Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 29, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
LIBYA
DEPARTMENT
LIBYA
TURKEY
SYRIA
JAPAN
NORTH KOREA
CYPRUS
EGYPT
BELGIUM
PAKISTAN
HONDURAS
IRAN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:17 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody. Happy Tuesday to you. A couple things at the top.
First, on Libya. The United States is deeply troubled by reports that a small group of political obstructionists have closed the airspace around Tripoli in a deliberate attempt to prevent the Libyan Government of National Accord from arriving in Tripoli. We find reprehensible efforts by these individuals to undermine the political process, to derail the establishment of the Government of National Accord, and to slow, if not halt, the implementation of the Libyan political agreement signed in Skhirat. Consistent with the recommendation of the Libyan Political Dialogue, we support the Presidency Council of the Government of National Accord and their move to Tripoli and we call upon all Libyan public institutions to facilitate a peaceful handover of power so that Libya's new leaders can begin the hard work of restoring stability to their country. The people of Libya deserve better than this sort of ham-fisted obstructionism. They deserve a strong a united government and a chance to see that government succeed for them and for the region. The United States will continue to consult with the United Nations and with Special Representative Kobler over the issue of supporting the Presidency Council's move to Tripoli.
On a scheduling note, I'd like to just acknowledge that the Secretary will meet later today with principals from partner federal agencies to discuss the need to continue to build a global accountability system designed to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, known as IUU. The Navy, the intelligence community, the Coast Guard, NASA, NOAA, the Department of Justice, and USAID will attend this meeting, which will happen here in less than an hour, which we believe shows the vast global reach of the problem and the multiagency approach needed to find solutions to this. As you know, this has been a priority for the Secretary and it's all part of an effort as he continues to build towards the Oceans Conference that will be held in the fall here in Washington, D.C. This is a key component of – a key agenda item for the Oceans Conference and something that the Secretary's committed to seeing if we can't make a little bit of progress on in the next several months.
So with that, Matt.
QUESTION: I have two, one on – it'll be very brief ones, one of each of your opening announcements. One – and forgive my ignorance on this, but this is a conference on illegal fishing or a meeting about illegal fishing?
MR KIRBY: Illegal and unregulated fishing.
QUESTION: What is NASA doing? Are there fish in space? What do they have to do with it?
MR KIRBY: I don't think there's fish in space, but NASA has the ability to --
QUESTION: There were pigs in space at one point. What --
MR KIRBY: NASA certainly has the ability to monitor the oceans from space.
QUESTION: But from above. Okay.
MR KIRBY: And I would add just – I mean, it's --
QUESTION: I mean, it's a serious --
MR KIRBY: No, it's a very good question. When we were in Moscow, I think some of you may have seen that he met with the director, Mr. Bolden, and this was one of the items that they talked about in Moscow just a few days ago.
QUESTION: So this is stuff that NASA can do looking down into the oceans?
MR KIRBY: Correct. Potentially, yes.
QUESTION: All right. Okay. And then on the first one, it's been a while since we've gotten the word "ham-fisted obstructionism" from the podium I think.
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm glad to bring it back.
QUESTION: I think that we were all under the impression from the Secretary's meeting several months ago in Italy with the Libyan --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that once they had gotten through the initial task – or once the UN – Mr. Kobler had gotten through the initial task that – of doing this that people had dropped or had least agreed to drop their personal issues with this, the infighting that was going on. Are these – and forgive me, because I don't know who – exactly what's going on on the ground in Tripoli right now, but are these political obstructionists, as you call them, are – were they party to the agreement or are they from outside? And why are they --
MR KIRBY: This is a group principally known as the General National Congress, and we've talked about them before. They have been obstructing the movement towards this for quite some time.
QUESTION: Yeah, but were they involved in --
MR KIRBY: They actually, as you might recall, refused to show up to many of these talks.
QUESTION: So they weren't --
MR KIRBY: So they have not been a party to it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And they have been obstructing the movements since almost the get-go. And again, we fully support this and want to see it move forward.
QUESTION: All right. Okay. Moving on just to the announcement from you guys on the – and the DOD today on Turkey and the ordered departures. Your colleague at the Pentagon has spent the last several minutes answering – or saying that there was no specific threat that has led to this and that it was just decided out of an abundance of caution that you should go ahead and – my question is: If there was no specific threat, why do it now?
MR KIRBY: That's a great question. So my colleague is right. The decision to do this, first of all, wasn't taken lightly. It was done after careful thought and consideration and interagency coordination, I might add. And I think it's very much a result of our ongoing assessment of security conditions there in Turkey and in recognition of the threat environment in Adana, specifically in southeastern Turkey from a regional perspective. So the why now is I think – when you talk about the now – rather than talk about the now in terms of today or the last few hours, try to keep in mind that this was really a decision that was several weeks in the making in terms of assessing the security situation there, which undoubtedly – and you guys have reported on the terrorism threat that has existed there, the recent attacks. Secretary Kerry alluded to some of these attacks yesterday in the camera spray with the Turkish foreign minister. So this was a decision that, again, was, I think, several weeks in the making.
QUESTION: Well, right. So that – but again, why now? Because as you noted, the Secretary met with the Turkish foreign minister yesterday.
MR KIRBY: Yes, he did.
QUESTION: And President Erdogan is due here in a day or two. I mean, if this could have just as easily been done last week or next week, it certainly appears like this was timed to cause maximum embarrassment to senior leaders of your NATO ally, Turkey, who happened to be coming to town. I mean, you chose to do this smackdab in the middle of the foreign minister being here and the president arriving. Why? Why didn't you do it – why was this chosen?
MR KIRBY: The decision to do this, the timing of it, was completely considered independently of the Nuclear Security Summit and the visit here to Washington by Turkish officials. Absolutely no connection to that whatsoever. This was done, as it should be, based on the security threat and our concern about the safety for American citizens, whether they're government employees or not, in southeastern Turkey in particular. And again, it was not something that we took lightly. I mean, this was something that took several weeks to sort of get us to and to work hand in glove with the Defense Department, who also has equities here. So not timed at all for this week's issues.
Now, that said, I'd be less than truthful if I didn't also say that in yesterday's bilateral discussion with the Turkish foreign minister the Secretary did raise this so that – and to explain to the foreign minister the decision we were making, why we were making it, and how we were going to make it public. And he was very understanding and appreciative of the situational awareness.
QUESTION: Well, I'm not sure he probably was – probably not appreciative, but maybe he understood. But I – appreciating is one thing.
MR KIRBY: He seemed appreciative to me. I mean, I was there.
QUESTION: But – okay. Well, all right. But look, I mean, this is a country in which you have spent the last several weeks – even longer – batting down or trying to bat down conspiracy theories that have ranged from you guys knew about the – because you put out the embassy warning for the warning for Ankara, that you knew in advance there was going to be an attack, the attacks in the press on your ambassador there. And --
MR KIRBY: And yesterday's accusation that we're trying to overthrow the government?
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And with all that, the brains in this building and the Pentagon decided that today, right in between – right just before a President Erdogan visit, is the day to do something that you could have done last week or the week before or even next week. Does that --
MR KIRBY: We – I – look, I can't dispute the conspiracy theorists, that they might think that there was more to it than this, that this was some sort of --
QUESTION: I would hope you do want to dispute.
MR KIRBY: I am.
QUESTION: Oh.
MR KIRBY: I mean, I can't dispute that there are people that think that way.
QUESTION: Will think that. All right.
MR KIRBY: But I certainly can dispute the actual allegation. I can tell you, having watched the process churn now over the last several weeks, that this was done with the – with deep consideration and careful thought, interagency communication. And again, this is not the kind of decision that we take lightly. We take it very seriously. And so therefore want to do it in an appropriate, measured, deliberate fashion, and also do it at what we believe is the right time. And we believe this is the right time to do this.
QUESTION: Last one. The Pentagon was quite specific about the number of people that this was going to affect. Actually, they were even – they were quite specific about the number of pets that it would affect. How many people will this affect in terms of the State Department?
MR KIRBY: It is a small number of family members. I do not have an exact figure, but we can see if we can --
QUESTION: Oh, I know. I know you won't give them to me. I just want to know why the Pentagon is so willing to talk about this, down to cats and dogs and little bunny rabbits, and you guys, for some reason, have a different – you're more important, so you don't have to --
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't --
QUESTION: -- you don't have to give numbers about how many.
MR KIRBY: Now, Matt, I don't --
QUESTION: That's – so that's the – that's my question. Why?
MR KIRBY: The question or --
QUESTION: No, no. That's my question. Why won't the State Department do what the DOD did and give specific numbers?
MR KIRBY: As I understand it – and I'm happy to research this after the briefing. As I understand it, we don't typically offer --
QUESTION: I know. This is my --
MR KIRBY: -- details on the number of dependents and family members --
QUESTION: Yeah, that's my – that's my question.
MR KIRBY: -- at any given station for security purposes. And we have – I can't – but having worked in both institutions, I recognize that the State Department has a different threshold for security concerns about dependents and family members.
QUESTION: Why? That's my question. Why? Why won't you --
MR KIRBY: Okay. Well, I'll see what I can do to find a better answer for you on why, but we aren't going to release an exact number. And I don't --
QUESTION: Well, I know you're not. But I'd like just to --
MR KIRBY: And I don't know that the Pentagon actually said how many bunnies they have.
QUESTION: They said something like 278 pets.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. Now I don't know if they broke that down into goldfish or squirrels.
MR KIRBY: Well, your question alluded to hamsters and bunnies, and I just want to make sure that we're clear on that.
QUESTION: Actually, it just – just bunnies.
MR KIRBY: Just bunnies, okay. (Laughter.) All right.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) discussion. Can I just – (laughter) – I think that should go down in history. (Laughter.) (Inaudible) between the Pentagon and the U.S. on travel alerts. Was that made independent of each other or are they related?
MR KIRBY: The – I'm sorry, the?
QUESTION: The decision by – the announcement by DOD on the drawing down --
MR KIRBY: No, this was a coordinated --
QUESTION: It is a --
MR KIRBY: This was a coordinated decision and a coordinated announcement. We were in lockstep with the Pentagon as we arrived at this decision.
QUESTION: Was there anything that triggered the specific discussions that something needs to be done to take security to the next level?
MR KIRBY: I think, again, without getting into specific intelligence issues, and certainly – and I want to again echo what I said to Matt earlier. I mean, this wasn't the result of a specific threat to a specific institution or locality or by a specific group. This was based on an analysis over the last several weeks, certainly, of the security situation in Turkey, which undoubtedly – and you guys have covered this yourselves – has become more dangerous, particularly in southeastern Turkey. So it was based on a running analysis of the security threat there, an analysis that we share with the Pentagon about the level of potential danger here. And again, this was a decision made out of an abundance of caution to keep people as safe as possible.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: John, just to be clear, you've said that Secretary Kerry did inform his Turkish counterpart yesterday --
MR KIRBY: That's right.
QUESTION: -- about the decision, and the Turkish foreign minister didn't have anything to say? He didn't mention the fact that, as Matt pointed out, President Erdogan was coming to Washington and that it could cause --
MR KIRBY: No, as I said – as I said, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu was appreciative of the information, grateful that he was able to find out directly from Secretary Kerry, and to hear the Secretary's explanation of why we were making this decision. And it was a very cordial discussion in that regard.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go to the refugee issue?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: So we're now about halfway through the fiscal year and the U.S. has only admitted about 1,200 Syrian refugees, which is – leaves about 88 percent to hit the President's goal of 10,000. Is the State Department still confident that that goal can be met?
MR KIRBY: We are still very committed to the goal of reaching 10,000 by the end of the year. We're mindful of the months left in the fiscal year to do that, but we are very much committed to meeting that goal. We are also equally committed to helping ensure the safety and security of the American people, and as I've said many times from the podium, that Syrian refugees, those that are referred to us by the UN are subject to more scrutiny than refugees from any other place in the world. We think that's appropriate. And what we want to do is strike the right balance of meeting the goal that the President set, and we're absolutely committed to that, at the same time meeting our obligations to the safety and security of the American people and not changing or watering down or decreasing the level of scrutiny that refugees from Syria are put through before they come here to the United States. We take that very seriously as well.
So it's a balance. Certainly, I'm mindful of the math as you laid it out. We all are, but we're going to keep working at it.
QUESTION: But recognizing, I mean, you've mentioned one limitation, which is the security vetting, but there's others as well. I mean, just the speed of processing is --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- can only be so fast. So --
MR KIRBY: As we've said, it takes 18 to 24 months.
QUESTION: Right. So is it a realistic goal?
MR KIRBY: It is the goal that has been set forth by the Commander-in-Chief. It's – we take it seriously and we're going to continue to do so. We're going to continue to try to reach it. Because we also believe, as I said, not only in preserving the safety and security of the American people, but we believe in our responsibility to try to find a safe place for these individuals, these families to live. So we're committed to that as well. I mean, that's part of who we are as a nation.
And so it is a – it's a serious goal. It's a – there's no doubt about that the – that it's going to continue to require work and effort and energy on our part to try to meet it. But I can tell you we're 100 percent committed to doing that.
QUESTION: What happens if all those slots aren't filled? If 10,000 aren't let in, do those roll over to the next year? Do they just kind of disappear? What happens?
MR KIRBY: I don't want to try to engage in a hypothetical here. We have a goal put before us of 10,000. We're committed to reaching that. So let's get to the end of the year, and then see where we are and what might be required in the future. But I don't want to – I don't want to engage in speculation about us not doing the job we've been asked to do. And it's not just the State Department, by the way. I mean, it's an interagency effort here. It's – the Department of Homeland Security's involved in this as well as some law enforcement agencies, and the intelligence community. I mean, this is a whole-of-government effort, and we're all committed to reaching this goal. And again, I just don't want to speculate about the what-ifs right now when we're still – we still have six months left in the fiscal year to try to do this.
QUESTION: Okay, let me ask a slightly different question, which is: Since the President made this commitment of 10,000 refugees, there's been a pretty dramatic change in public rhetoric – not from the Administration, but from other political figures, Congress, governors who've said --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- they don't want to take in more refugees.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Has this kind of heightened public skepticism affected in any way the Administration's efforts or how committed the Administration is to this process?
MR KIRBY: No. I mean, if you're asking if the public rhetoric has affected the process itself of evaluating a case and then bringing that family to America, no. But the --
QUESTION: Or the urgency with which it's being approached?
MR KIRBY: No. Absolutely not. The system is not designed to move too fast. As we've said, refugees from Syria are given the highest scrutiny of any other type of refugee. In the main, it takes 18 to 24 months for an individual – and by the way, we have to look at these from an individual basis. We look at each person. It takes about a year and a half to two years to work through that process. And as we've talked about before, it's not like we're just going out there and self-identifying refugees. They have to be referred to us from the UN.
So there's a process here, and that process is designed to be methodical. And I understand that there are some people that think it goes too slow, and there's probably other people out there that think it goes too fast. We believe that we've got the balance right and we're just going to keep working at this. We understand that if you look at the math from a linear perspective, if you do algebra – I get it – that at 1,200 now, it's a tall order to get the rest of the more than 8,000 in by the end of the year. We're not unmindful of the challenge before us.
But I can tell you we're still committed to it. And again, it's striking that right balance between reaching the numbers goal, but also making sure that you're not sacrificing the very measured, deliberate, and purposeful manner in which these refugees are vetted and approved.
QUESTION: Can we expect to see that speed up, that rate of admissions speed up in the coming months, or --
MR KIRBY: I don't have a specific prediction for you in terms of accelerant here. I would just say, again, we're mindful that at 1,200, with six months to go in the fiscal year, there's a lot before us. We're all mindful of that challenge. But the Secretary's been clear that while we are going to be – we're going to stay committed to the President's goal, we also have to be committed to striking that balance of safety and security of the American people, and respecting the process that's in place. And it does work. It takes time, and I understand for those that are waiting to come in it can be very frustrating. And I understand also for the critics of this that they don't think there's enough scrutiny applied. We believe that there is sufficient scrutiny applied to each and every individual that's applying for refugee status here in the United States. We just have to – we have to take this one person at a time.
So 10,000 is a lot of individuals to go through, but we owe it to the American people – and frankly, we owe it to these people and these families – to take each case at a time. And sometimes that does require more time on the clock than I know some people would feel comfortable with.
QUESTION: Logic – if you only have six months to get the rest of the 10,000 in, these people must already be in the pipeline, right? So perhaps --
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: -- it would be possible to find out if there are enough people, even in the pipeline --
MR KIRBY: To reach the 10,000.
QUESTION: -- to reach the – to reach the goal --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and that might be a --
MR KIRBY: I don't know how many are, quote-unquote, "in the pipeline" now.
QUESTION: Because if they – if it takes 12 to 24 months for each person, as you said, then at least they're – we're only six months left, so --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- these people must have been in the pipeline for – well, at least six months and potentially 18 months.
MR KIRBY: Perhaps longer, perhaps longer, yeah.
QUESTION: And so maybe that's possible to find that out, just if it's even --
MR KIRBY: I'll take a look and see if --
QUESTION: -- physically possible without bending the space-time continuum to get to – (laughter) --
MR KIRBY: I will --
QUESTION: -- to – if all the people in the pipeline now are admitted, will you get to the 10,000 figure?
MR KIRBY: I'll take a look and see if we are able to provide an estimate of how many are actually in the pipeline.
QUESTION: All right. And then the other thing is: Is it actually true – or maybe you could take the question if you don't know off the top of your head – that every single – I mean, surely it doesn't take 12 to 24 months to look at an infant --
MR KIRBY: On average, it's 18 to 24 per individual. I can't --
QUESTION: Yeah. But if a six-month-old – that doesn't take that long to --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Look, I can't dispute the fact that some probably don't take that long and some probably take longer than 24 months. I mean, it's – 18 to 24 months is an average.
QUESTION: Does – I mean, they don't try to interview infants, obviously. That wouldn't make any sense. So is it really every single person? Or is it --
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: Is there an exception made for people under five or something like that so that --
MR KIRBY: Every individual is evaluated. Obviously, for infants, you don't have the same evaluation --
QUESTION: No, I know. But I just want to make sure.
MR KIRBY: -- that you have to do for an adult. And each case is taken individually. So, clearly, obviously, there are going to be some that do not take anywhere near 18 months to go through --
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: -- and then there are others that probably take longer than the 24 months. But the point I was trying to make is we do this on an individual basis. We have to. It's our responsibility.
Yeah.
QUESTION: It's on Japan. I wanted to follow up on a question asked yesterday about the security laws in Japan and whether or not you had --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, the one that I wasn't ready for. Yeah. So what I can tell you today is that we welcome Japan's ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and to play a more active role in regional and international security activities. Japan has demonstrated over the last 70 years an abiding commitment to peace, democracy, and the rule of law, and this record stands as a model for all countries. For additional information about the – about this security legislation, I'd refer you to the Government of Japan, okay? Thanks. Thanks for following up on it.
Pam.
QUESTION: North Korea. The President, of course, later on this week, will be meeting with Asian allies. I'm sure North Korea will be among the items discussed. But question: In the wake of the UN sanctions, North Korea has, of course, continued provocative action, including the projectile that was fired today. Is the U.S. at a point where it's holding talks with allies on actions that look beyond this latest round of UN sanctions, considering the sanctions do not appear to have slowed the provocative actions from North Korea?
MR KIRBY: Are you asking if we're considering, like, additional sanctions --
QUESTION: Additional – not steps in general. Sanctions or maybe additional steps outside of sanctions.
MR KIRBY: I can tell you that we are certainly aware of these most recent reports, as you said, as recently as today of additional launches. And we continue to take that seriously. We continue to discuss this inside the UN. I don't have any additional measures to report to you or to signal that we are exploring right now.
The most recent set of sanctions, the most aggressive in the last couple of decades, have just recently passed. And as I said before, they have, as part of them, a very serious enforcement mechanism. But I can assure you that we will continue to raise our concerns inside the UN and here unilaterally in the United States about North Korea's continued provocative behavior, where nobody's going to turn a blind eye to what this regime continues to be willing, apparently, to do.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: John, I have a question on Cyprus. The Secretary and the Turkey – and his Turkish counterpart discussed yesterday Cyprus. Can you give us your assessment on the status of the talks? Because we heard Mr. Cavusoglu – he said that he had good news for Cyprus, and the Secretary agreed that there are good news from Cyprus. But the news that we have from Cyprus – from the president of Cyprus – is that the talks are in stalemate because of Mr. Erdogan. So I wanted to hear your views on this.
MR KIRBY: Let me, if I could – there's a lot there.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: But you're right, both Secretary Kerry and the foreign minister yesterday said they were encouraged by progress, and we are. And the Secretary was there several months ago and came away – I think you saw him – his public comments after that – came away optimistic that we were going to get to some real solutions there. We are encouraged by the progress that leaders on both sides in Cyprus have made in recent months. We continue to support efforts by the parties to reach a settlement, to reunify the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, which would benefit all Cypriots as well as the wider region. And the United States complete – as well fully supports the UN-facilitated process under the UN special advisor. And we've also said – and the Secretary alluded to this yesterday – that we're willing to assist that process in any way that the parties would find useful. And as I said, as you know, the Secretary visited, as well as the Vice President.
So look, I mean, there's – we think there's – real progress has been made between both sides. We want to encourage that because we still believe in the end state that I described earlier as the right approach, but – and – I would also point again to what the foreign minister said himself. Okay?
All right.
QUESTION: No, no, I've got two.
MR KIRBY: Two.
QUESTION: They're both – they're brief --
MR KIRBY: Did you have one, Abbie?
QUESTION: I did. I just wondered if you had any more updated information regarding the Americans' involvement in the hijacking.
MR KIRBY: No. What I can tell you is we know that a small number – less than 10 American citizens – were on that flight. We know of no injuries. I can only speak for American citizens. No – we know of no injuries to those American citizens that were on that flight. Where they are and where they're going right now I couldn't speak to. I just – I wouldn't have that information.
QUESTION: Along those lines, but – Belgium. Do you have any updated numbers as far as the Americans who were injured in those attacks or the Americans who have been determined to have been killed?
MR KIRBY: There's been no change to the numbers of U.S. deaths that we're aware of, which is – at this point is at four. And the number of injured has remained at about a dozen – a little bit more than a dozen, quite frankly. We know a small number of those injured have been released from the hospital, but we're tracking this as closely as we can with Belgian authorities. And again, I mean, I can't rule out that as time goes on, we might not learn of additional U.S. casualties in one form or another. I mean – so we'll just have to stay on top of it. But there's really been no change in our assessment of the situation in the last 24 hours.
And then I'm going to go you, then Matt, and we'll finish up with Matt.
QUESTION: Two questions, sir. Yesterday you spoke about Pakistan, the bomb blast which happened, and then there was a little bit discussion about the military operation which Pakistan has started in the south of Punjab. I was wondering, is this something new for the U.S. Government as well, that the Taliban existed in the southern parts of Pakistan as well, or you guys were aware of this fact? Because all these years the U.S. had demanded a military operation in the northern parts, like Waziristan and the tribal belt of Pakistan, but never in the south of Pakistan. Is this something new for you guys, or you guys had information that the – there is a large number and a very influential Taliban groups in the south of Punjab?
MR KIRBY: Well, without getting into specifics on intelligence matters, which you know I won't do, I mean, we've obviously been monitoring as best we can the Taliban's movements and operations inside Pakistan and the danger – the still – the very real danger that they continue to pose to the people of Pakistan. I don't think anybody's under any illusion that the Punjab area has been one of – one worth watching. And to the degree we have spoken to Pakistani leaders about operations in North Waziristan and along that spine, it's because that has been for a very long time considered a safe haven by members of the Taliban and other extremist groups. But this is something – look, it's a very fluid situation and it's something we're continually watching and continually discussing with Pakistani leaders.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that quick? Has there been any discussions that the Secretary's had or since this attack two – yesterday, two days ago?
QUESTION: Sunday.
MR KIRBY: It was Easter Sunday.
QUESTION: Easter Sunday.
MR KIRBY: No, I don't know of any specific conversations that he has had, but as I said yesterday, certainly, our embassy in Islamabad has been in touch with Pakistani officials about this, and he – we issued a very public statement condemning the attack, and I think I spoke to it again yesterday. So we've been very clear and open about our views of this.
Yeah, one more.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) question. Yesterday, an Indian spy video has been released by Pakistani authorities and there are reports that the Pakistani Government has asked the U.S. to speak to Mr. Modi about – during the nuclear summit about the spy who has stated in the video that he was designated responsibility to carry out terrorist activities inside Pakistan. Has Pakistan requested any sort of help with regard to discussion with Mr. Modi?
MR KIRBY: I honestly don't have any information on that. That's – I have not heard of this report. I wouldn't be able to give you any context on that one way or the other.
Matt.
QUESTION: Two, I'll – and I'll – excuse me. I'll start with the one that I suspect the answer will be briefest on, and that is Honduras. So the calls for the U.S. to support an independent investigation into the murder – now murders of these activists has grown. I believe earlier this week or late last week, 11 senators wrote to the Secretary asking about this. Are you guys now in a position where you will call for an independent investigation, rather than one simply done only by the Honduran authorities?
MR KIRBY: What I will say is we're certainly aware that members of civil society and other organizations are calling for an international investigation into these murders. We would note that the Honduran Government announced on the 11th of March that it petitioned the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for assistance related to this matter, and that the commissioner has agreed to provide technical support to the Honduran process. We have also offered to support in any way we can bring these perpetrators to justice. But I think I would leave it there. There's – we continue to call for and urge a transparent, credible and thorough investigative process in Honduras.
QUESTION: But at this point you don't see the need or you don't – wouldn't support other people's calls for there to be a thoroughly independent investigation, not just a Honduran investigation backed by or assisted by the UN?
MR KIRBY: Correct. Nothing has changed about our position on this. But again, I think it was noteworthy that they reached out to the UN for support. I mean, that's – that is – that's not insignificant.
QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, and my apologies if this goes on – I'll try to keep it short – Iran: There is concern on Capitol Hill, and there is a lot of concern on Capitol Hill about a lot of things – some of it's well placed and some of it is not, frankly – but in terms of the – Iran and the Iran nuclear deal, a lot of the concern on the Hill has been well placed or at least founded in some kind of fact.
The concern that I'm talking about now is that somehow, despite assurances that the Administration gave to lawmakers over the course of the negotiations on the nuclear deal that Iran would not get any kind of access to the United States financial system, that in fact the Administration is preparing to open up a backdoor for the Iranians to use – to get into and use the financial system.
Are these concerns from people on the Hill, are they based in any kind of reality?
MR KIRBY: So we've been aware, obviously, of concerns by members of the Hill since the deal – even before the deal was negotiated, and we're continuing to consult and discuss those issues and those concerns with members of Congress. The Secretary will remain committed to that. And with this particular issue, I would refer you to the Treasury Department.
QUESTION: So wait, it has been the State Department, along with Treasury and other parts of the White House and other parts of the Administration, that have made this argument or told law – assured lawmakers that they would not, under this deal, get access to the financial system. You're not in a position to say that that is still the case? You're just going to kick it over to Treasury and let them either say this is unfounded, or no, in fact, this is true?
MR KIRBY: What I would tell you is we're aware of these concerns; we're discussing these concerns with members of Congress. I think I'm going to leave it at that level for right now. And it is largely an issue for the Treasury Department to speak to.
QUESTION: Okay. But from you – from the State Department perspective, does State believe that this is a hard and fast assurance, and that this assurance stands, that Iran, under the terms of the sanctions relief in the nuclear deal, cannot and will not get access to the U.S. financial system? Is that an assurance that you, as speaking for the State Department, can make?
MR KIRBY: Again, nothing's changed about our view of our obligations under the JCPOA, and we're going to meet all those commitments and obligations. And we're going to continue to consult with Congress on the way ahead. But I – again, for this specific concern, I would refer you to the Treasury Department.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, does the – does the State Department believe that keeping Iran out of – or preventing Iran from getting access to the U.S. financial system is an obligation that the Administration has under the nuclear deal despite the sanctions relief? Is that still the case?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think I would just refer you to what I've said before. I think we're mindful of our obligations under the JCPOA. We're also mindful of our obligations to keep Congress informed as we work through that implementation. And for specific issues about the monetary system, I'd refer you to Treasury.
QUESTION: I have to say that doesn't sound like it's going to ease any of the concerns on the Hill. But thank you for the answer.
MR KIRBY: You're welcome. Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:55 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
