Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 15, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
BURMA
SECRETARY TRAVEL/RUSSIA/CUBA
RUSSIA/SYRIA
UN/DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TURKEY
IRAQ
YEMEN
IRAN
BAHRAIN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:13 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: Hello. Just a short statement on Burma. You've seen, I think, the Secretary's statement. The United States congratulates Htin Kyaw on his election to the presidency. This is another important step forward in Burma's democratic transition. The formation of a democratically elected civilian-led government and the peaceful transfer of power mark an extraordinary moment in this country's history. We look forward to cooperating with the new government as it works to make progress on a wide range of issues including further democratic reforms, promotion of human rights, economic development, and national reconciliation. And again, I'd point you to the Secretary's statement on that today.
Matt.
QUESTION: That's it?
MR KIRBY: That's it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Did you want more? Expect more?
QUESTION: Do you have anything – have any thoughts on Disney saying they're going to make a new Indiana Jones movie?
MR KIRBY: I hadn't heard that.
QUESTION: No? Okay.
MR KIRBY: I look forward to seeing it.
QUESTION: I want to – I thought you might be – might elaborate a little bit on the Secretary's announcement that he's going to go to Moscow next week.
MR KIRBY: I don't have additional details to provide at this time. You're right, the Secretary did just a short while ago announce that he's going to be going to Moscow to meet with Russian leaders. The purpose of that trip is to continue to look for ways to move the political process forward in Syria. Obviously, there's other issues to discuss in our bilateral relationship with Russia, but the prime mover for it, again, is Syria.
QUESTION: But I mean, in terms of logistics, I – he's supposed to go to Cuba next week as well. So presuming he's still going to Cuba or --
MR KIRBY: He is. He is still going. As you know, he was announced as a member --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- of the delegation for the President, so he still will go in the early part of next week to Cuba with the President. And then the trip to Moscow will obviously take place afterward. I just don't have additional details.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: We'll make sure that we get it out to you when we have more specificity on the trip itself.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And again, right now it's – we're just talking about Moscow.
QUESTION: Can we stick with Syria for a moment? The Secretary --
QUESTION: Wait, just one more thing. Is he meeting – sorry. And he may have said this but I didn't have a chance to hear it. Who exactly is he meeting with in Moscow?
MR KIRBY: He did say that he's going to meet with President Putin, and of course, he'll be meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I don't have additional detail on the agenda at this time.
QUESTION: So with regard to the Secretary's statement about Syria, he said, if I understood him correctly, that Russia had said it planned to withdraw half its force immediately and perhaps more later. Where does that – I have not seen that. Has there been an explicit declaration from the Russians that half will come out immediately?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of additional public comments about what they've decided to do other than what President Putin announced yesterday. And you heard the Secretary and what his interpretation is of the movement of withdrawal of forces. I just don't have additional detail on it right now.
QUESTION: Do you know if he's gotten private assurances or communications about half coming out immediately?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of private discussions he's had specifically with respect to the withdrawal. I can tell you he has not spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov since President Putin's announcement.
QUESTION: Are you convinced that they are indeed withdrawing? There have been some suggestions, for example, that the planes that have been seen leaving might be part of a rotation of forces --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and not necessarily an actual net withdrawal.
MR KIRBY: Well, my colleagues at the Pentagon talked about the movement out of a small number of aircraft. I don't know the nature of that movement, whether it's rotational as you might – as you have suggested or whether it's representation of this permanent withdrawal. The announcement was just made yesterday. And even the most efficient and effective of militaries requires time and logistics to move large numbers of forces from point A to point B. So we're just going to have to wait and see.
QUESTION: Do you believe Putin when he says he's going to withdraw the main part of his forces?
MR KIRBY: It's not about believe, it's about watching and seeing. And as we've said many times on so many other levels, we're going to judge Russia by its actions, not its words. But I do want to stress that we see this announcement as a potential positive sign for moving the political process forward in Syria. We'll just have to see. Again, it's only the day after and we're just going to have to watch and see what he actually does.
QUESTION: The reason I asked that question is that President Putin has made the argument that his intervention was to go after ISIL and, quote, "terrorists."
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And yet you have from the podium and many other U.S. officials have repeatedly said that they believe that the preponderance of the Russian activities were, in fact, aimed at strengthening Assad's position, not actually going after that group or others. So I just wonder whether there is not a very healthy dose of skepticism on your part. And I'm very perplexed by why the Secretary would say they're taking half out when I haven't seen anything to suggest that.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I won't speak to the Secretary's interpretations of this announcement. I would just point you back to what he said, and he wouldn't have said it if he didn't have reason to believe it and to say it. So I think, again, we're just going to have to see what is the actual practical result of this announcement of this order that President Putin has apparently given his defense ministry.
To your other point, you're right; we had long said that Russian military activity in Syria was designed to bolster the Assad regime and to prop it up as the Assad regime was – had been coming under increasing pressure from opposition groups in particular, and that we hadn't seen prior to the cessation of hostilities any significant, tangible, overt effort to go after groups like Daesh or al-Nusrah. Now, as I said yesterday, since the cessation, which we believe the Russians have taken seriously, we have seen them dramatically reduce their air activity, and the air activity that they've been conducting, so far as we can tell, has been directed against Daesh and Nusrah and not against the opposition.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Can I ask one last one? I promise, last one from me, and forgive me for going on so long. But do – is it – do you see in President Putin's announcement of yesterday any sign that the Russian Government may be reducing its support for Assad and his government?
MR KIRBY: This gets right to intent, that question, and the motivation behind his order, which, frankly, we don't know. So I would be – it would be wrong for me to try to speculate as to what prompted President Putin to make this announcement to order this withdrawal. And again, we're going to have to watch and see where it goes. But I couldn't begin to speak to what the motivation is or what in the Russian mind is the relationship with the Assad regime.
You – you're right, Arshad; they have had a long relationship with this regime and his father's regime before it. And they have had a military presence in Syria, and obviously, there's nothing in the president's announcement that would indicate that they are considering removing in total that military presence there.
QUESTION: But what is --
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. So we're just going to have to – we're just going to have to wait and see, but it's very difficult right now to determine motivation and intent in the order, number one and number two, way too soon to be able to tell or speculate the full implementation of it and what that really portends going forward.
But what I would like to return to is our hope that in this order what may result – what may result – is an increased effort and focus by Moscow on the political process and a political – and finding a political solution to the Syrian conflict.
QUESTION: When you --
QUESTION: What is the plus-up that they need to get – to remove to get to pre-September 2015 levels? I mean, how many forces do they have to withdraw to get back to where they were pre-Russian involvement?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: I'm afraid I don't – huh? I'm afraid I don't have the Russian order of battle. I don't know after this many months --
QUESTION: You wouldn't know if they did it or not, in other words?
MR KIRBY: I think that we would certainly have an idea. I don't know as we, you and I, speak, Justin, what the complete Russian order of battle is, but they obviously had added dozens of aircraft as well as many surface-to-air and air defense systems. And by aircraft, it wasn't just fighter-bombers, it was also helicopters and logistics aircraft and support aircraft. And they added somewhere in the order of a few thousand troops. So I just don't – but I don't have the exact figure so I don't know what it – what that eventually is going to mean going forward.
Again, President Putin made this announcement and Moscow should speak to what it means mathematically. What we're saying here is it's too soon to tell what it's going to look like if and when fully implemented. But what we hope it means is, again, a renewed – an increased focus by Moscow on a political solution vice a military one to the Syrian conflict.
QUESTION: To follow up on Justin's question, did you have an assessment of Russia's strength, let's say, pre-yesterday, before --
MR KIRBY: I would point you to my colleagues at the Pentagon, Said. I --
QUESTION: How – I understand. I'm – we're trying to understand when people say half or one-third or this many number of aircraft or assets, whatever, have been pulled out or went home, how do you determine that figure?
MR KIRBY: Well, I just went through – I just went through as best I could what our assessment was in broad terms. I don't have it by the number.
QUESTION: Okay. Fair --
MR KIRBY: And again, these are questions better put to Moscow, in terms of their military footprint in Syria and what that military footprint's going to look like in the wake of President Putin's order.
QUESTION: But certainly you must have ways to determine reports that indicate that Russian aircraft are already leaving Syria. I mean, there are all kinds of news reports that are saying aircraft are on their way and so on. Can you determine that? Can you confirm that?
MR KIRBY: I just thought I answered that question with Arshad. I've seen my colleagues at the Pentagon speak to the movement out of a small number of aircraft. I don't know how many. I can't tell you that they – that that's a permanent redeployment or whether it's a rotational effort. Again, this is just the day after his announcement, so we're just going to have to wait and watch.
QUESTION: You don't think it's a ploy by the Russians to sort of get the talks going and so on? Is it – in your judgment, in your assessment, is it a sincere effort to scale back, to sort of de-escalate?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. We don't know. It's impossible for us to know what the motivation was behind this order. We're going to have to watch and see if and how it's implemented. As I said, though, we certainly hope – we see this as a potential encouraging and positive sign, and we hope that what it portends is an increased focus by Moscow on a political solution in Syria. But I couldn't tell you right now.
QUESTION: Can I ask you something that you might have a chance of actually being able to answer? And that is yesterday you said that the Secretary --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Yesterday, you said the Secretary had not spoken to Lavrov since Thursday and today you said he had not spoken to him since President Putin's announcement. Does that mean that the last --
MR KIRBY: Still not since Thursday.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: John, Russian defense minister has said that Hmeimim airbase and the base in Tartus will be working or continue to – will continue to work as usual and they will conduct raids on ISIL and others. What do you – what – or how can you understand what the defense minister has said?
MR KIRBY: I've seen those comments by the defense minister and the defense ministry and President Putin. They should be speaking for what this order means and what it doesn't mean. We're not in a position right now to cast judgment on this announcement, other than to say what I've said before, is that it could be – and I stress "could be" – a positive sign in terms of an increased effort at a political solution in Syria. Certainly that's what we'd like to see. But it's difficult to know all the details of what this order means, and again, if, how, and when it's going to be implemented.
So without talking to basing and the specific use of that basing by another military, what I would tell you is what we said before, is that if Russia is willing to be – to focus all their military energies in Syria on Daesh, that would be a welcome development. And as I said, in the last two weeks of the cessation of hostilities – I said this again yesterday – that we have seen a decrease in their activity in general. The math just shows that out. They're not flying as much. And the flights that they have been conducting have – as far as we can tell, have been directed against Daesh targets. So if in this order that also emerges as a reality, that the Russian military is willing to focus their efforts militarily in that line of effort against Daesh – again, that would be – that would certainly be welcome. The coalition has said that. We have said that for many weeks now. And that's a discussion that we're willing to have with Russian authorities going forward, if that's, in fact, the intent here. We just don't know.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: But the question was: How can these bases function as usual if they will withdraw their forces from these bases from Syria, to --
MR KIRBY: That question's a great one for Moscow authorities, who would know better than me what forces are redeploying from where and in what quantity. And I just don't have that information right now.
QUESTION: John, what is your assessment of the proximity talks underway in Geneva?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, it's – what, third day now, second day – our understanding is that they are progressing. I don't have specific readouts to offer you. I would defer to Special Envoy de Mistura in any event. We do find it encouraging that talks have gone into another day and that the parties are there. That's good. Dialogue is good at this point, but it's very early on and too soon to be predictive.
QUESTION: Any American official there in Geneva?
MR KIRBY: These are talks led by the special envoy, Mr. de Mistura. There's no U.S. representation in the talks, as there wasn't at the first round.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: With respect to the --
QUESTION: But wait. There are U.S. officials in Geneva.
MR KIRBY: I didn't say there weren't U.S. officials in Geneva --
QUESTION: Well, I think he asked you --
MR KIRBY: -- but there's no U.S. representation in the talks. Yes, there are – there is a small U.S. delegation there, because in Geneva, we have part – we have task force responsibilities, but that's monitoring the cessation of hostilities. It's not participating in these proximity talks.
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: I wasn't trying to be cute by half. I was trying to answer the question honestly, which what I thought was, "Are we represented in the talks," and we're not. We're not supposed to be.
QUESTION: But do you have people who are there perhaps talking to members of the opposition since I imagine --
MR KIRBY: We routinely have talked to members of the opposition, even when there aren't proximity talks going on. We maintain contacts and communication with them, and I – absolutely, that's still happening, sure.
QUESTION: But there – are there people on the ground in Geneva with the specific --
MR KIRBY: We have people on the ground in Geneva.
QUESTION: -- with the specific duty to consult with the opposition?
MR KIRBY: Their job is to participate in these – in the task force, both task forces, about the cessation of hostilities and the delivery of humanitarian aid. In the conduct of that work – in the conduct of that work, I wouldn't certainly rule out the fact that they are having discussions with members of the opposition. You'd have to in order to be able to continue to do the job of the task forces. But they're not – we are not a party to the proximity talks. They're being led by the UN.
Yeah.
QUESTION: With respect to the Geneva talks again, you mentioned Russia's decision is – could be a potential positive step. How do you think it might impact the Geneva talks right now currently, this decision?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't know. Again, I can't be predictive here. What I can tell you is that the Secretary hopes that this order could lead to an increased effort on the political front. We certainly would hope that this decision by President Putin could have a positive impact on the talks. I would point you to – I saw comments this morning made by a spokesman for the opposition who spoke of the – of President Putin's decision encouragingly, that he – speaking for the opposition – found it a positive indication. And so as we – as they settle in in Geneva, this decision as a backdrop, again, could lead to hopefully a more positive outcome in the political talks. Obviously, that's what we want. I just couldn't predict it.
QUESTION: If you take the decision at face value without thinking about redeployment or anything, just on face value, how would it affect your anti-ISIS strategy? How do you think it'll affect the fight and the strategy overall, if Russia carries through with this decision?
MR KIRBY: Again, if it's – if it – if they are truly going to draw down their military forces, and if, with the military force they have left – and these are all ifs – they focus exclusively on Nusrah and Daesh going forward – as, quite frankly, they have in the last two weeks of the cessation – then I would tell you that those are welcome contributions. Now, I can't predict whether that means Russia becomes part of the coalition or not. That's a discussion that the coalition has to have, and of course, leaders in Moscow. That's not for me to say one way or the other.
But it's – but as I said earlier, we've long said that if they're willing to focus their efforts against Daesh, that that would be a welcome contribution, and I would say the same thing today. But look, those are ifs, and we're only the second day out from this decision, and we have to wait and see. We have to – it's just too soon to tell.
QUESTION: Can I change topics?
MR KIRBY: Are we done on this one?
QUESTION: I got one more on Syria.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Briefly, what does the U.S. think of the inclusion of Kurdish groups from – in Syria in the talks? There's more and more – many countries talk – say they should be involved. Obviously, Turkey says that they shouldn't be involved; there's the Ankara attack. Has your – what's the thinking here?
MR KIRBY: I've addressed this before and our position is exactly the same. The invitations to the talks were decided and sent by the UN, by Special Envoy de Mistura. He sent invitations this time to the same groups that he sent last time. Right now, that does not include Kurdish groups in the proximity talks. That said, as before, he continues to consult with a wide range of groups, to include Kurdish groups. And we believe that we need to respect his decision-making process going forward and how he wants to conduct these talks. We're going to continue to support that. And again, there are consultations, there are discussions going on. We recognize that those consultations are important.
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about the UN, if we're done with Syria? Assuming that's --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to ask you, there was – today – it was announced today that the deputy ambassador of the Dominican Republic, Frank Lorenzo, is set to plead guilty to bribery charges at the UN. So I wanted to ask, what's the State Department's view of that case? Do you view it as just a slip-up in the president of the General Assembly's office, or is it a reflection of a wider corruption or sale of access at the UN and what the Government Accountability Project also calls retaliation against the press reporting on the case? Do you – what do you make of this case that began in October and is ongoing, the wheels are turning?
MR KIRBY: I'm going to have to take that question. I do not believe I have anything for you on that. So you're going to have to let me get back to you.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Carol.
QUESTION: Can I ask one Russia question? When the Secretary speaks with President Putin next week and they get around to talking about the Minsk accords, do you expect him to single out the case of Nadiya Savchenko? And do you expect him to say anything about whether, if she remains behind bars or succumbs to her hunger strike, that there may be further repercussions?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't speak to potential repercussions, as you put it, going forward. And while I won't get ahead too specifically on – in terms of what will or will not be discussed when he goes to Moscow, clearly the main reason to go is to talk about Syria. But as in every other discussion that we have with Russian officials, other issues come up. Certainly Ukraine is going to be one of them. I fully expect that they'll talk about what's going on in Ukraine, and specifically the implementation of the Minsk agreement. The Secretary has raised Nadiya Savchenko's case with Foreign Minister Lavrov – in fact, just the last conversation that they had – and I would not be surprised at all if it comes up in Moscow as well. I would fully expect that he would take the opportunity while he's there to raise our continued concerns about her unjust detention. And obviously, the news of her going onto a hunger strike is – just gives us all the more – a deeper sense of urgency about her situation. She needs to be released. She needs to be able to go back home. And we've said that time and time again. And I think you can fully expect that we'll continue to press our case in that regard.
QUESTION: Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Today the Israeli Army Radio announced the expropriation of 2,342 dunams, which is roughly about 580 acres, in Jericho or a bit south of Jericho. And apparently that decision was taken on the 10th of this month, which puts it right when the Vice President was there, evoking images of, let's say, 2009, when they did exactly the same thing when the Vice President visited. First, I want you – do you have any reaction to the – this latest land confiscation?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I can tell you quite frankly we've seen these reports. We're concerned about this reported expropriation of about, I think you said, 580 – it's 580, I think – acres in the West Bank as state land, which is a significant increase over the prior announcement. This decision is, in our view, the latest step in what appears to be an ongoing process of land expropriations, settlement expansions, and legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution. As we have said before, we strongly oppose any steps that accelerate settlement expansion, which raise serious questions about Israel's long-term intentions. And as we've repeatedly made clear, we continue to look to both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Actions such as these do just the opposite.
Okay?
QUESTION: Do you consider the timing to be sort of intended to sort of slight the Vice President of the United States?
MR KIRBY: I would let the Israeli authorities speak to the timing. I know that this was announced last week, but they should have to speak to the timing of it.
QUESTION: Now, the – Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that they are going to the UN Security Council with this, and they hope to have the support of the international community. If this comes up – in the face of Israel not being deterred on these land confiscations, will you support the Palestinian effort at the United Nations if this comes up at the UN?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything – I'm not going to speculate on potential actions inside the UN, Said. As we've said before, what we want – what we've said is we want – we want both sides, both parties to work these – to work out these issues together, to both take affirmative steps to move a two-state solution forward.
QUESTION: Now – but you keep saying the same thing, and I know you express strong positions and so on, but the Israelis are not persuaded by your anger or your being upset and so on at the continued settlement activities and so on. So what should be done? I mean, what should happen to sort of force the Israelis or to make the Israelis halt these settlement activities? In your view, what ought to be done? Obviously, Israel is flouting what you say and what the international community is saying and doing, so to face this, what ought to be done?
MR KIRBY: What ought to be done is what we've said so many times before: that both sides take affirmative steps – proactive, assertive steps --
QUESTION: But the Palestinians are not taking any land.
MR KIRBY: Pardon?
QUESTION: Are they taking any land? I mean, they're not building settlements; they're not doing things like this. I mean, how should they cease doing something that they have not done?
MR KIRBY: We still want to see a two-state solution be a reality, and we don't want to see negotiations just for the sake of negotiations, but we do believe that a two-state solution is still possible. But in order to get there, you've got to have both sides willing to take the steps necessary to ratchet down the violence, to tone down the rhetoric, and through policy and decisions and actual actions move that process forward. It has to start there. It has to start organically. And thus far, we haven't seen that. We haven't seen decisions get made to propel that process forward, and that's what we continue to want to see.
And we were just in the region. The Secretary was just there, and that was his message in the meetings that he had with leaders. And I think it's going to continue to be our message going forward.
QUESTION: One more question on this, if you'll allow me. Yesterday the minister of defense of the state of Israel was speaking at one Washington think tank and basically dismissed the two-state solution, and he said there is not likely to be a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in his time. I don't know whether he meant in his lifetime or in his time as a minister of defense, but he basically is saying – shirking responsibility for the occupation. They're not doing anything; they're not likely to do anything. He said there are other, bigger issues and bigger problems in the region. Do you have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments, and all I would say is if that's a view held, whether it's in his time in office or his time on Earth, we don't see it that way. We still think that a two-state solution is possible. We still believe in the viability of it. But as the Secretary has said over and over and over again, in order to get there, you've got to have leadership on both sides of this be real leaders and make tough decisions and be willing to compromise. And again, we haven't seen affirmative steps – the kinds of affirmative steps we believe are necessary to actually see that as a reality.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. willing --
QUESTION: John, over the course of the last seven years – in other words, the lifetime of this Administration so far – I think I've lost count of the number of times that spokespeople from this podium and the White House have said that the latest Israeli action fundamentally undermines the prospects for a two-state solution and also raises serious questions about Israel's commitment to the two-state solution. Does the Administration still believe that the Israeli Government is committed to a two-state solution? And if you do, can you tell me why you think that if they are constantly doing things that you say undermine the prospects for it and raise serious questions about their commitment?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think you've answered – quite frankly, you've answered your question in the question itself. We --
QUESTION: So you don't think they're actually committed to a two-state solution?
MR KIRBY: Number one, we still believe in the viability of a two --
QUESTION: I'm not asking --
MR KIRBY: No, I --
QUESTION: You can still believe in unicorns if you want to, but that doesn't mean that they exist, and it doesn't mean that --
MR KIRBY: You've answered – just give me a second.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: You've answered your own question, that we still believe in it, and what we want to see are – is strong leadership on both sides to reaffirm their desire to get there. And there are decisions being made that, as you said in your question, that we have noted raise questions and doubts in our mind about the sincerity on their part of moving forward.
QUESTION: But what makes you think that there is – that they have this desire or this commitment, either side?
MR KIRBY: I never stood here --
QUESTION: You said that they – that these kind of actions raise serious questions about their commitment --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- to a two-state solution and – which presupposes that they are committed.
MR KIRBY: That there was a commitment. They have said --
QUESTION: Why do you still think that they are committed, both sides?
MR KIRBY: Their public and private statements have said --
QUESTION: Really? But their actions seem to do the exact opposite.
MR KIRBY: Exactly. So you see, you've answered the question.
QUESTION: So why do you insist on saying that they're committed to something that they're showing no commitment to?
MR KIRBY: They have reaffirmed it themselves. They have said publicly; they've said it privately. And what we continue to see are decisions and actions that raise serious doubts about that commitment, and we're open and honest about that.
I never said – I won't speak for either side. I can only speak for our side and our view, and our view is we still believe it's possible. We still believe it's the right way forward.
QUESTION: But the line that says it raises serious questions about the commitment --
MR KIRBY: About their commitment.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. What makes you think their commitment exists?
MR KIRBY: Because they have said that they are committed to it.
QUESTION: Well they – all right.
MR KIRBY: And their actions in some ways aren't reaffirming or proving that point, and that's a concern.
QUESTION: All right. Are those cameras up on the Temple Mount yet?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Is this Administration willing to deny Israel its request for increased military aid in order to get it to stop expropriating land in the West Bank?
MR KIRBY: I'm – I think I've taken this particular issue as far as I'm going to today. I'm certainly not going to speculate about actions one way or the other going forward.
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: We've made clear our concern – our serious concern about it.
QUESTION: Can I ask on Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Sure. Are we good on Turkey? Everybody good? All right.
QUESTION: Okay. John, there was a media circulation about the message that published by the U.S. Embassy in Ankara two days before the deadly attack on Sunday.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The message warned Americans to stay away from the – from Ankara's center due to potential terrorist attack.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: The notice issued by your embassy widely criticized by the people in Turkey. Even some of them said that the U.S. Government is on the side of the PKK, the militants. So could you please clarify that? Did the embassy run this notice without getting information, intelligence from Turkish officials? Did they get the information from Turks?
MR KIRBY: I've heard this interesting little rumor. Let me just put a fork in it right now. The information that we shared with the public about the concerns – the security concerns we had – which is our obligation; we have to do that – was received by Turkish authorities. I mean, it was because we have a good information sharing arrangement with Turkey that allowed us to issue this warning. So Turkish authorities very much were a source for this kind of information. And I'm not even going to dignify the charge that the United States is in any way cooperating or assisting or condoning the actions of groups like the PKK, which we've said before is a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is absolutely ridiculous.
QUESTION: So the Turks usually share in information all the time with you – with the embassy?
MR KIRBY: We have – look, you can understand I'm not going to get into a great amount of detail about the sharing of information and intelligence. What I can tell you is in this case the information that we – that permitted us to provide that notice was information that came from, obviously, many sources, but the Turkish authorities helped us develop the information we needed to issue that warning. And it's good that we did. That's what we're supposed to do.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: What do you think it says about the atmosphere in Turkey that pro-government newspapers and commentators would leap to conspiracy theories like the one you just tried to shoot down?
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: This is, after all, a NATO ally of yours.
MR KIRBY: It is. And they still are.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: And it's a relationship that remains strong in the face of these sorts of threats, as the warning itself proved.
QUESTION: Well, does it? Does it? We've talked about – you've talked about in here the harsh criticism of Ambassador Bass.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: And now this kind of thing.
MR. KIRBY: I'm not saying it's not a – I'm not saying it isn't an uncomplicated or that it isn't --
QUESTION: Well, is it a relationship in trouble?
MR. KIRBY: No, it's not a relationship in trouble.
QUESTION: No?
MR. KIRBY: No. Look, they're a close --
QUESTION: The Turkish Government is closing down newspapers, seizing newspapers that appear to be fomenting rumors that the United States is in cahoots with PKK and conducting terrorist attacks in the capital --
MR. KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: -- based on the fact that you put out a warning. And they're going after your ambassador. How is it not a relationship in trouble?
MR. KIRBY: I'm trying to – as you run through that, I'm trying to figure out how you're coming to the conclusion that it is. I mean, we are NATO allies.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. KIRBY: We are friends and partners. We are not going to agree on everything, Matt. And when we don't, we're open and honest about it. And as I said, the criticism of Ambassador Bass was unwarranted and undeserved. Turkey has no better friend than Ambassador Bass. We're not going to see eye-to-eye with them on everything, but it doesn't mean that the relationship is invalid or deteriorating or diminishing. It means that we've got some friction points. And what's healthy about the relationship is that we're able to share our concerns about that. We may never come to agreement on some of these issues. We recognize that. But it doesn't mean that we're not going to – that we're going to stop raising them. And that we can do that, that we can have those tough discussions and dialogue is the sign of a relationship that is, at its core, healthy.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I have some clarification on this issue, on Turkey and NATO? Because I believe I heard last week in this room that membership in NATO is conditioned on democracy. Is it? Is it conditioned on a country being democratic?
MR. KIRBY: It's – yeah, it's a democratically based alliance.
QUESTION: Wasn't Turkey a member of NATO when it was actually governed by a military junta?
MR. KIRBY: I don't know the history, Said.
QUESTION: Well --
MR. KIRBY: I don't. I don't.
QUESTION: Turkey --
MR. KIRBY: You're missing the larger point here.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. KIRBY: Okay. You're missing the larger point.
QUESTION: Right.
MR. KIRBY: Turkey is an important ally and a friend. And as I said before, when we were talking about press freedom, their democracy matters to us. The health of their democracy matters to us. Their constitution enshrines certain democratic principles, to include free speech and freedom of the press and free and peaceful protest. And we want to see Turkey succeed. We want to see the Turkish people enjoy all those basic freedoms enshrined in their constitution. And when we see indications that that's not happening or that those principles are at risk, we raise it. We raise it privately; Ambassador Bass does. And we raise it publicly here from this podium. And we're going to continue to do that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Also the Turkish minister of internal affairs today identified that this – the suicide attacker was a woman who has joined the PKK in 2013. So according to ministry's new statement – official statement, she crossed into the Syria and got some training from the PYD. I know your explanation many times from this podium towards the PYD, but after this – the official statements by Turks, is it going to change your view or still you're going to consider PYD as a helpful organization, helping the fighting with Daesh?
MR. KIRBY: I have not seen the reports that this individual crossed the border into Syria and got training. I haven't seen the ministry of interior's comments, so I can't verify the veracity of them. The PKK is a Foreign Terrorist Organization. We regard it as a terrorist group. We've continually called on the PKK to cease attacks against Turkish citizens, to cease terrorism period, but in this case particularly against Turkish citizens. And they continue to do that. And we've also said that the Turkish Government, like any sovereign government, has a right to defend its citizens against terrorist attacks. In so doing, we've also called on Turkey to do so observing their international obligations, international law, and to do it with a sense of precision so that further civilian causalities are not suffered as a result. But we recognize the threat that the PKK continues to pose to the people of Turkey.
Now there are many groups in Syria that are effective at fighting Daesh. And some of these groups are Kurdish – not all of them, but some of them are. And the support that they get as they prosecute the fight against Daesh continues largely on a military front from the use – the support of air power, coalition air power. That's really the gist of it. We've – we have been clear and consistent that the fighting inside Syria, the military line of effort, is to be used against Daesh. That was – that's the focus of coalition air power. When the Pentagon had a train and equip program in place, it was to train and equip opposition groups to fight Daesh. That's – that has been the effort inside Syria and it will continue to be.
QUESTION: John.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: About the American citizen being held by the Kurdish forces, do you have any update whether he's an American citizen?
MR KIRBY: I don't.
QUESTION: And have you talking to the Kurdish officials to bring him back to America, or will you allow the Kurdish forces to try him in --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any update on this particular case. As I – I have nothing more to say since what I mentioned yesterday. We're aware of the reports; we're in touch with local authorities. I don't just have anything additional at this time.
Abbie.
QUESTION: Can you say whether Presidential Envoy McGurk will be discussing the reports of a person detained while --
MR KIRBY: I don't have – I don't have a readout of Presidential Special Envoy McGurk's schedule. As you know, he's in the region and he'll meet with a variety of leaders about the fight against Daesh. I just don't have anything more specific with respect to his schedule to talk to.
QUESTION: Were you asked about whether you have information about the custody of the American?
MR KIRBY: I think that was the question I just got. I don't have any updates. I just don't.
Okay, one more.
QUESTION: Yemen?
QUESTION: And I got two brief ones.
MR KIRBY: Okay. So you, then you, and then we'll call it.
QUESTION: I want to ask about Yemen. I saw the Secretary's comments when he was in Saudi Arabia about possibility of a ceasefire similar to Syria and something about having teams on the ground working on that. So I wanted to know – it seems like there's talks between the Houthis and the Saudis that don't involve Saleh or even Hadi. It seems – what's the U.S.'s – like, what was he referring to? Is it – does he view direct negotiations between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia as a positive thing? Is that the ceasefire he's talking about? And what's the role of the UN envoy, who seems not to be part of those talks, and of Mr. Hadi going forward? Is he the future president of Yemen or is he – has time passed him by?
MR KIRBY: So there's a lot there. There – we still continue to support the UN special envoy and his efforts. That's not going to change. And when the Secretary was in the region over the weekend, Yemen was – as he said, was a significant point of discussion with Saudi leaders. Nothing has changed about our support for the UN special envoy and his efforts to get a political process going and move forward. And the United States is going to remain firmly behind that effort.
He also said that we welcome reports that there is a reduction in violence between Houthis and the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia. We welcome the fact that there is a cessation of hostilities, quite frankly, that appears to also be holding. That's a good thing, because we've long said that there needs to be an increased effort by the international community to get humanitarian aid and assistance to so many Yemeni citizens who are in need, and that's hard to do when there is still violence going on between both sides.
So we welcome this – that development, and we welcome the news that there are discussions between the two sides. If those discussions can lead to a resolution of the conflict and to a continuation of the reduction of violence, that too is a healthy thing. But it doesn't mean that we aren't also going to continue to support the UN track here, because we still believe that that is an important part of putting in place a sustainable governing structure, one that the Yemeni people clearly deserve going forward. So it's both, it's both. And he's very much focused on both tracks and I think you're going to continue to see that be the case going forward.
QUESTION: Two things very briefly. One, I'm wondering if you can give us an update on your efforts to convince the Russians, the Chinese, and the Iranians that a request framed in the terms, "We call upon you not to do X" is the same as a commandment, "Thou shalt not."
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything.
QUESTION: No update?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything additional to say than what we talked about yesterday.
QUESTION: Okay. And then on Bahrain, I'm just wondering if you have had any conversations with the Bahraini officials about the detention of this human rights activist that we spoke about yesterday, whether you have asked – specifically asked them for her release.
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything additional to say from yesterday. Obviously, this is – these sorts of issues are issues we have raised in the past with Bahraini officials. We'll continue to do that, but I don't have anything specific to read out with this – on this case.
QUESTION: All right, thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:00 p.m.)
# # #
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
