UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 30, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT
NIGERIA
LIBYA
IRAN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
LIBYA
RUSSIA
NORTH KOREA
INDIA/PAKISTAN
RUSSIA
SYRIA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:36 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Just a couple things here at the top. Today's quite a busy day here. First day of the Nuclear Security Summit, and so today, in keeping with that, the Secretary has had and will have throughout the day several bilateral meetings. What we'll do is – you've seen some of them. He's done a camera spray or two for, and then we'll release those transcripts. And the ones that haven't happened yet, we'll do readouts as appropriate as well. But I did want to note a few of the individual ones.

So this morning at 11:00, the Secretary met with Argentinian Foreign Minister Malcorra. This afternoon, just about 30 minutes or so ago, he met with the president of Azerbaijan, President Aliyev. He is now meeting with Turkish President Erdogan, right now as we speak. Later today at around 4:30, he'll meet with the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Minh. And then later after 5 o'clock, he will meet – he will host a bilateral meeting with Indian National Security Advisor Doval. And then at 6 o'clock this evening, he'll have a bilateral discussion with the Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry.

Additionally, the Secretary hosted a working lunch today for the U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission. The goal of the commission talks is to agree on plans for joint action in Nigeria to fight corruption, counter Boko Haram, and of course, promote economic growth. Today's meeting builds on commitments made by the Secretary and by President Buhari in 2015 to renew this high-level dialogue as a forum to further strengthen our bilateral relationship and to expand cooperation.

I also want to note on Libya, you may have seen the Secretary's statement on the Libyan presidency council's March 30th arrival – that's today – in Tripoli. As you know, we spoke about this yesterday. We're pleased to see that the Government of National Accord can now begin its very vital, very important work on Libya's political, security, economic, and humanitarian challenges. And as the Secretary noted, we urge support for the Government of National Accord and its arrival in Tripoli for the sake of a more peaceful and secure future for all Libya. And we want all Libyans to support all public institutions and all Libyans to support the work that the Government of National Accord is trying to accomplish after now just arriving in Tripoli. And I've seen some press reports before coming out here that some obstructionists, yet again, are trying to stop this important work. And I think the claim by some groups was that the government of – under Mr. al-Sarraj was illegal and saying that he had to hand himself in. I can't stress enough how much we support the Presidency Council and the Government of National Accord and the incredibly important work they have before them in Libya. So we're glad to see them in Tripoli. And now it's time for them to be able to get to work to do the right things for the Libyan people. There's a real need for good, strong governance there, and we are going to continue to support their efforts to try to achieve just that.

So with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks. I want to start with Iran, where we kind of left off yesterday, although I'm willing to bet that you don't have much, if any, more information on what my question was about yesterday when you referred me to the Treasury, in terms of Iran and the access to the U.S. financial system. But since --

MR KIRBY: That's true. I don't have any additional.

QUESTION: Right, so I'm not going to dwell on that today because you will refer me to Treasury.

MR KIRBY: Thank you for that. I appreciate that.

QUESTION: However, since someone who runs the Treasury --

MR KIRBY: There's always a however, Matt.

QUESTION: Since someone who does runs the Treasury Department did speak this morning and talked about Iran and general sanctions more generally, I wanted to ask you about comments that Secretary Lew made. I presume that the State Department is in 100 percent agreement with what he said. Is that correct?

MR KIRBY: About the --

QUESTION: The specific --

MR KIRBY: -- utility of sanctions and the danger of overreach in sanctions?

QUESTION: That, yes, but also this specific sentence: "Since Iran has kept its end of the deal, it is our responsibility to uphold ours in both letter and spirit."

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: You do?

MR KIRBY: Of course.

QUESTION: Does the Administration – does the State Department believe that Iran has kept its end of the deal in both letter and spirit?

MR KIRBY: So far, yes.

QUESTION: So the missile launches that you say or you did say – do you still say that they violated the Security Council resolution?

MR KIRBY: I think we went around and around over the use of verbs on that. What we said was that they are certainly inconsistent with their obligations. And in fact, we agree with Ambassador Power who said they were in defiance of the Security Council resolutions.

QUESTION: So how is that – so you say that because that's not specifically in the JCPOA --

MR KIRBY: That's not specific to the JCPOA, right.

QUESTION: But the spirit of the JCPOA and upholding one's obligations under it would seem, I think to most people, to include the broader UN resolution that endorsed it and made it international law essentially, right?

MR KIRBY: We would certainly be much more comfortable and happy to see Iran cease the other destabilizing activities which it continues to support – support for terrorists and terrorist networks and, of course, the pursuit of ballistic missile technologies and the testing of those technologies. We absolutely would like to see that stop. But we continue to believe that they are meeting their obligations under the JCPOA, and we would agree with Secretary Lew that that includes in letter and spirit. It doesn't mean, though – we can – you and I could debate about what "in the spirit" means and how inclusive and expansive that is. We believe they are meeting their obligations under the JCPOA, but we are not turning a blind eye to the other things that they are doing which are destabilizing the region, which violate other sanctions and this and other resolutions.

QUESTION: Yeah, but when you say "we would be happy to see and we would like to see that stop," that's hardly a proscription, is it? I mean, it's a bit more serious, is it not, than --

MR KIRBY: It's very serious and it's --

QUESTION: -- "you would be happy to see"?

MR KIRBY: It's very serious.

QUESTION: So if it is --

MR KIRBY: And you shouldn't take away from my comments that I'm taking this lightly or that anybody here is taking it lightly.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: It needs to stop, and that's why we have a robust military presence in the region and it's why we have other tools at our disposal --

QUESTION: But if he's --

MR KIRBY: -- to hold them to account for this destabilizing activity.

QUESTION: But if you say that Iran is in compliance in letter and spirit, how – let me turn it around. How can you say that Iran is in defiance of the resolution in several ways and still be complying in letter and spirit with the JCPOA?

MR KIRBY: Because they --

QUESTION: They're in violation or they're in defiance of --

MR KIRBY: In that portion of the resolutions.

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. I don't – maybe --

MR KIRBY: But not every – but not every component of the resolutions, and they are in --

QUESTION: But that's what "in spirit" means, isn't it?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm not – I'm just – as much as I would love to get into a rhetorical debate with you about what "in the spirit" means, I mean, they are in compliance of their commitments under the JCPOA.

QUESTION: All right. Would you really love to get into a rhetorical argument?

MR KIRBY: Actually --

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: No, I wouldn't. (Laughter.) I actually wouldn't.

QUESTION: All right. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Could I change topics please?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could share with us any information pertaining to the letter that Senator Patrick Leahy and 10 other members of Congress sent to Secretary Kerry regarding investigating Israel for extrajudicial executions.

MR KIRBY: I'm not familiar with a particular letter from – you're talking about --

QUESTION: Yes, there was a letter that was sent by Senator Leahy --

MR KIRBY: Okay, yeah.

QUESTION: -- to the Secretary of State on the 17th of February --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, yeah, okay.

QUESTION: -- requesting investigating Israel and Egypt for abuses of human rights, including extrajudicial executions of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, and to see if that can reflect on what we supply them with weapons.

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry, I was getting it confused.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: We have received that letter by Senator Leahy and we are responding to it. I would tell you that our assistance to Egypt and to Israel is and will remain in full compliance of the law. We absolutely take that fundamental obligation seriously, and that's not going to change. And we're going to continue to work with Congress to deal with issues where we believe any of that aid and assistance needs to change in keeping with the Leahy Law.

QUESTION: Do you believe that Israel is complying with the Leahy law? Do you believe that the law that was passed in 1997 --

MR KIRBY: It's not – it's not a law that Israel has to comply with. It's a U.S. law we have to comply with, Said.

QUESTION: I understand. Okay, let me rephrase --

MR KIRBY: And so we do. And so we do.

QUESTION: Okay. So let me rephrase this. Do you think that Israel is conducting itself in a way where it is not violating human rights, rights of the Palestinians, or committing human rights abuses of the Palestinians?

MR KIRBY: So again, let me put this in two different buckets. We obey the law.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: And we don't provide assistance to any security forces anywhere where we have credible information that they've committed a gross violation of human rights. That's the law and we follow the law. Your second – the second part there, you're basically asking me do I think Israel has never violated the law or not – or never committed human rights violations, and in this particular case I think you're referring to recent stuff. And I'm – we're – I'm not able to make a judgment on that right now, but we've --

QUESTION: In fact, the --

MR KIRBY: -- but we scrupulously follow the law.

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: In fact – no, I'm so sorry, just can I just stay on this for a minute? In fact, the letter talks about four Palestinians that were killed execution style back then, but although since you mentioned some recent stuff, I mean, it happened again last Thursday in plain sight of the whole world. I mean, you probably got – you probably got to see that where a wounded man was laying on the ground, not moving, and then he was executed with a bullet to the head.

MR KIRBY: And Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken to this, as have senior leaders of the IDF. And they're investigating it. And they made – they said very clearly that actions such as those portrayed in that video – again, this was based on just the information of looking at the video – do not comport with their own core values as a military.

QUESTION: I have a couple of other questions on – there was a conference in which Ambassador Dan Shapiro --

QUESTION: Can we stay on this letter? Is it about the letter?

QUESTION: Sure, no, go ahead. It's actually on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but not the letter. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Just on the letter, you say that you're responding to it. Do you know if there has been a response yet?

MR KIRBY: There has not been a response yet.

QUESTION: Yet. Okay. And then secondly, is it true or not true that when you – when various bureaus in this building go through the review of compliance with the Leahy law, is it true that Israel has been included in those reviews in the past, or are they somehow exempt from being looked at?

MR KIRBY: I will – I'd like to reserve the chance to get you a more detailed answer. But as I understand it, no; nobody's exempt. I mean --

QUESTION: So --

MR KIRBY: -- the law applies to any external security forces outside the United States that are getting aid and assistance from the United States.

QUESTION: So just to put a fine point on it: Currently, and even before this letter was sent, every single country that gets military assistance from the United States – including Israel – has been and will continue to be vetted for compliance with the provisions of the law, the Leahy law?

MR KIRBY: Yes, sir. Yeah.

QUESTION: And to your knowledge, has this review, when it comes to Israel, ever determined that they are or have been in violation?

MR KIRBY: I don't know --

QUESTION: I mean, I presume no, since there's a lot of money that goes to all --

MR KIRBY: They still are getting assistance. I'm not aware of any specific incidents in the past.

QUESTION: Okay. And as it applies to Egypt?

MR KIRBY: As it applies to Egypt? Again --

QUESTION: Well, this specific letter talked about changes in the dynamic in the international – in the region since the signing of the Camp David Accords, since the agreement that set out the broad parameters of the relationship between the – between post-deal Egypt and post-deal Israel --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- and the United States. So I just wonder, does – do – does the building, do you think that that needs to be looked at again?

MR KIRBY: We're always looking.

QUESTION: No, no, no, no. The whole – the parameters, the broad parameters of the Camp David Accord.

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that there's a feeling that the broad parameters of the accord need to be re-evaluated.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Let me just follow up on a conference that took place in Jerusalem. It's an anti-BDS conference – Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions – in which Ambassador Dan Shapiro was present, attended. And there was a statement by the minister – the Israeli minister of intelligence, Minister Katz, in which he called for targeting leaders of BDS for basically elimination – assassination. Are you aware of that? Does that --

MR KIRBY: No. I'm not aware of that statement.

QUESTION: Does that ring any alarm bells to you?

MR KIRBY: Well, clearly if those comments are true, we wouldn't associate ourselves with them. But I can't vouch for the veracity of the reports. I just haven't seen it.

QUESTION: And if --

QUESTION: Can you actually check on that and see if Ambassador Shapiro was there --

MR KIRBY: If he went?

QUESTION: -- and if he made any --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- response to the comments that are reported?

MR KIRBY: We'll take that. We'll take that. I just haven't seen those reports of those statements.

QUESTION: And finally, there was also an announcement on settlements today. I wonder if you had a care to comment.

MR KIRBY: I have not seen the announcement on settlements today.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: So I don't know what it said.

QUESTION: Well, there is an expansion in the settlements in the Mount of Olive for like 17 new housing units and so on.

MR KIRBY: And this was an official statement by --

QUESTION: I believe it was an official statement.

MR KIRBY: -- Israel? Okay, we'll look at that and we'll get you a response back.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: But look, in general, our policy on settlements hasn't changed one bit, Said. Not one bit. And I don't – while I haven't seen this statement, I can assure you that we'll take a look at it, obviously, and get you a response back. But I wouldn't expect in my response to you that there's going to be a change in our policy on settlements.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: John, I've got one more Israel-related. Israel?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Sorry. It'll be quick. Last week at the Human Rights Council in Geneva there were a bunch of resolutions that were passed that had gotten – that have gotten some attention. One of them – and this is related to Israel – and I don't know if your ambassador or your people in Geneva have spoken to this already, so I apologize if they already have. But one of these resolutions set creates a database in which – which is supposed to list companies that do business in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Now, the Brits have come out and said that they don't agree with this and they're going to refuse to cooperate with it, the resolution. The resolution calls for countries to compile these – this list.

MR KIRBY: The blacklist, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. What's the U.S. position on this? And again, I apologize if you have spoken – the Americans have spoken to this.

MR KIRBY: I haven't, actually, so bear with me because there's a lot to this, and I think you know – actually, I know you know a lot of this already, Matt. But the United States strongly and unequivocally opposes the very existence of agenda item 7. It is the Human Rights Council Agenda 7 that's entitled Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Occupied Arab Territories, but it's specifically directed at Israel.

So we continue to unequivocally oppose the very existence of that agenda item, and therefore, any resolutions at the HRC that come from it. We consistently raise our staunch opposition to the council's bias against Israel. It does not serve the interests of the council to single out one country, in what we believe to be, an unbalanced manner. We are concerned about this resolution, calling on the HRC to implement a database of businesses operating in the settlements. And as you know, we strongly oppose Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories. We continue to view it as eroding the prospects for a two-state solution.

However, the creation of such a database as called for would be what we – in our view, an unprecedented step by the council. We believe that this is far outside their scope of authority, and although we are not a voting member on the council, this year, we remain active as an observer state and will continue to ensure that the council lives up to its mandate. So we are opposed.

QUESTION: And so there won't be any U.S. – the logical follow-on is that you're not going to contribute to this information to this database, right?

MR KIRBY: That would be a logical conclusion.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Libya?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: How – was just wondering how are you expecting this unity government to operate? Like, what are you expected to actually do given the strength of opposition in Tripoli and the fact – couldn't even fly into the country and had to come in by ship because it was blocked at the airport?

MR KIRBY: Well, what we expect them to do is to essentially set up shop to --

QUESTION: But how can they do that under the circumstances?

MR KIRBY: Well, they're there. They're there. Just because the obstructionists called today for their departure and said it was illegal for them to be there doesn't make it so. So they're there, and now they have to get about the work of standing up this government on site and further building out the governing institutions and the infrastructure that the Libyan people so desperately need, and they'll have our support in that process. But look, it's just day one. They just arrived. And I think they're very mindful of the very real and very steep challenge ahead of them in Libya.

QUESTION: And security that's around them is very tight. I was just wondering if the Americans or other outside backers of the government are contributing to their security.

MR KIRBY: I would point you to the Pentagon. I'm not aware of any U.S. support in terms of physical security. So I don't honestly know what – how security is being proffered for them, but I'm – I'm not aware of any U.S. military role in that and I'd refer you to the Pentagon. They might have additional info.

QUESTION: What kind of support are you providing to the government?

MR KIRBY: We continue to be active supporters of the UN process here, and we've made it clear that we're going to continue to support their efforts. But if you're asking me, do we have a robust presence there in Libya in terms of human resources, the answer is no. But we're in touch with them, we will be in touch with them going forward, and we'll very actively and energetically consider requests for support from us and won't be shy about making offers of support if it's needed.

Again, they just got there. They've got a lot of work to do. We need to let them get on the ground and start to get going and then we'll see where it takes us from there.

QUESTION: Would that support include also the support of, let's say, a military or an army or something like this that would become the legitimate military in the country? Would that include --

MR KIRBY: As a nation-state, they're going to need legitimate security forces.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: As you well know, that these self-made militias have had sway to date. But I don't know what the outcomes are going to be there in terms of what decisions they're going to make regarding a future security apparatus. But we're going to be ready, willing, and able to consult with them going forward.

QUESTION: And Mr. Fayez Sarraj is someone that you will work very enthusiastically with, so to speak --

MR KIRBY: Yes, we --

QUESTION: -- as the head of the government?

MR KIRBY: We support him as the head and the rest of his cabinet.

QUESTION: Okay. So would you call on some of your allies in the Gulf – like Qatar, for instance, who supports an opposing faction – would you call on them to cease and desist from opposing --

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I've made it – I think the Secretary made it clear in his statement that we call on the entire international community to support him in his efforts.

QUESTION: One more just on Libya, sorry. I know you just said that if you were asked, "Is our presence there in terms of human resources robust," the answer would be no. Could you just give us an update on what resources the United States and the State Department has --

MR KIRBY: We don't – there --

QUESTION: -- anywhere in Libya?

MR KIRBY: There's not a – speaking for the State Department, there is no presence there. But I won't speak for, and I'm not aware of any other, American presence on the ground. But I can only speak for us.

QUESTION: Are you ready now to send a U.S. ambassador back to Tripoli?

MR KIRBY: I have no announcements or decisions to announce with respect to that. I mean, obviously, we'll watch this closely as they get up and running and we'll see where it goes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I change subject to Russia?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Russia has decided not to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, and yesterday White House Deputy Advisor for National Security Ben Rhodes said that, quote, "Russia has missed the opportunity above all." Today the spokesperson from Kremlin was responding to the decision why they are not participating. They said – he said, quote, "The nuclear security issue is" – no. He said, "We faced a certain lack of cooperation during the preliminary stage of working on issues and topics of the summit." What would be your comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I think I would just echo what my colleague said, that we believe that it was important for them to attend. And, I mean, there's a lot at stake here in the realm of nuclear security. And I would remind you that there's also going to be a session on the counter-Daesh efforts. And as we've said all along, we would welcome a stronger Russian role with respect to fighting Daesh, so it's not just about nuclear security this week. We think it would – it's important for Russia to be a participant in these kinds of talks.

And I would also just say as a factual matter that Russia will be represented through their ambassador here. So they didn't – while they didn't send somebody from Moscow, their representative here in the United States, as far as I know, is planning to attend many of the events this week. So they will have a representative there.

QUESTION: What – so is that true there is a lack of cooperation on the preliminary discussions on issues surrounding this summit?

MR KIRBY: A leg?

QUESTION: Lack.

QUESTION: Lack.

MR KIRBY: A lack of --

QUESTION: Cooperation on partner – or lack of cooperation with partners on this issue. They are sending --

MR KIRBY: On the issue of nuclear security?

QUESTION: On the summit.

QUESTION: On the summit, working on the issues and topics --

QUESTION: You didn't cooperate with Russia on this summit.

MR KIRBY: I – again, you're reading comments I haven't seen, but Russia was invited to participate, welcome to participate. They are clearly a stakeholder in all the issues that are going to be discussed this week to include what we would like to see the international community do against Daesh, and they were and are welcome to be a part of the discussions. I'm not aware of any quote/unquote "lack of cooperation" here with Russia with respect to setting the agenda or setting the summit up. They were invited and remain welcome to attend. And as I said, it's my understanding that through their ambassador they will be represented there.

So I simply just – not having seen those comments, I would not associate myself with the idea that there was some sort of lack of cooperation.

QUESTION: Was Belarus invited? Belarus.

QUESTION: Belarus.

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't know. I don't have the whole list of invitees. We can try to get that for you. I just don't --

QUESTION: Was Israel invited?

MR KIRBY: C'mon, guys. I don't have the list of invites.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Was Israel invited?

MR KIRBY: Hang on, maybe I do have it. Let me look.

QUESTION: Or should they attend this sort of conference?

MR KIRBY: What? Let me look and see. If I don't have it, then we'll try to get you that.

QUESTION: John, on Syria?

MR KIRBY: Hang on, I'm still looking in my book here.

QUESTION: Since you didn't – you don't have it. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Wait a second. Actually --

QUESTION: You have it?

QUESTION: He has it.

MR KIRBY: I have it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh.

MR KIRBY: I have it, so I take back my "c'mon guys." I don't see Belarus as an invite. I do see Israel as an invite.

Anybody else?

QUESTION: So Belarus --

MR KIRBY: Anybody else we want to know?

QUESTION: -- is not invited?

QUESTION: Lesotho. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: How do you spell that?

QUESTION: Mozambique.

MR KIRBY: Mozambique? Mozambique was --

QUESTION: Lesotho is L-e-s-o-t-h-o.

MR KIRBY: I can only do one at a time. Mozambique was not invited.

Who?

QUESTION: Swaziland.

QUESTION: Djibouti. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Swaziland. Swaziland was not invited.

QUESTION: Djibouti?

MR KIRBY: Switzerland was, though.

QUESTION: Switzerland.

MR KIRBY: All right?

QUESTION: No, wait.

QUESTION: The reason I ask about Belarus is they are not participating, and we are trying to find out – is that because they are not – they were not invited or because they rejected invitation and decided not to attend?

MR KIRBY: I would have to point you to my colleagues at the White House for the invite list and how that was developed. I just don't know.

QUESTION: John.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you, John.

MR KIRBY: North Korea was not invited.

QUESTION: Oh. (Laughter.) Well, this is – yeah, a little bit --

QUESTION: Oh whoa. One would think that they might have been invited.

MR KIRBY: I knew that was coming as soon as I said it.

QUESTION: Yeah, this is not young man's story --

QUESTION: Considering that they actually are a stakeholder.

QUESTION: -- but this is – Deputy Secretary Blinken has mentioned yesterday at the Brookings Institute – he said that the United States does not want change of North Korean regime. Is that means United States is open talks with North Korea soon, or --

MR KIRBY: I don't – I think you might be misconstruing a little bit the – it's not – what the Deputy Secretary was alluding to is that the policy of the United States is not to seek and actively pursue regime change. What we want is for North Korea to stop – and we've said this a lot of times. We want them to stop their provocative behavior, to work to decrease tensions on the peninsula and, frankly, in the region, and to resume to the Six-Party Talks process. And we have always maintained that. We are ready and willing. They need to prove ready and willing to return to the Six-Party Talks process. We believe that is the appropriate venue for dialogue.

QUESTION: But the U.S. don't want a collapse of North Korean regime. Do you want a collapse of North Korea?

MR KIRBY: I – rather than tell you what we don't want, let me tell you what we do want, and that's what – we want them to stop what they're doing and return to the Six-Party Talks.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) U.S. want peace in Korean peninsula, but with the talks or with a preemptive attack or whatever U.S. --

MR KIRBY: I think I've answered the question. The deputy secretary wasn't – what he was trying to articulate is that our policy is not one of regime change and active pursuit of regime change. It is to return to the Six-Party Talks process so that we can get to a complete, verifiable, and sustainable denuclearization on the peninsula and a dramatic reduction in the tensions that exist there. That has always been our policy, and all the deputy secretary was trying to do was reiterate what we are after there. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. In the back there.

QUESTION: What is the (inaudible) of the talks with the Indian NSA Ajit Doval, and will there be similar talks with the Pakistani counterpart also?

MR KIRBY: We'll have to wait for the readout when the meeting is over. We're looking forward to this – these discussions today. There are, as you might imagine with both countries, a range of bilateral – and, frankly, regional security issues that the Secretary looks forward to having this afternoon. And again, we'll do – we'll provide readouts of those meetings when they're over, but clearly, the common thread of --

QUESTION: Are you having similar talks with Pakistan too?

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: You mentioned that he's meeting Mr. Doval --

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the Indian NSA.

MR KIRBY: There's no bilateral meeting today with --

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MR KIRBY: -- with Pakistan. But – and we'll tell you every day who he's meeting with. I don't have future meetings to announce today, but in our discussions with both India and Pakistan there are a range of important issues to be discussed. We'll certainly address those issues. I have no doubt that counterterrorism will be high on the agenda for today, and we'll provide a readout of the discussion when it's over.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Pakistani prime minister was supposed to come and is not coming, citing that – because of the terror attacks. But the Turkish president is here even after the terror attacks. And yesterday at a think tank in the morning, they said that the whole summit is going to be – have a focus about Pakistani nuclear materials. Do you agree with that, that the summit will have a lot of focus on the Pakistani? And yesterday in that special briefing it was said that there will be no name and shame, but there will be peer pressure. So will there be a lot going on behind the scenes where we won't be able to – we are not going to know about that?

MR KIRBY: I think you can expect the full range of nuclear security issues will be discussed over the next few days, and not just in relation to one or another nation. There are plenty of nuclear security issues to discuss. And – so that's point one. Point two, we fully understand the prime minister's decision not to come to the United States at this particular time. That's a decision that we respect and only he can make. And again, our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Pakistan, especially those affected by those horrible attacks in Lahore over the weekend. So we understand that – his desire to stay home and to deal with what is, as we've said before, before the Pakistani people a very real, tangible, credible, dangerous threat of terrorism on their own soil. So again, we respect that.

But look, there are a full range of – and if you listened to the briefing yesterday, you heard them. It's not just about Pakistan or any other one single nation, but a whole range of nuclear security issues that will be discussed over the next few days – and, as I said, to also include a special session on Daesh and what the international community continues to try to do to defeat that group.

QUESTION: And do you have any updates on the diplomatic staff or the NATO staff? You have three missions in Brussels. Any withdrawing or any – anything you are – because there's a lot of talk of because of you're already doing it in Turkey, it seems, the diplomatic families are being withdrawn.

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to announce with respect to structural or organizational changes to our missions in Brussels, and as far as I know, they are back to work and doing their important work, doing their jobs.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, on Syria, in an interview with the Russian media, President Assad has said today or talked about the transition in Syria. He said regarding the definition of the transitional period, "Such a definition does not exist." He added the term "political transition" means the transition from one constitution to another. About the unity government or the government, he said a national unity government would be formed by various Syrian political forces – "opposition, independent, the current government, and others." Any reaction to this statement?

MR KIRBY: We continue to support the process that is in place right now for deciding what the transition inside Syria should look like, and that is administered and led by the UN, by Mr. de Mistura specifically, and enabled through a UN Security Council resolution which codifies the process, which will, we hope, keep the opposition and the regime in discussions going forward. There is another round of talks that are supposed to happen in April. We look forward to those talks and to what we hope will be continued momentum and real progress going forward. That's what we're focused on. That's what the international community is focused on. That is the framework and the architecture that has been decided in terms of going forward.

QUESTION: But do you agree with President Assad when he said that the transition would be from one constitution to another and there would be a unity government that includes the current government, independent, and opposition?

MR KIRBY: We support – again, we support the process that is in place now and codified in three communiques and a UN Security Council resolution. That is the process the international community has signed up to through the UN and the International Syria Support Group, and I would note, factually speaking, the regime was present at the first full set of talks that just occurred in Geneva, and it's our expectation that they will attend the next set.

QUESTION: But these communiques and the resolution, the UN resolution didn't talk about the future and the role that President Assad will play.

MR KIRBY: It's not supposed to. The process – it lays out the process and it is through that process that those kinds of questions will get answered and will get addressed – through that process, through the UN process. And that's the process that we support in making these determinations.

QUESTION: Yeah, but he's not talking about transition. He's talking about a new government that will include everybody.

MR KIRBY: So am I.

QUESTION: And --

MR KIRBY: So am I.

QUESTION: And Assad.

MR KIRBY: I'm talking about the same thing. There's a process in place that will determine and answer those questions, and that's the process that we support and we want to see continue.

QUESTION: But the opposition has refused --

QUESTION: So the long and short is that you agree with President Assad on something. Is that what you're saying?

MR KIRBY: Didn't say that at all. I said – I said, and I'll say it again – we support and we agree with the process that's been put in place by the UN Security Council and which now has started in Geneva under Mr. de Mistura. That is the process for determining these things going forward.

QUESTION: But do you have the same understanding regarding the transition, from one constitution to another? This is the transition that you talked and discussed with the Russians?

MR KIRBY: Do we have the same understanding with whom?

QUESTION: About the transition, with President Assad.

MR KIRBY: Well, we have the same understanding --

QUESTION: He's saying the transition will be from one constitution to another, not from --

MR KIRBY: We have the same understanding with --

QUESTION: -- a regime to another or --

MR KIRBY: We have the same understanding with Russia; we have the same understanding with the other members of the ISSG; and we have the same understanding with the UN and the EU and the Arab League, which were all present in these discussions.

QUESTION: And with President Assad?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak for Mr. Assad and what he does or does not believe about this.

QUESTION: That was my question.

MR KIRBY: I know what your question is, and I'm answering it by telling you that we support the UN process that has been codified under the UN Security Council resolution. That is the way forward, and that process will be what determines the answers to these questions that he is apparently speaking about. I'm not going to publicly debate every comment that he makes about this. He's free to say what he wants. There's a process in place supported by the international community and by the UN, and that is the process the United States firmly stands behind and it is – and go look at the resolution, you'll see it for yourself – that process determines how those questions will get addressed.

Now, I freely admit to you that nowhere in those communiques or in the resolution are you going to see the actual answers: How long does Assad stay? What role does he play? And exactly how, and with great specificity, this new constitution will get drafted. But it lays out a process for making that possible, and it's up to the opposition and the regime, who have already had two weeks of proximity talks – it's up to them to make those determinations and decide those exact answers.

QUESTION: But --

QUESTION: Okay, but you have all along maintained the position that you want elements of the current Syrian Government to go into, like, the transition and be part of the future because you don't want to see the collapse of the governing structure in Syria, as happened in Iraq.

MR KIRBY: The Secretary has made clear that he believes that it's important – we believe it's important – going forward that certain institutions of government need to stay in place to some degree. We didn't lay out exactly what it should look like, but we recognize that good governance – we've long said, look, the way to defeat a group like Daesh is through good governance. In Iraq, we're seeing Prime Minister Abadi try to work very hard on political reforms to improve governance in Iraq, and what we want to see in Syria is a good government that can keep – that can be responsive to the Syrian people and help address the ungoverned spaces that groups like Daesh are thriving in. And as the Secretary has said, that means that we believe it's --

QUESTION: (Coughing.)

MR KIRBY: You okay? We believe that it's important --

QUESTION: I choked.

MR KIRBY: -- we believe it's important – here, pass this back to him.

We believe it's important that --

QUESTION: Thank you. You are a gentleman.

MR KIRBY: -- that certain – that a certain governing infrastructure needs to stay in place. But we're not at the point now where we're – it's not going to be – it's not our place or the ISSG's place to determine each and every detail of those institutions.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up on possible American-Syrian cooperation – I'm saying the Syrian Government – in terms of field or troops or fighting a ground war in Syria against ISIS. Is it – or against Daesh. Is there such a plan? Is there such a consideration, that you and the Syrian Government might cooperate on the ground in fighting Daesh?

MR KIRBY: The Commander-in-Chief has been clear that there is no intent to engage in large, sustained ground combat operations against Daesh. We are supporting with airstrikes there; we are supporting with trainers and advisers. And as the Secretary of Defense has said, there's a small element right now of some special operations forces that are operating in both Iraq and Syria – a very small number in very discrete mission sets, and in keeping with the larger mission set that the military's performing there. But there's no intention to engage in large, sustained combat operations on the ground.

And the other thing I'd say is we have always readily acknowledged that there's got to be a ground element to going after a group like this, but it needs to be indigenous. It needs – in Iraq, it's – our mission there is about helping Iraqi Security Forces and the Peshmerga up north get better and more competent. And in Syria, there was an effort to do a train and equip mission that the Pentagon decided to revamp. They're now considering a new way forward with that mission, and we believe that's appropriate.

QUESTION: Is it conceivable to imagine – a quick follow-up – to imagine a situation where, let's say, Syrian troops move towards al-Qaryataynz to the west, or Deir al-Zour to the east, that we would see American bombers aid them and help them in this effort?

MR KIRBY: I won't speculate about future tactical operations, Said. I – that gets – I wouldn't go there.

QUESTION: Very briefly on Syria and the UN. The Russians say that you guys, along with other – your pals on the Council – blocked a sort of proposed resolution on Palmyra, that talked about Palmyra. Is that true? Are you aware of this?

MR KIRBY: Let me take that for you. I don't recall hearing about that one.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Blocked an operation on Palmyra?

QUESTION: Well, no, no, no, not an operation. I think it was a – they wanted some action at the Security Council to recognize the recapture of Palmyra and talk about the – the – how to clean it up and protect the – what's left of it.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me take that one. I'm not aware of a proposed --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: -- resolution or whether we opposed it. But it's a fair one. I can find out.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Abby?

QUESTION: Do you --

MR KIRBY: I've got – let me go back here, and then I'll come back to you.

QUESTION: Do you have any information on a U.S. citizen who is reported to be missing in Siberia?

MR KIRBY: We are aware of reports of a U.S. citizen potentially missing there. I'm afraid I don't have much more information than that right now, Abby. We're simply aware of reports and we're trying to get more information about it. I just don't have much --

QUESTION: From where?

MR KIRBY: Siberia.

QUESTION: Siberia, or Libya?

MR KIRBY: Siberia.

QUESTION: Siberia.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry. Okay.

MR KIRBY: Siberia. Yeah. Yeah.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, last question.

MR KIRBY: Last one, yes.

QUESTION: On President Assad. You used to say in the past that he has no role to play in the future of Syria. We haven't heard that today.

MR KIRBY: Okay, so I'll say it again today.

QUESTION: That means you change your mind --

MR KIRBY: Assad has lost legitimacy --

QUESTION: -- you're changing your stance?

MR KIRBY: Assad – no, not at all. Assad has lost legitimacy to govern in Syria. Nothing's changed about our policy – I'm sorry, our view of that. We also have said and continue to maintain that he can't be a part, in our view – cannot be a part of the future of Syria, that Syria needs to move to a government away from him and one that's responsive to the Syrian people. But ultimately how they get to that process is for the Syrian people to decide. Nothing has changed about our policy or our view on Bashar al-Assad. As I would also point back as far as two years ago, Secretary Kerry was saying how and when his departure is managed we didn't then and don't now take a firm position on in terms of whether he transitions away on week one, month one, or whatever. But we have to get to a government away from Assad and one that's responsive to the Syrian people.

QUESTION: Well, wait a second, though. That's just not --

MR KIRBY: It is true.

QUESTION: It started – when this whole thing began and the President came out and said Assad was no longer fit to rule and had lost legitimacy, you guys were demanding that he leave then and now. So it is not correct to say that your position has always been that Assad can stay for some period of time and be part of the transition. It might be that that – that is has evolved to that, but it certainly wasn't that in 2011 and 2012.

MR KIRBY: Well, I can show you comments as early as two years ago where the Secretary has said --

QUESTION: Well, that's two years ago. But --

MR KIRBY: -- that it didn't matter.

QUESTION: Four years ago, that wasn't the position.

MR KIRBY: Well, Assad has lost legitimacy to govern. Nothing's changed our view on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:22 p.m.)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list