Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 28, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
PAKISTAN
DEPARTMENT
TURKEY
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
RUSSIA/SYRIA
CUBA
PAKISTAN
DEPARTMENT
JAPAN
UKRAINE
TURKEY
IRAQ
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:06 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Happy Monday.
MR KIRBY: Happy Monday to you. I do have a few things at the top, so if you'll just bear with me. I think you may have seen our statement yesterday on the terrorist attack in Lahore, but I do want to reiterate it here today: We condemn in the strongest terms the appalling terrorist attack in the Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park in Lahore that killed dozens and left scores injured. And many of them were children, as I think you saw. The United States stands with the people and government of Pakistan at this very difficult hour and we send our deepest condolences to the loved ones of those killed, and of course, to all those injured we are praying for a speedy recovery. Again, attacks like these only deepen our shared resolve to defeat terrorism around the world, and we're going to continue to work with our partners in Pakistan and across the region to combat the threat of terrorism.
Today at the State Department – at the State Department's international academy in Bangkok, excuse me – Atlanta police – Atlanta, Georgia police – with expertise in combating hate crimes are leading a training on investigations of these crimes for law enforcement from 12 Asian nations. The Atlanta police department's participation is part of a State Department effort to tap expertise amongst local U.S. agencies to advance human rights and rule of law and to build capacity to fight crime overseas. The Atlanta police department will also conduct similar training for Latin American, European, and African law enforcement at three other overseas State Department-run academies later this year, and we're very grateful for their willingness to participate in this very worthwhile initiative.
A couple of scheduling notes: At 2 p.m. today, Secretary Kerry will meet with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu to discuss key bilateral issues, including, of course, the fight against Daesh, and I'll have a readout of that after it's over. In fact, I'll be ending the briefing promptly today so that I can be a part of that meeting.
QUESTION: Is it going to be on paper?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, it'll be a written readout, right.
And then tomorrow the State Department will honor a remarkable group of women from around the world with the Secretary of State's International Women of Courage Award. The award goes to women who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equality, and women's empowerment. This is the 10th year the department will give this award. To mark the milestone of honoring nearly 100 women from 60 countries, the department will host a forum following the ceremony where Vice President Biden will give remarks. So we'll have more to say about that, of course, tomorrow.
Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. Last week while we were away and the Syrians backed by Russians started their move toward Palmyra and then – which is now complete and they've taken it, there seemed to be a little bit of confusion, from what I understand, about whether the United States thought that the Syrian Government – the Assad government – taking Palmyra back from ISIS was a good thing or not. Have you guys come to a conclusion about whether or not ISIS getting driven out of Palmyra by the Assad regime helped by the Russians is a good thing?
MR KIRBY: Sure. The short answer is yes, we think it's a good thing. I wasn't aware that there was confusion before, but there's no confusion on the Secretary's part. In his mind, this is a good thing. We – but we can't forget what Daesh did in this place, destroying our common heritage – human beings – our human history there, beheading a renowned archaeologist who was responsible for maintaining those sites. So we do think it's a good thing that Daesh no longer controls it.
That said, we're also mindful, of course, that the best hope for Syria and the Syrian people is not an expansion of Bashar al-Assad's ability to tyrannize the Syrian people. We all know that over the long term, the Syrian army under his command cannot bring peace to Syria. That's the long-term goal. So it's not going to prove able to retake other areas deep in other parts of the country. And Assad is responsible, of course, for the civil war that has, in fact, helped grow a group like Daesh. But in the main, Daesh not being in Palmyra and not therefore able to continue to decimate human history – yes, we think that's a good thing.
QUESTION: So would you go so far as to congratulate the Assad government for its military success?
MR KIRBY: I don't think – I think I just would characterize it the way I just did.
QUESTION: Okay. And then the last one on this, and then I'll – someone else can go. The Russians have said that they're prepared to help UNESCO and --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: They're prepared to help demine and help UNESCO with --
MR KIRBY: To get in.
QUESTION: -- the antiquities and the historic sites there. And I'm just wondering, is this something that's just completely out of bounds for the U.S. to assist in while it is – the Assad government is running it, or is it something that you'd be willing to consider for the sake of humanity?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any consideration by the United States in terms of being a part of a UNESCO – facilitating the access to UNESCO or even participating in a UNESCO visit. That said, this did come up in our meetings in Moscow, and Foreign Minister Lavrov did express to Secretary Kerry that – their willingness to try to help UNESCO get in there. And again, we would support that. We would like to see UNESCO --
QUESTION: Even if it's while the Assad regime is in control?
MR KIRBY: We would like to – just to be clear, what we would support is UNESCO getting a chance to get in there and take a look around. But I don't foresee – and I'd point you to my Pentagon colleagues who might have more granularity on this, but I don't foresee nor am I aware of any discussion about the United States participating in a demining exercise there in Palmyra to allow UNESCO to get in. But we would in general support UNESCO getting a chance to get in there and get a look at the historic sites there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Kirby, I'd like to find out, do you – I mean, it's a big win for the Syrian forces backed by the Russians. Do you believe that this win in any way could affect discussions on a peace process, and specifically, a political transition? Already the Syrians are saying that they would be willing to take part in an international coalition. So this has bolstered their confidence that they can take more ground.
MR KIRBY: I would let them speak to the degree this may have bolstered their confidence or not. I mean, frankly, we have seen – because of early Russian military activity in Syria, we had seen, and you and I – we've talked about that the Assad regime felt emboldened by Russian military support. So that they would feel encouraged by this, I couldn't dispute it. I've not seen reports that they have, but I wouldn't – I can't dispute that that might not be the case.
But to your broader question on whether it's going to affect the peace process, I think it's just too soon to know. We've just now finished the first real set of talks in Geneva because the first attempt obviously didn't last very long. So the first real attempt just got completed. And they were there altogether in Geneva for two straight weeks. And even Mr. de Mistura noted that that was not insignificant. Though there was not a concrete proposal that came out of it or a meaningful, tangible representation of how the political process is going to look going forward, certainly that they were able to stay together and stay in those discussions for two straight weeks was noteworthy. And we want to see that progress continue to build on.
I think it's just – it's very – it's too soon to know the degree to which the Palmyra operation is going to affect it one way or the other. I'm not quite sure that we should expect that it would, except, as you said, maybe because it gives them a little bit more confidence. But it's really – it was a tactical operation on the ground that, again, while we welcome Daesh being kicked out of Palmyra, we still want to make sure and want to see both sides – the opposition and the regime – continue to stay at this political process and move forward with it.
QUESTION: And then after the discussions in Moscow, what is the next step? I mean, does the Secretary feel that that has given Geneva an extra boost, as Staffan de Mistura had hoped for?
MR KIRBY: What, the – our discussions in Moscow?
QUESTION: Correct. I mean, he was seeking somewhat a boost to the discussions.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What is the next step? Do you – does the Secretary believe that that has given that extra impetus to those discussions?
MR KIRBY: I think in short the answer would be yes. You heard how the Secretary couched his discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov and with President Putin – four hours with each. And you saw him as he came out of there talking about what they agreed to do. And there was quite a healthy set of agreements between the United States and Russia with respect to moving the political process forward, and that those discussions came on virtually the same day that the Geneva talks ended I think also would help, I think – can indicate – should indicate that the political process itself was, in fact, endorsed yet again by both the United States and Russia. So I think the Secretary felt very encouraged by his discussions in Russia and encouraged by the agreements that we were able to reach with the Russian Government in terms of the political process itself. And now we really have to get down to the business of implementing those agreements and ensuring that they actually come off the way they were discussed in Moscow and that the next round of talks in Geneva (a) occur, and (b) continue sort of a positive trend and trajectory and momentum.
Difficult to say right now what the next set of talks are going to look like or what – how they're going to end. But we are all encouraged that there is a sense of momentum now in the political process that we haven't seen before. And I don't want to overstate it, but I certainly don't want to understate the impact of U.S.-Russia collaboration and communication with respect to the political process has given it.
QUESTION: And one last question. But the issue of Assad's future was not resolved, and we know that there were discussions about it.
MR KIRBY: You're talking about in Geneva?
QUESTION: In – sorry. In Moscow that was discussed, but it was unresolved. If I remember that the Secretary had said we need to ask the Russians to speak on how they're going to push Assad to --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- move on the next transition. Given that that is not – that is still unresolved and also given that de Mistura had said that the discussions in Geneva need to move on to that transition --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- is it possible that that transition or that those discussions in Geneva can move forward with this issue of Assad still unresolved?
MR KIRBY: They have to move forward because it's still unresolved. So you're absolutely right – the future of Assad is not settled yet. And the Secretary said – he said in an interview over the weekend that the Russians are not wedded to Assad. What they have routinely and regularly talked about is making sure there's – that there's some infrastructure there, governing infrastructure going forward, not that it has to be Assad. Now, the issue of when he goes and what role he may or may not play in a transition is still – that still needs to be worked out.
And we would like to see – we share – we agree with Mr. de Mistura that in the next round of talks we would like to see them get to a little bit more detail and granularity on the question of Assad. But this is ultimately something they've got to discuss inside the Geneva framework – and I don't mean the Geneva talks they're having; I mean the communiqué of 2012, inside that framework, that issue of mutual consent and what does that mean. And they've got to work that out.
But just to restate it, because I feel like I must, there's been no change on our part on what the future for Assad and Syria need to be. And we want to move away – we continue to believe that he has lost legitimacy to govern, that what the Syrian people need is a government away from him and one that's toward institutions that are representative of them and responsive to their needs.
QUESTION: Yeah. I'm just curious. And I'm sorry to – but what exactly do you think was noteworthy about the talks in Geneva? You said – and this is a quote, I think – there was not a meaningful, tangible demonstration of success, but it was noteworthy they spent two weeks together. I mean that – what was noteworthy about that, other than they --
MR KIRBY: Well, I would point you to --
QUESTION: -- spent a ton of money at Swiss – luxury Swiss hotels --
MR KIRBY: I would point you to --
QUESTION: -- and probably ate very well. I mean --
MR KIRBY: What I meant was that they didn't solve a particular problem in the political process. Even Mr. de Mistura said that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: But he said himself that the talks didn't break down, that they could have --
QUESTION: Well, they didn't break down. They just didn't accomplish anything.
MR KIRBY: -- they could have dialogue.
QUESTION: So where's this --
MR KIRBY: It's very early on in this process.
QUESTION: But they didn't have dialogue, did they?
MR KIRBY: But --
QUESTION: I mean, it was this --
MR KIRBY: It was through proximity talks.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR KIRBY: But there – but that's still dialogue, even though it's not face-to-face. And what Mr. de Mistura said and what the Secretary said in Moscow is that we would like to see the next step be face-to-face talks. But they did come up with a list of commonalities, about a dozen or so commonalities. These are ideas, principles that both the opposition and the regime agreed to in terms of the essence of what Syria should be and can be in the future.
QUESTION: Like what?
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: We all breathe air? I mean --
MR KIRBY: -- unified, nonsectarian, free of terrorists. I mean, I could get the list for you. It's online; you can look at it yourself.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But there was a list of 12 things that now --
QUESTION: But a list --
MR KIRBY: -- the regime and the opposition agreed to, which had not existed before.
QUESTION: Well, yeah. But presumably, they – whether they had put them down in a list or not, I mean, they all agreed that previously, even before the meeting in Geneva, that they agreed that bad things shouldn't happen in Syria. That's not really any kind of progress, and even you said there wasn't any progress. So I'm just curious --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I don't get what – how does someone looking at this analyze or come to the judgment that there is a sense of momentum, when you even say that nothing was accomplished except for a list of things that they probably – or that they had agreed on already? That's --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'd say a couple of things, Matt. First of all, we both know that the first attempt failed and only lasted a few days, and because of the continued --
QUESTION: Well, I think that's the first time you guys have said that, admitted that it was – it collapsed at the --
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, a fact's a fact.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I mean, it lasted a few days and they all left, and part of the reason was because of the continued bombing. So let's look at – the short answer to your question is, it is noteworthy and it's significant that they were able to actually conduct a full round of these proximity talks without interruption, and at the end to come up with a list of common principles and ideas.
QUESTION: Okay. All right.
MR KIRBY: I'm not overselling that. I'm not overselling that at all.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: As I said, we didn't have – there weren't – even Mr. de Mistura said there wasn't, like, a tangible mark of progress in the political process necessarily, but that we were able to have them conduct these talks without interruption was not insignificant and that, at the end of it, they at least agreed to some common principles. And up until – maybe you know something I don't, but as far as I know, the regime and the opposition had never come together and agreed to a dozen list of common principles and ideas. The opposition had in Riyadh; they had come up with a common set of negotiating principles. But it's the first time that I know in five years that the regime was even willing to, even through a proxy, communicate with the opposition on a common set of principles going forward for Syria.
QUESTION: But if some of those are like – some of those are like: there shouldn't be any terrorists in Syria. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I don't think – not even the regime disagreed --
MR KIRBY: Again --
QUESTION: -- with the idea that Syria should be unified and secular and its territory --
MR KIRBY: No argument. And again, I'm not trying to oversell it.
QUESTION: All right. Okay.
MR KIRBY: I'm just trying to say that it was --
QUESTION: Very --
MR KIRBY: -- significant and noteworthy that they had these talks.
QUESTION: Very last thing. As you said, the Secretary did say several times that the Russians are not wedded to Assad, but that's not kind of – that's not really the point. I mean, it's – is it – do you have any indication that the Russians are prepared to break up with Assad? They may not be married, but unless – well, I'm trying to – you – it's "wedded" is the word here, right --
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that he used, that you used.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: It's not really a point of whether they're married or not. It's a question of whether they're ready to break up with him.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Is there any indication that that is the case?
MR KIRBY: I won't speak for the Russians in that regard. I'm not aware of a "indication" that they're ready to ditch Assad, but we don't believe that they are so committed to him, the person, that they won't --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- consider a process through which this transition can get to a government away from Assad.
QUESTION: Okay. But I was – I covered Geneva, the first Geneva, and that was the Russians' position then. I don't – that doesn't – you haven't swayed them at all. The Russian position has been consistent through --
MR KIRBY: I didn't – I wasn't arguing that we swayed them or tried to change them.
QUESTION: Okay. All right.
MR KIRBY: Nothing's changed about our position. And again, we want – ultimately, this has got to be solved – the question of Assad and the future has got to really be solved by Syrians themselves.
Pam.
QUESTION: New topic?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. We off with – are we done in Syria? Okay.
QUESTION: Cuba. Former President Castro had some harsh comments directed at the United States in the wake of the Cuba visit with Obama and Secretary Kerry. In a letter, among other things, he referenced what he called a merciless blockade that has lasted almost 60 years. He talked about multiple attacks of violence, mercenary invasions. First of all, what is State's reaction to what he's saying?
MR KIRBY: We've seen his comments. I think I – he can speak for himself and his views of the troubled U.S.-Cuban history. I mean, I – but I think I would just pivot back to what the President said when he was down there and what we're trying to do for the future. It's – the policies that we had in place for the past 50-plus years hasn't worked. That's why the President wants to engage. We want to have, eventually, normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. We believe engagement's the best way forward. But again, Mr. Castro can speak for himself.
QUESTION: Is there any concern that this may be a diplomatic setback or an indication that diplomacy is not as rosy as it seems, considering that these comments from the president's brother?
MR KIRBY: I've been, what, at the State Department now for 10 or 11 months. I've never seen diplomacy as rosy as it may seem. It is often a difficult, troubled path that you take in diplomatic relations. Sometimes even with the best of friends there can be troubled spots. Nobody expected that the normalization process with Cuba was going to be linear or easy or quick. We all recognize there are still differences – human rights being one of them – that we still have with Cuba going forward. But the way you – we believe – you solve those differences is to engage, to have dialogue.
So the short answer to your question, Pam, is no. Mr. Castro can speak for himself and his views of both the past and the future of U.S.-Cuban relations. All I can do is speak for Secretary Kerry and then reiterate what the President has said about what we want to see for that future.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Pakistan, the Lahore terrorist attack.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Has there been any outreach to Pakistani leadership from this building?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any specific outreach from the building, but clearly, our embassy in Islamabad has been in touch with Pakistani leaders there in country.
QUESTION: And what's the assessment of the security situation inside Pakistan? How strong the terrorist organizations are there?
MR KIRBY: What's my assessment of the security situation?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I think that's a better question to ask Pakistani authorities. I mean, it's their country, and I think they should speak to that. There's no doubt that Pakistan continues to be under threat from terrorists inside their own country. And we've talked about this before, that innocent Pakistanis – and we saw it again this weekend – continue to suffer at the hands of terrorists inside Pakistan. And we know it's a threat that the Pakistanis take very seriously. They don't need to be reminded of the danger from terrorism inside Pakistan.
And nothing's changed about our commitment to do what we can to help them deal with this threat. Because it isn't just – we saw, terribly, that it was certainly visited upon the Pakistani people this weekend, but as you and I have talked about before, it's not just a Pakistani threat. It's a regional threat; it's a global threat in many ways. So we stand by the people of Pakistan right now and we also stand by our commitment to assist Pakistan going forward.
QUESTION: So has – Pakistani prime minister has also canceled his trip to Washington. Do you have to say anything on this?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't speak to the Pakistani prime minister's travel schedule. That's for them to speak to. We've seen the reports that he's not coming. I think, given what just happened, it's completely understandable why he would want to stay at home.
QUESTION: And last week when ISIS had attacked Brussels, you had said they are doing it because they are being weakened in the parts by the U.S. and allied countries. Do you think similarly in the Pakistan too that the terrorist organizations are on the down, that's why they're going for these kinds of attacks?
MR KIRBY: I know that they're under pressure. This group in particular that claimed the Lahore attack is TTP, which we know the Pakistani security forces continue to put under pressure, and quite a bit. But I think it – as groups like this get put under pressure, it is somewhat to be expected that they will look for ways to lash out. And suicide bombings and these kinds of dramatic terrorist attacks are ways to do that. It doesn't mean – and I don't want to indicate that it means that we think the threat's past or that they're not still a dangerous group, either TTP in this case or Daesh as what we were talking about in respect to Brussels. They're still dangerous. We still have to take the threat very seriously.
But with a group like Daesh, which is somewhat different, right? I mean, the TPP is not a self-proclaimed caliphate. They weren't and haven't tried to sort of set up an alternate governing structure or to take over the Government of Pakistan. Daesh is a different beast in that regard, because they do value territory possessed. They value a revenue stream from what you and I would consider more conventional means, like selling of oil or donations from foreign donors. And it's a group that had at the beginning sort of a quasi-military characteristic to it, which TPP never had.
So they're different groups, different goals, different objectives, but obviously still the same deadly means of carrying out the violence.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: But wait a second. I mean, you say that they're different and they don't seek a caliphate, but they do – the claim of responsibility that they issued: one, that they're going to continue fighting until sharia law is the law of the land in Pakistan; and secondly, they said that they had specifically targeted Christians on Easter Sunday. Do you – there has been some --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- commentary about why you guys didn't mention either the Easter connection or the Christian connection in your condemnatory statements over the weekend and again today. Do you believe the claim of responsibility, that Christians were targeted and are targets?
MR KIRBY: I have no – we have no indications that their claims of responsibility are false, though I can't sit here and confirm it 100 percent.
QUESTION: No, I – right.
MR KIRBY: Therefore I have no indications that their – the motivation that they claim was the reason is also false. But this is all going to be investigated by Pakistanis. And that I didn't mention in my statement that this was specifically targeted against Christians on Easter Sunday was as much a fact – much an indication of the fact that it had just happened and we didn't know that much about the attack at the outset.
QUESTION: Is that your understanding now, though? You believe that it was?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we have no reason to doubt the veracity of their claims that this was aimed at Christians on Easter Sunday. But again, I'm not also in a position – I just – we don't have the fidelity of information to actually confirm overtly that that was, in fact, the case.
QUESTION: What was --
MR KIRBY: But clearly that certainly appears to have been the case, and there – and we have no reason to doubt their claims. Okay?
Are you still on this?
QUESTION: I have a question, not on this. Over the weekend, Secretary Kerry called the Republican primary an embarrassment to the United States.
MR KIRBY: No, he did not.
QUESTION: Okay. What did he say?
MR KIRBY: He said that he thought that the rhetoric – particularly as it relates to foreign policy issues and people of other faiths – was an embarrassment.
QUESTION: Okay. So I'm not making that big of a leap, am I? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah, you are. You said he said – your question said that he called the Republican primary process an embarrassment.
QUESTION: Okay. Not the primary process – the – he thinks the rhetoric from the candidates who are seeking office is an embarrassment to the United States. And I was wondering if you could expand on who might be expressing those concerns, which foreign leaders are expressing concerns, what they're asking him. If you could just expand on that a little bit.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to give you a list, but I can tell you, as he did, virtually every foreign leader that the Secretary meets with expresses concerns about the campaign rhetoric here in the United States, and expresses a fair bit of angst about where things are going. Because these comments don't necessarily, in many cases, reflect certainly the Secretary's view of our foreign policy objectives, or in many cases, our own values as Americans. So they have – virtually all of them have expressed that concern, and he said so. And as for exactly what they said and what particular comment they were referring to, I'd let them speak to that.
QUESTION: Do you get the sense that they're referring only to Donald Trump, or do you think that they're also referring to Ted Cruz or other candidates seeking Republican nomination?
MR KIRBY: I think there is a wide swath of views that have been expressed on the campaign trail from more than one candidate that has caused concern among many foreign leaders.
QUESTION: Does that mean wholly on the Republican side?
MR KIRBY: I think I'll leave it at – I think that I'll leave it --
QUESTION: No foreign leader has expressed concern about the rhetoric in the Democratic primary?
MR KIRBY: I think I'm just going to leave it the way I said – a wide swath of candidates.
QUESTION: And does it apply only to when he hears that – and says that it's an embarrassment, does that apply only to the foreign policy rhetoric, or is there other rhetoric, personal insults – is that also what he was referring to, not just the foreign policy?
MR KIRBY: I think largely he's talking about some of the foreign policy comments, but I couldn't rule out that there are other comments made, not foreign-policy-related, that has caused an eyebrow or two to raise overseas. Sure.
QUESTION: And – such as?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, look, I'm not going to – I don't want to debate the specific --
QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking you to debate. I'm just saying, I mean, what have people raised? Have they said --
MR KIRBY: I just – I think --
QUESTION: -- this wife thing has gone too far? Or we can't understand why – what other issues?
MR KIRBY: I think that all broke after our trip, so I don't know that he's been asked about that. Again, I'd really rather not engage in specifics on the campaign rhetoric, but I think, again, pulling back to what he said, that the rhetoric – the very stark rhetoric --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- that continues to emerge from the campaign is not being ignored by foreign leaders and foreign governments and, frankly, foreign populations. And as the Secretary has said before, we – public officials should be mindful when they make those comments.
QUESTION: Right, but it – well, but again, it's only on the Republican side that he's heard about this from – I mean, that people are expressing concern about.
MR KIRBY: Well, I think I'm just going to leave it as I said – wide swath of --
QUESTION: No, but I – just to be clear, I think he made that point. He was – we're not talking about the Democratic side; he was not talking about the Democrats. He was --
MR KIRBY: In that particular instance, no, he wasn't.
QUESTION: But it's not affecting – it's not affecting other countries' policies towards the United States or – yet. I mean, they've just expressed concern.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: There's no pullback or defense positions.
MR KIRBY: Nothing that I've seen or we can point to, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
QUESTION: Ukraine?
MR KIRBY: You want to stay on this topic?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: In particular, there were comments over the weekend about South Korea and Japan pulling out troops there and allowing South Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons. Can you address those and what the Secretary might --
MR KIRBY: As I said before, I am not going to get into an engagement on every comment made by every candidate. Nothing's changed about our – the seriousness with which we take our treaty commitments to Japan and to South Korea. Nothing's changed about our view of what the future of the Korean Peninsula needs to look like in terms of denuclearization. And again, nothing's changed about the support we're going to continue to give to the Government of Japan as they work through their own review of their defense posture and, again, how we can help them in that regard. Nothing's changed about our views of those two very, very important bilateral relationships.
QUESTION: Can I stay on Japan?
QUESTION: Follow-up on Japan?
MR KIRBY: Japan?
QUESTION: Yeah. Japan's national security laws that will allow Japan to exercise self-defense collectiveness will take effect tomorrow. Do you have any response?
MR KIRBY: No, I don't. I'd let the Japanese Government speak to that. That's really for them to speak to, not for us.
QUESTION: I – you don't have any --
QUESTION: Ukraine?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: You don't have anything?
QUESTION: How would you comment on the latest killing in Ukraine? Ukrainian lawyer Yuri Grabovsky was kidnapped and killed using – there is information that he was killed using explosives and so-called controlling shot.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I've just seen these reports. I'm going to refer you to Ukrainian authorities to speak to that. We're just seeing them, like you are, and it's just too soon for us to draw any kind of conclusion here or to make any overt statement. We need to learn more from Ukrainian authorities about it.
QUESTION: Do you have any concerns regarding this case? Do you consider this killing as a political one?
MR KIRBY: Again, you're asking me to comment on something that just happened, and we're still trying to get more information about it. Obviously it's concerning to us, these reports, and we need to learn more and know more before we're in a position to speak to it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Just once when I call on you I would love to hear you say something other than that. Is that gonna happen?
QUESTION: I hope.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: One day. (Laughter.)
So for few --
QUESTION: Mozambique. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: For few days --
MR KIRBY: And then ask a question about Turkey.
QUESTION: For few days in Turkey, media known to be close to current government have been accusing U.S. Government for attempting to overthrow Erdogan government. These allegations and claims have been voiced by at least half a dozen newspapers and dozens of other reportings. My question to you: Does the U.S. Government --
MR KIRBY: Are we trying to overthrow the Government of Turkey? Is that your question?
QUESTION: -- try to overthrow the Erdogan government?
MR KIRBY: It is such a ridiculous claim and charge that I'm not going to dignify it with an answer.
QUESTION: Fact that these are the media known – like Soviet's Pravda – is very close to Erdogan government, there is no way the editorial can be run without President Erdogan and the government's knowledge. How do you comment with a ally country's – this kind of allegations to another ally country?
MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I understand what allegation you're talking about. The allegation that --
QUESTION: That overthrowing --
MR KIRBY: -- because they're run by the government, they have to editorialize pro-government comments or the allegation that we are trying to overthrow the Erdogan government?
QUESTION: These allegations of overthrowing Erdogan government coming directly from the media very close to the President Erdogan, who's supposed to be here tomorrow or the other day.
MR KIRBY: I don't care who it's coming from. It's ridiculous and it doesn't merit a response by the United States of America.
Back here.
QUESTION: Just one more. I am so sorry, just one more.
MR KIRBY: This one's on Mozambique, though, right?
QUESTION: Next time, hopefully. Over the weekend – last Friday about 10 diplomatic missions visited journalist trial on Friday --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- including, I believe, American diplomat there --
MR KIRBY: Yes, that's right.
QUESTION: -- and the President Erdogan have been basically saying that this is not your business. Would you comment on that? Do you stand by by your diplomatic --
MR KIRBY: Yes, and there were U.S. representatives at the opening of this particular trial. And that's completely in keeping with standard diplomatic practice – to observe and report on political, judicial, and other developments in host countries. This was not only not the first time, but it darn sure won't be the last time that we observe these kinds of judicial proceedings.
Personally, we regret that this case is now being tried in the public --
QUESTION: Closed.
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry, in private without the public or media or diplomatic access. So that's regrettable. And number three, and you've heard me say this before, we continue to urge the Turkish Government to abide by its commitments enshrined in its own constitution to the fundamental principles of democracy, including due process, judicial independence, and freedom of expression, including freedom of the press.
Okay. Yeah, you had one on Turkey back there?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Both of you guys?
QUESTION: Oh, I don't know.
QUESTION: No, I don't. My question will be on Iraq.
MR KIRBY: Oh. Well, then I'm not going to go to you now.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I'm waiting for Mozambique.
QUESTION: So Turkish President Erdogan will be in D.C. this week and President Obama has no plans on a one-on-one meeting. From the State Department point of view, has the relation with Turkey changed since his last visit to D.C. in 2013?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the short answer to your question is no, but I mean, I'm not aware of back in 2013 how we characterized it. Look, they're a NATO ally, a strong partner in the counter-Daesh coalition. And in about 12 minutes, I'm going to have to get upstairs because the Turkish foreign minister is going to be here for a bilateral meeting with Secretary Kerry. This is a very important bilateral relationship to us. We take it very, very seriously as we know the Turks do as well. There is an awful lot to talk about. We've talked before that we don't always agree on everything; media freedom is one of them. But that's the strength of a healthy relationship when you can disagree and still have productive discussions about the things that you – that are common threats and challenges, such as terrorism, such as Daesh. So we look forward to the discussions going forward.
QUESTION: And how about the way they're handling the situation with the Kurdish separatists? How is the U.S. regarding that?
MR KIRBY: The Turkish separatists?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: You mean – are you talking about the Kurdish fighters on the other side of the --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Look, there's no doubt we're going to talk about the situation in Syria and about that stretch of border that continues to provide an avenue for foreign fighters and supplies to get to Daesh across their border. But obviously, the Turks have concerns about this and we continue to look forward to having discussions with them and engage with them on those concerns. I mean, we – we understand there's – they still have those concerns. Our view, and I've said this as recently as last week – we don't accept semi-autonomous, self-declared zones inside Syria. That's not going to change. But we'll see how the meeting goes and I'll certainly give you a readout after it's over, but this is not a new topic of discussion. It's not a new issue – area of concern by Turkish authorities, and we look forward to continuing to have a dialogue with them.
Iraq?
QUESTION: Yes. The Iraqi prime minister, Mr. Al-Abadi, has been pushing ahead for reform in its government, and he claims to reshuffle his own cabinet. I was curious about your position on these claims about Abadi has been trying to accomplish.
MR KIRBY: What you call claims I think are, in fact – you almost – it makes it sounds like he's doing something wrong here. Prime Minister Abadi is --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: Prime Minister Abadi is trying to make necessary political reforms in his country and he has moved some officials around, and that's the obligation, that's the responsibility; those are the choices that a prime minister has to make. We continue to support his efforts to improve governance in Iraq and to enact appropriate reforms to try to facilitate that process.
QUESTION: But bringing what he calls technocrats into his cabinet at this moment would definitely make a lot of people angry because he is going to exclude a lot of party appointed into his government. How would you react to that?
MR KIRBY: Again, these are decisions that he has to make and his government has to make and the Iraqi people have to make, and those are internal decisions that we aren't going to involve ourselves in each individual appointment that he makes. These are internal matters for Iraq to speak to and for him to speak to. In general, we support his efforts at reform and we support his efforts at trying to get a government in place – and keep a government in place – that can be responsive to the needs of the Iraqi people and can help them deal with the very real threat inside their own country represented by Daesh.
QUESTION: So wait, wait. So this – the position of the U.S. is that you're not going to interfere in the president – or the leader of a country, his choices for cabinet, but you will interfere in who the – or you will choose who should be the leader of the country, but once your selected person is in power, they can have whoever they want in the cabinet? Is that basically what --
MR KIRBY: Well, it was the Iraqi people that --
QUESTION: After you guys --
MR KIRBY: -- put Prime Minister Abadi in the position he's in.
QUESTION: After the U.S. pulled the rug out from under --
MR KIRBY: We're not – we don't involve ourselves in the internal decisions of an electorate like that.
QUESTION: Except in Syria.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: And --
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR KIRBY: How is that – I'm not sure I follow how we're doing that in Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I want to follow up on Japan really quickly.
MR KIRBY: Okay, but I wasn't pointing at you. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Change of topic?
MR KIRBY: Not yet. Let – you, go ahead.
QUESTION: Me?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. The --
MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you in a second.
QUESTION: Okay. The L.A. Times is reporting that the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server is reaching its end stage, and federal prosecutors are commencing interviews of all the – or of some witnesses. To your knowledge, are any State Department employees being sought out for interviews?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't speak to details of an FBI investigation.
QUESTION: On the emails.
MR KIRBY: And you know that I wouldn't do that.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the investigation is nearing completion?
MR KIRBY: You should talk to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on that, not us.
QUESTION: On the emails.
QUESTION: Can you outline the drain of resources this investigation has caused, and now has it passed since all of the emails have been released?
MR KIRBY: I can't talk about a quote-unquote "drain of resources" on the investigation. You'd have to talk to investigating agencies to talk about that.
QUESTION: For the Department of State. Sorry.
MR KIRBY: Well, our role has been to produce the actual traffic, the email traffic that former Secretary Clinton turned over to us that she believed were of a professional nature, and we've done that now. We started in May and we just finished it up, so several months of work and effort. There was a lot of manpower put into it. I can't quantify that for you now. If you really need to know that, we'll take the question and try to get you a way to quantify the effort, but it was a sizable effort and it took many man hours to complete.
I can't speak to the status of the investigation. That's just not our role.
QUESTION: On the emails --
QUESTION: Would you – do you welcome the conclusion of this investigation?
MR KIRBY: I don't – I can't speak to whether it is reaching a conclusion, so again, you'd have to talk to the FBI on that. That wouldn't be our place to speak to it.
Japan?
QUESTION: On the emails.
QUESTION: As my colleague previously mentioned, Japanese new security laws took effect a few hours ago. Do you have any comment on how this might affect the U.S.?
MR KIRBY: No, I just don't have an update for you on that. I mean, you're going to have to let us – you said yourself it just happened a few hours ago, so I just don't have anything for you on that. We'll have to see about getting back to you.
QUESTION: Well, but the laws were passed a while ago. It's just the enactment that's new.
MR KIRBY: I just – I don't have anything for you right now.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Have you heard about the Google tool from 2012 designed to track and map defections within the Assad government?
MR KIRBY: Do I know of a --
QUESTION: A Google tool from 2012 --
MR KIRBY: A Google tool?
QUESTION: -- designed to track and map defections within the Assad government.
MR KIRBY: No, I'm not aware of it.
QUESTION: Hillary Clinton's team at the State Department was aware of this, and from her emails we learned that before Google launched that tool, Google's Jared Cohen, who had previously worked at the State Department, wrote to Secretary Clinton's team to ask for guidance. He wrote, quote, "Nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition. Given how hard it is to get information into Syria right now, we are partnering with Al Jazeera, who will take primary ownership over the tool we have built."
The State Department's Jacob Sullivan forwarded this whole idea to Hillary Clinton with a note which said, "FYI, this is a pretty cool idea." Do you think it is a pretty cool idea to get a media company to take ownership of a tool designed with a specific foreign policy goal in mind?
MR KIRBY: You're asking me to speak to content on emails, and I have very religiously steered away from speaking to the content of this email traffic, and I'm not going to divert today.
QUESTION: I understand that. My question is more of a general kind. Would you – do you think it's a good idea to get a media --
MR KIRBY: I can't – I can't answer your question because I don't know – I've not seen that email traffic. I'm not going to speak to the content of it, and I'm not going to speculate on whether that was a good idea or not.
QUESTION: Not on these specific emails. Putting that aside, generally, do you think it's a good idea to get a media company to take ownership of a tool designed with a specific foreign policy goal in mind?
MR KIRBY: I can't answer your question because you – it's – once again, it's a terrific hypothetical that I refuse to engage in. I can only tell you that we do the best we can through a variety of means to learn more about some of the populations with which we're dealing with from a foreign policy objective – from a foreign policy perspective. But I can't speak to this particular issue that you're talking about.
QUESTION: Understood.
MR KIRBY: Folks, I got to go. I got to go.
QUESTION: Has the State Department partnered up with --
MR KIRBY: I've answered your question, ma'am. I answered your question.
QUESTION: It's a different one. Has the --
MR KIRBY: Ma'am, I got to go. Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:52 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
