm not going to debate with you over "shall not" versus "calls upon to." But even you admitted that by the language as it's written, it wouldn't be okay for them to conduct ballistic missile launches.
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: Even by your interpretation of the language. So, okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, but being okay --
MR KIRBY: So let's talk. Let's have a discussion --
QUESTION: -- and not being okay is not something that's punishable --
MR KIRBY: Let's have a discussion in the council.
QUESTION: -- because this is language that is important for --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- and it has legal implications. And --
MR KIRBY: And that's why – precisely why --
QUESTION: -- "called upon" does not have a legal implication.
MR KIRBY: It certainly does in terms of --
QUESTION: It does because you want it to.
MR KIRBY: No. No, it's not – not because we want it to, Matt. It says that they are – it calls upon them to refrain from activity, ballistic missile activity, particularly as related to nuclear warhead capability. We believe that these tests are in defiance of – definitely not consistent with that language, and therefore it is exactly --
QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?
MR KIRBY: -- no, just let me – please let me finish this thought – that is exactly why we think the council should take it up. And let the council have this debate and discussion, and see where that goes. That's why the process is set up the way it is.
QUESTION: You just don't want to have it here? You're prepared to have it at the Security Council?
MR KIRBY: Yes, of course.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I mean, Ambassador Power said that.
QUESTION: I want to go back to your words from last week, where you explicitly said, "If these reports are true, then yes, they are in violation of 2231." So last week, you argued that it was a violation; now you're using very different language that it is not consistent with or that it is in defiance of. Why did you say it was a violation last week unless you were certain that it was a violation, and why have you changed the language to "not consistent with" and "in defiance of"?
MR KIRBY: First of all, last week we weren't sure whether the reports were true. And --
QUESTION: But you said "if" they were true. You were acknowledging that you weren't certain if the reports were true. We're talking --
MR KIRBY: Again, if you would just let me finish my answer, I can get this to you, okay?
QUESTION: Okay. Please. Yeah.
MR KIRBY: As I said, last week we weren't sure. Now we have more information that leads us to believe that they did, in fact, do these launches. And on a more careful reading of the language, I am being more specific in my answer today, okay?
QUESTION: Why weren't you – I mean, these are not trivial matters and --
MR KIRBY: I didn't indicate that it was trivial, not in the least.
QUESTION: No, but you apparently mischaracterized it a week ago, right? You said it was a violation. Now you've looked at it more carefully, you've concluded it's not, so --
MR KIRBY: There – again, I'm not going to get into a debate over verbs here. There is no doubt --
QUESTION: But verbs are important.
MR KIRBY: There is no doubt that now we know these launches occurred. There's no doubt. Look at the language yourself. You can't sit here and tell me --
QUESTION: I have; I read it last week.
MR KIRBY: -- that, given that they've done these launches, that they are somehow in full compliance with their obligations under that resolution. There's no way – there's just simply no way you can make that determination.
So I'm not going to debate the verb, okay? I have – a more careful reading since last week has led me to use the language I'm using today, but that doesn't by any means undermine the argument that they are still not acting in accordance with their obligations.
QUESTION: Verbs are important. And when you adopt a position from the podium that something is a violation, you're speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government.
MR KIRBY: I didn't say it was a violation last week. I said if it was true --
QUESTION: You said violated – if it was true, it violated. You've now concluded that it is true.
MR KIRBY: And I've also concluded – we have concluded that it is not in keeping with their obligations and therefore we're going to have the council take it up.
QUESTION: But it's not a violation?
MR KIRBY: Look, I've answered this question 10 different ways today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Different topics?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, wait, wait. Hold on. I just want to – is there a distinction here between what you're saying and what – Arshad's question? In "not in keeping with," it seems to me you think it's a violation still, but I don't know. Maybe you're – maybe --
MR KIRBY: We believe that their activity, and even you admitted, is not consistent with what they are called upon to do in the resolution.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR KIRBY: Therefore we believe – and because since we now determined that these launches did occur --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- with ballistic missile technology that they shouldn't be testing, we believe that it's important for the council to take this up. And the council can have this discussion about whether it was technically a violation or not. As I was speaking last week, I didn't know whether the --
QUESTION: Right, right.
MR KIRBY: -- we couldn't even confirm that the launches occurred.
QUESTION: No, no. But --
MR KIRBY: So we'll have the council take it up.
QUESTION: So in other words, the U.S. is not taking a position now whether Iran violated the resolution or not?
MR KIRBY: We are certainly taking a position that these actions are – that they are against the obligations that they have --
QUESTION: Does that – but does that mean "violate?"
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into the technical definition of "violate." Clearly, what they've done here is in defiance of their obligations under that resolution, and we believe the council should take it up.
QUESTION: All right. But see, the thing is is that it does not seem to be an obligation. You're just calling on them not to. So that doesn't – it would – that's like saying, "You know, Iran, it would be really nice if you didn't do this."
MR KIRBY: So the counterargument would be that we just ignore it?
QUESTION: No. No, no. I'm --
MR KIRBY: Oh, of course, not. We want to have it taken up (inaudible).
QUESTION: I'm not trying to make a counterargument, and it's not me who you need to convince about this.
MR KIRBY: Apparently it is.
QUESTION: Whether I think it --
MR KIRBY: Apparently it is you --
QUESTION: Whether I think Iran has violated the resolution or not is completely immaterial to what the argument is being made on the other --
MR KIRBY: We believe – we believe that --
QUESTION: They did.
MR KIRBY: -- based on what they've done, there is a case to be made in the council that they are not in compliance with their obligations under that resolution.
QUESTION: Okay. And do you – is it your position then that they violated the resolution and should be subject to additional sanctions, or --
MR KIRBY: That is a matter for the council to take up, but we want --
QUESTION: Yeah. But I'm not asking what the council thinks.
MR KIRBY: We want --
QUESTION: I'm asking what the U.S. thinks.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of the report that we're going to file.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: We haven't done that yet, okay?
QUESTION: All right. So this afternoon?
MR KIRBY: So let's let that happen. Let's let that happen and then --
QUESTION: Later this afternoon I can come back and ask the same thing?
MR KIRBY: -- and then we can talk about the details of what's in our report.
QUESTION: All right. How do – how can you make a case that negotiators, the U.S. negotiators, at the UN in changing the – or allow – accepting a change in the language from the very straightforward "shall not undertake" to "is called upon not to undertake." How do you make the case that that wasn't a concession?
MR KIRBY: Because I wasn't in the room when that was negotiated, Matt, I don't know what went into the actual drafting of the language. But I mean, we – and I under – and I get the utility of a rhetorical exercise here to try to parse out the language, and I agree with Arshad, frankly, that language does matter. But there's no question when you look at the language as written, what they've done definitely defies the obligation that they have under the resolution, and that's why we think the council should bring it up.
QUESTION: Except that --
MR KIRBY: And I can't speak to how that language was derived.
QUESTION: Where does the word – where does the obligation – okay. Where does – where do you get the word "obligation" from, or "obliged"? Iran is obliged or Iran is obligated. From 2231? I don't see that – how that --
MR KIRBY: It calls upon Iran not to undertake any launches of ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: But "calls upon"?
MR KIRBY: If I call upon you to stop asking me these questions, wouldn't that --
QUESTION: And that doesn't work, does it? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: All right, true. It's true, that never does work.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: It has zero effect.
MR KIRBY: So you are in violation of my call. (Laughter.) No, but if I --
QUESTION: All right, I'll drop it.
MR KIRBY: But if I call upon you to do something or not do something, I'm clearly stating an intent of the international community for you not to do something.
QUESTION: What you would like, it's something that you would --
QUESTION: He's in defiance of your call.
MR KIRBY: To comply or not comply.
QUESTION: But you would – but it's something that you would like --
MR KIRBY: And once again, you are not complying.
QUESTION: Yes, but you would like to see happen, not something that is punishable by --
MR KIRBY: Let's let the report go up to the council and we'll go from there, guys.
QUESTION: All right, fine. Obviously, we're not going to get anywhere on this.
MR KIRBY: Pam.
QUESTION: I have a couple on different issues. The first one is: There is expected to be a vote in the House later this evening on a measure that could declare the Islamic State guilty of genocide. The Secretary discussed this in his Hill testimony a few weeks back. First, where is the State Department in terms of coming up with its assessment of whether or not the Islamic State is guilty?
MR KIRBY: Well, first, off the bat, as you know, we remain appalled by the horrific acts of violence being committed by Daesh against people from a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups in Iraq and in Syria. Regardless of whether their conduct satisfies certain legal definitions, including genocide and crimes against humanity, the United States has been clear that our interest in accountability for the perpetrators remains undiminished. We abhor Daesh's heinous acts and are taking direct action to end those atrocities and mitigate their impact through a coalition of some 66 nations across five different lines of effort. As they seek to destroy the diversity of the areas that they terrorize, the U.S. Government will continue to work to help prevent mass atrocities, particularly against vulnerable religious and ethnic minorities. As the Secretary has made clear in testimony himself, the Department of State continues to collect and evaluate all available information regarding these atrocities.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria too.
QUESTION: Change topics?
QUESTION: So do you have anything to say about timing of when this will be done, or could be done?
MR KIRBY: Again, I would just point you to what the Secretary said, that he is working his way through our evaluation, continues to work through and continue to have consultations with the staff here at the Department of State. He said that he expects to reach a determination soon and I think that's still the case. I don't have any more specific update than that.
QUESTION: But I think Pam's – will the expected House vote tonight have any effect on his thinking?
MR KIRBY: I won't speak for the Secretary to the degree to which he would factor in any resolution voted by the House and put before the Congress. As a former senator, he obviously understands the significance of that process. But I can tell you what he's mostly focused on is making his determination based on evidence and analysis that he's getting from the State Department. And I'll also just say that he has taken very, very seriously and wants to make sure that whatever determination that he makes, it's fact-based and that it's adequately reflective of what we're seeing on the ground.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: If there is a determination from this building that it is genocide, what's going to be the next step as far as the State Department, the executive branch is concerned?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, that's a hypothetical, Pam, and I'm not going to get ahead of --
QUESTION: I mean, can you say in general what would happen if he --
MR KIRBY: I couldn't speak to that right now and I'm not – I don't want to say anything that's going to prejudice one way or another the Secretary's own process of working his way through the evidence and the analysis to make a determination. When such a determination is made and we can speak to it, then I think we'll be in a better position to talk about that going forward.
QUESTION: Can I ask you one on a different topic?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: This is on Ethiopia. There is an effort underway; a group of congressmen sent a letter to President Obama trying him to secure the release of Okello Akway Ochalla, who is a former governor in Ethiopia. He was arrested and detained after he spoke out against the government on human rights issues. Wanted to find out if there is a diplomatic effort underway on his behalf, and if so, what's the status?
MR KIRBY: I don't have that for you. I'm going to have to take the question and get back to you, Pam. Sorry.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Different topics? Thank you. U.S. Navy soldier arrested on Sunday on suspicion for raping Japanese woman. Okinawa prefecture already made a protest and also Okinawa people worry about the impact for tourism industry. So do you – I need a comment for U.S. Government.
MR KIRBY: Well, look, this is a serious matter, and we take it – we take these reports very, very seriously as does the Department of Defense and the United States Navy. I know that. We certainly have seen these reports of this arrest, and I have to refrain from specific comment because this is an issue that's being investigated by local authorities as well as the United States Navy.
What I can tell you is that the – and I know this for a fact, obviously – the United States Navy takes these matters very, very seriously and will do a thorough job of getting to the bottom of it. And if there's a need to hold someone accountable for crimes like this, they'll do that, and they'll do it in a very open, transparent way. But I just – I don't want to get ahead of it. Obviously, we take our relationship with the people of Okinawa, as with everybody in Japan, very, very seriously. It's a strong alliance, it's a deep and abiding friendship, and we have great respect for the Japanese people. Again, I can't speak to the – to whether or not this crime occurred in the circumstances. I wouldn't do that. But obviously, if it did, it's completely inconsistent with our values and our principles and what we expect of our people overseas.
QUESTION: How does the U.S. Department of State correspond that matter?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: The U.S. military is order the curfew or change to the – review the policy – a reaction?
MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I understand your question.
QUESTION: How does U.S. Government respond that matter?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, without speaking to a military matter, which I'm not qualified to do, when reports like this come to light, whether they're allegations or actual you have an arrest, like in a case like this, military law enforcement and the – and our military commands out there, they take it very, very seriously. And they work closely with local authorities to properly investigate the charges and/or the claims. And then there's a – and then there's a process that goes forward to adequately – to appropriately, I should say, deal with the allegations, to determine the veracity of them, and then if they're determined to be true, then to properly hold the individual to account.
I won't get ahead of reports of this criminal act. It just wouldn't be appropriate for me to do that, especially from this podium. I can just tell you that our relationship with the people of Japan is near and dear to us, and we have an alliance that we are very, very committed to. And we are confident that the Department of Defense will handle this appropriately. Okay?
QUESTION: I'd like to go back to the genocide declaration. Last week the Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians put together a nearly 300-page report on this exactly. It listed 1,100 Christians by name who were killed, churches that were destroyed, rapes, and other crimes against Christians. Can you expand where exactly the State Department is in defining genocide?
MR KIRBY: Well, there's a legal definition for genocide. But I don't want to get into the specifics of it at this point given that the Secretary's still working his way through his own determination. And as I said to Pam, he's taking it very seriously, and he wants it to be – he wants to take an analytical approach to this based on the best information that's available. Look, there's no question that, as I said in my answer, that this group has and remains capable of violence and atrocities across a wide swath of the population there in Iraq and in Syria, and that Christians have suffered and Yezidis have suffered and Shia have suffered. There's no doubt about it that this group continues to be capable of just raw, pure, brutal murder and torture. But we're going to take this seriously. We're going to – and the Secretary is going to take the time he needs to make the best determination possible.
QUESTION: Can you just address the criticism that the Administration doesn't want to get involved because of increased military action?
MR KIRBY: Well, I know of no such hindrance on him or his thinking. I think – I just don't find that claim credible at all, knowing what I know about how seriously the Secretary is taking the process. And again, he's going to do it based on the evidence that's provided to him and the analysis that he's given. And I can tell you he's working his way through this methodically, and he's asking tough questions. And that's what he's going to be focused on, and that's what's going to drive his determination, not potential one way or the other for the use of the military tool going forward. And it's not as if we're afraid to use the military tool against a group like Daesh. I mean, one of the lines of effort that we talk about the most is the military tool, and I'm not predicting anything post-determination. I wouldn't do that. But again, the argument that somehow it's being slow-walked or slow-rolled because of the likely pressure that it might result in further calls for military action just is baseless, based on very – my understanding of how seriously he's taking his own determination process. Okay?
QUESTION: Yes, please.
QUESTION: One on this.
QUESTION: On this point --
QUESTION: I've got one on this. When the Secretary was asked about this in his congressional testimony, he was specifically asked a question about genocide against Christians. In your answer just a couple of minutes ago, you mentioned the violence done to Yezidis and to Shia by --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- Islamic State. Is the determination that he is making – that he's studying and going through the process on now – whether they have committed genocide against Christians or whether they have committed genocide at all, whatever the group – Christians, Yezidis, Shia?
MR KIRBY: As far as I know, it is a determination of genocide.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Period.
QUESTION: Without regard to what group may have been the object of it?
MR KIRBY: As far as I know, it is a determination of genocide in general.
QUESTION: Okay. And then two other questions --
QUESTION: But that specifically – I mean, genocide has to be directed at a group or groups.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: It can't just be there.
MR KIRBY: Okay. So genocide against – let me put it in another way.
QUESTION: Is it – is he --
MR KIRBY: It's a determination about genocide based on the violence that we see them committing.
QUESTION: Against all religious minorities.
MR KIRBY: Well, clearly. I've said --
QUESTION: Or – okay.
MR KIRBY: -- they conduct violence against many groups.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Do you want to double-check that, that it is indeed just whether they're committing genocide against any group or whether it's a specific group?
MR KIRBY: No, I'm not going to double-check it.
QUESTION: Okay. If you're sure, that's fine.
MR KIRBY: I know the Secretary is taking a hard look at this, and again, I don't want to get ahead of any determination that he might or might not make.
QUESTION: But it's against – he's looking at genocide committed against any and all groups?
MR KIRBY: He's taking a hard look at the violence they are perpetrating against many different groups.
QUESTION: Okay. And then two other things. You said that you have now concluded and can confirm that these were indeed ballistic missile tests that Iran conducted. Can you be – since there were a series of them, can you be specific about which tests you have now concluded are – were indeed ballistic missile tests?
MR KIRBY: These are the tests that were, I believe, conducted a week or so ago. I don't have the exact date, but they were – there were two.
QUESTION: There were multiple, though. It was on – yeah.
MR KIRBY: There were two that we specifically talked about --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- in terms of ballistic missile launches.
QUESTION: Two on two different dates, correct?
MR KIRBY: That's my understanding.
QUESTION: Okay. And then lastly, have you – since you've now determined that those were ballistic missile tests, have you determined whether the devices tested or the activities undertaken – because the resolution is kind of broadly defined – could lead to – were either missiles capable of carrying or delivering nuclear weapons or could be activities that would be capable of yielding such a missile?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think by dint of the fact that we do believe that this is worth – that we're going to put – we're going to submit a report and we do believe that it's important for the council to take it up, that you can derive from that that we do believe that these launches were using a technology that we believe – again, in keeping with the language of the resolution – would have permitted them the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapon warhead. So we do believe that this technology was in keeping with that capability, and therefore we want to bring it up to the council.
QUESTION: Even if the particular missiles weren't at that time nuclear-capable?
MR KIRBY: Correct. Again, it doesn't – and the resolution says that --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- with ballistic missile technology capable of delivering nuclear weapons. That's the key.
QUESTION: The test, yeah.
MR KIRBY: And we believe that these tests were in keeping with that capability.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR KIRBY: Let me go over here. Yeah.
QUESTION: Is Jason Rezaian in this building today, and then do you have anything on his meeting with the President and other officials here?
MR KIRBY: He was in the building today, mostly to meet with Brett McGurk. I know that the Secretary dropped by, and I'm told that the President did as well briefly. I don't have a readout from those discussions, but I'm sure it was – they were – that both meetings were of a positive nature, welcoming him back and wishing him the very best. But I don't have a specific readout for it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Hi. Yeah. Thank you. I have a couple on Latin America. First, I wanted to ask about the nomination of Assistant Secretary Jacobson to be ambassador to Mexico. As you know, Senator Marco Rubio has been blocking her nomination. On Saturday, he said he will be – he will continue blocking her until she answers the questions he's asked of her. He mentioned her work on Cuba and Venezuela and the delay in formally requesting the extradition of El Chapo. And I wanted to know if the State Department has provided answers on those questions, if there's a problem there or none.
MR KIRBY: We have. We've answered all of the senator's questions, all of them, to include those two areas that you talked about – the extradition of El Chapo and Venezuela. And I would also add that the department has briefed the senator's staff repeatedly on issues that he has requested further information about since the hearing in July, which was eight months ago – eight months ago. We have also offered to provide any information that we can on any other subjects as well as an offer to meet with Assistant Secretary Jacobson. The senator has declined that invitation. On the issues that the senator has raised in the press, I can tell you that we have conveyed to his staff a level of detail of information that goes beyond – in fact, well beyond – the original questions that he asked.
Again, we hope that the Senate will call this to a vote and let the process itself – the process as it's supposed to play out – decide whether or not we're going to have an ambassador to Mexico to help promote and protect our interests there. Mexico's our third-largest trading partner. We face energy, border, and security challenges together, and together we also confront narcotics trafficking as a significant issue. So we continue to believe we need an ambassador there in Mexico City to represent our interests. And this lengthy, unnecessarily lengthy, hold has definitely hurt our ability to accomplish this. And we've said this many, many times. It's time to have a vote and make a determination. Obviously, we want the vote to lead to her confirmation and her installment there in Mexico City. The Secretary, the President stand firmly behind her nomination for this post. But it's time to have a vote. It's time to move the process forward. That's the way it's supposed to work.
QUESTION: Can I – wait, wait. Hold on. Can I just --
QUESTION: Secondly --
QUESTION: -- very briefly on this.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: You – what did Senator Rubio decline? An offer to meet with her?
MR KIRBY: To meet. To meet --
QUESTION: Or an offer for any more information?
MR KIRBY: To meet. To meet with her.
QUESTION: Did he give – I mean, he's been kind of busy lately, so one might understand why he wouldn't –
MR KIRBY: Well, I would --
QUESTION: -- not in Washington or – I mean, he might have a lot more time after tomorrow, but does he – like in principle opposed to meeting with Jacobson?
MR KIRBY: I would let the senator's staff speak to that. All I can tell you is an offer was made to meet, to address any other – resolving any other issues, any other questions outstanding, and that offer was declined.
QUESTION: Do you have anything --
QUESTION: I have a --
QUESTION: Go.
QUESTION: Just a quick question.
QUESTION: Can we --
QUESTION: It's yes or no. I know that the Secretary's traveling with the President to Cuba. He said in the past that he wanted to meet with the Colombian peace negotiators. Do you know if he's going to do that in this trip or will that be later?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates at this point on the Secretary's travel to Havana. He will be going as part – I think as you know – of the President's delegation. If there are additional or separate agenda items for the Secretary, at the appropriate time we'll announce those as we can.
QUESTION: Okay. But there can be – it's not impossible that --
MR KIRBY: I just don't have anything at this time to announce.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MR KIRBY: Matt, did you have a follow-up?
QUESTION: Can we --
QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about another nominee, Rose Gottemoeller.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any idea – excuse me – whether she's been scheduled for a hearing or what --
MR KIRBY: As I understand it, that – there isn't – there's no – there's not a hearing required, a confirmation hearing required for that position.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But I do think she is going up to the Hill this week for a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
QUESTION: John, can I ask you one question on the Ivory Coast attack?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. But actually, if you don't mind, I want to – Matt raised an issue that I do want to address. I want to take the opportunity, even though he didn't ask me, because you may have seen I reacted on social media over the weekend to a story by one of your colleagues about some of the challenges to her qualifications. And I just want to make it clear that the United States – the Secretary in particular, but the United States strongly supports her candidacy to be the new NATO Deputy Secretary General. She has impeccable credentials for that job, extensive experience in European security affairs. And as I alluded to in some of my social media interaction over the weekend, I mean, any suggestion that she has been anything other than completely forthcoming and honest with members of Congress about Russian activity with respect to the INF – they're just not based in fact and actually are, as I said in my posting, an affront to her character and integrity. She's served this country very well and honestly, and again, we believe she's – we're proud of our nomination of her to this post. We believe she's the best candidate, and we want to see that move forward. So --
QUESTION: Well, if she doesn't need to be confirmed, then what's the --
MR KIRBY: It's not – no, it's not a Senate-confirmable position.
Yes.
QUESTION: What can the State Department tell us about the Ivory Coast attack and the targeting of Western diplomats?
MR KIRBY: I've seen – so first of all, you saw our statement over the weekend, obviously, expressing condolences to all those affected by this terrorist act, this just terrible attack. And we've, obviously, reached out to Ivorian authorities to offer whatever assistance we can as they investigate this. At this point, I've seen no information and no indications that it was targeted against Americans, either in general or specifically. And, I mean, I've seen some press reporting about a delegation that was down there in the region, but I've seen no indications that this was specifically timed or targeted for them.
QUESTION: And then --
MR KIRBY: But again, there – look, this needs to be investigated, and we need to let the investigators do what they got to do.
QUESTION: So this attack is also similar to the attack back in January in Burkina Faso against that hotel, and I believe the same al-Qaida group, AQIM, is claiming responsibility. Can you talk about how serious the threat is from this particular al-Qaida affiliate against Western targets, including hotels?
MR KIRBY: Well, this is a group – again, I want to let the investigators do their job and determine more specifically who was responsible and what lessons can be learned from this. That said, broadly speaking, AQIM certainly remains a threat, and it's a group that we continue to monitor as closely as possible and also a group that has proven capable of striking out against Western targets and has frankly espoused that as a goal – to keep striking at Western targets, whether they're American or European. So, I mean, we're – we take it very seriously and we're going to continue to work with regional and local authorities throughout the region to try to stem this threat. But obviously, it can be difficult to do.
Yeah, Abbie.
QUESTION: Can I go back to an earlier topic quickly? The reports of an American who was taken by the Peshmerga – would you be able to say, procedurally, if an American were captured in that manner, whether or not they would be brought back to the United States or what would be the next step?
MR KIRBY: I'm not an expert on the process. Obviously, if – and only if, Abbie, because I'm not in a position to confirm these reports – but if an American decides to go fight for a terrorist group and if he or she is apprehended in that and then handed over to U.S. authorities – and I won't speak for the Department of Justice, but there is a process there to hold them to account in the U.S. criminal justice system. Certainly, there is a – there would be a process for that. But again, I just don't have any additional information. I can't confirm the veracity of these particular reports.
QUESTION: I've got two that are very brief.
MR KIRBY: I've got – I'm afraid I've got to get going. So I'll take just you and then you and then that's going to be it.
QUESTION: They can go first.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. British media report that President Obama is to visit the UK sometime in April to try to persuade the British public to vote to stay in the European Union when a referendum is held there in June. What would you say to people who might interpret the President's going there with that message as interference in the UK's internal affairs?
MR KIRBY: Look, I can't speak to the President's travel. You'd have to talk to my colleagues in the White House, but I can point you to what Secretary Kerry said, and we were in London not long ago. Obviously, these are decisions for the British people to make. We understand that and we respect that. But what we've said, we believe in a strong UK and a strong EU.
QUESTION: Is the Administration going to advocate for the UK staying in the European Union as they --
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – again, I'm not going to speculate about Presidential travel. All I can tell you is what the Secretary has said himself here in D.C. and in London. But we all, obviously, respect that these are decisions that the British people have to make for themselves.
QUESTION: I've got two; they'll be brief. One is Bahrain and the arrest of – are you aware of the arrest or renewed detention of a woman named Zainab al-Khawaja and her infant child?
MR KIRBY: Yes, we are aware of those reports.
QUESTION: And what have you said to the Bahrainis, if anything, about this?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is we're monitoring the situation there. And as before, we strongly urge the Government of Bahrain to follow due process in all cases and to abide by its commitment to transparent judicial proceedings conducted in full accordance with Bahrain's international legal obligations. I can't speak to specific --
QUESTION: Well, you called for her release in the past, I believe. I mean, it's – this is something that's happened again now.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, again, I think I'm going to leave it just where I did for today.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Wait, wait, wait. I had one more. But I don't expect you to have an answer, so you're probably going to take it. And this is not a joke question; this is a real question. So last year, as you remember --
MR KIRBY: I never take any --
QUESTION: -- a Chinese insurance company, Anbang, completed the purchase of the Waldorf Hotel in New York. And shortly after that happened, it was decided that the President and the State Department – and the Secretary and the State Department would no longer use the Waldorf as its base or as their base in New York for the General Assembly. While Anbang has just – that same company has just offered a $14 billion bid for Starwood hotels group, and I am wondering, if this goes through, if the bid is accepted and if the chain is in fact sold, does that mean that U.S. officials will no longer stay at Starwood hotels? That's my question.
MR KIRBY: Okay. I'll take it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:38 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
