Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 4, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
RUSSIA/REGION
SYRIA
IRAN/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN/REGION
DEPARTMENT
TURKEY
TRANSCRIPT:
2:14 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Hello.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR TONER: Hey, guys, and please indulge me. I've got to get out of here very quickly, so if I could ask for you guys to not pepper me too much today. Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Pepper you?
MR TONER: Pepper me with questions. Good afternoon, guys. At the top just a couple quick things. First of all, Secretary Kerry is going to deliver global policy – rather, the global policy keynote – Bloomberg New Energy and Finance's Future of Energy Summit at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. His remarks will focus on the link between energy choices and climate change, the path forward in the wake of the historic Paris agreement, and the transition toward a global low-carbon economy. Since 2008, BNEF's Global Future of Energy Summit has convened key decision makers from the business, finance, and policy communities to focus intently on critical energy challenges ranging from power, transportation – what else? – and regulation to energy finance and energy security. And just FYI, that speech will be livestreamed on state.gov.
Also, very quickly, but I did want to note that today, April 4th, 2016, marks the 100th anniversary of the origin of the Diplomatic Security Service, so it's part of a year-long commemoration of the DSS centennial. As you all know, DSS is an integral part of the U.S. Department of State, serving as our department's security and law enforcement arm. The protection of people, property, and information is, of course, a top priority. The men and women of DSS facilitate our work not only in Washington, D.C., of course, and New York, but also in 29 other U.S. cities as well as 275 U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide. So we pay tribute to them, certainly, today as well as this entire year.
Matt, my first question to you: Who's going to win tonight?
QUESTION: I'm so far out.
MR TONER: Aw, c'mon.
QUESTION: North Carolina. Tar Heels.
QUESTION: I've gotten completely destroyed. (Laughter.) But I did notice that Notre Dame is not playing tonight.
MR TONER: I know, I know. And I'm a Philly guy, so I mean, I'm going to go with Nova, but that's --
QUESTION: All right. Well --
MR TONER: Good luck to both teams. Anyway, go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Got to go for the Big East.
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: I wanted to start with – the Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, I believe, or today – some point today, and – at least according to the Russians he did.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: And I am curious – apart from wanting to know what they might have said about Syria and the situation there, what they may have said about the situation with Armenia and Azerbaijan now. I saw the statement from over the weekend, but has there been any change in what – how the U.S. sees this?
MR TONER: Sure. Well, they did speak today via phone, obviously, to discuss – and topic number one was to discuss efforts to secure an immediate end of the violence that has erupted along the Nagorno-Karabakh line of conflict and encourage both Armenia and Azerbaijan to get back to – resume, rather, settlement talks under the auspices of the OSCE. I can go deeper into Armenia and Azerbaijan or Nagorno-Karabakh, but I can also read out the rest of the call, so it's up to you whether I do that.
QUESTION: Both, please.
MR TONER: Okay, great. They also discussed the ongoing – or rather, the cessation of hostilities, current status of them, in Syria and the urgent need for the Assad regime to stop its violations of the cessation. He – the Secretary stressed the importance of expanding and improving on humanitarian access. Obviously, that's something we want to see solidified, including access to medical supplies to all Syrians in need and the urgent need, obviously, for progress toward a political transition in Syria. And then they did also discuss Ukraine briefly at the end, and of course, Secretary Kerry urged Russia to comply with its Minsk commitments.
Just to – you had mentioned whether – I mean, you mentioned whether we had anything new to say about Nagorno-Karabakh. I mean, certainly, as you saw in the Secretary's statement yesterday, we condemned in the strongest terms the violence from this weekend. Obviously a very high number of casualties, including civilians, which is deplorable. And we urge both sides to stop using force immediately and to avoid any kind of further escalation.
QUESTION: All right. On the cessation of hostilities in Syria.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Are you aware of any violations of it since the incident --
MR TONER: Two days ago?
QUESTION: -- you put a statement out about a couple days ago?
MR TONER: Which statement are you referring to? I'm sorry, Matt, to be --
QUESTION: I think there may have been one last week. Have there been instances of COH violations in the last – like, over the weekend, the last few days?
MR TONER: I think we did see some reports over the weekend about some additional fighting between opposition and regime forces. Obviously we're working and continue to work in Geneva and through other channels to just ensure continued compliance. So we're obviously concerned by those recent clashes.
QUESTION: To the best of your knowledge, has the task force in Geneva actually confirmed a single violation of this cessation of hostilities?
MR TONER: By "confirmed," what do you --
QUESTION: Well, have they found --
MR TONER: We haven't given --
QUESTION: There have been a lot of --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Both – everyone's been sending allegations in.
MR TONER: Sure, sure.
QUESTION: Has the task force actually agreed that any violations have happened so far?
MR TONER: I think so. I believe that's the case. I mean, we've – we haven't, obviously, issued a score card or anything like that. What we have seen is that the Assad regime continues to be the biggest quote/unquote "violator."
QUESTION: You guys say that --
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: -- but I haven't heard that coming from the actual – the task force that you and the Russians --
MR TONER: And I'm not aware that the task force is going to necessarily – I mean, what the task force does is within the various parties vet these and try to address them by going back to the involved parties on the ground and try to mitigate or have them de-escalate.
QUESTION: So there's been no consequence – so there has been no consequence for any of the – what you believe to be violations of the agreement so far?
MR TONER: By "no consequence," you mean --
QUESTION: Well, it was my understanding or it was I think the broader understanding that if people were found to be in violation, they would be kicked out of the agreement, basically, that they would no longer be covered. You don't – that has not happened?
MR TONER: That has not happened.
Yeah, go ahead, James.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR TONER: Welcome.
QUESTION: Thanks. Nice to be back with you. And forgive me in advance if some of the ground I cover with you has been covered recently.
MR TONER: That's okay.
QUESTION: On Iran, when the deal was announced in July, was it contemplated anywhere in the main text or in any of the annex papers that Iran might somehow enjoy access to U.S. dollars?
MR TONER: I don't have the JCPOA in front of me. But what I can say is that the Administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. I would refer you, obviously, to the Department of Treasury, who can speak far more – in greater – with greater expertise on this matter than I am – than I can.
QUESTION: Has any official in the United States Government, to your knowledge, declared that the recent series of missile tests by Iran, including of ballistic missiles, have been in violation of the relevant UN Security Council resolution?
MR TONER: Yes. I mean, we have – I mean, you're talking about the latest round of --
QUESTION: As opposed to – yeah, as opposed to being inconsistent with.
MR TONER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I apologize. They were found to be inconsistent with, again, a separate piece of the JCPOA, but we always said we were never going to back away from other behavior, bad behavior on the part of Iran, even if it's not part of the JCPOA. And we're going to continue to apply sanctions as – and we've retained that ability to apply sanctions as appropriate.
QUESTION: But as you know, some have made an issue of the language employed, that declaring something to be inconsistent with the law is not as strong a measure as declaring it to be in violation of that law. I assume you're sensitive to the distinction, and if so, you can explain why the Administration sees fit to make it.
MR TONER: Well, I'm aware, and we've had these – some of these discussions here, as you noted. Look, I mean, just what I think is the most important aspect to emphasize in all of this are two things. One is that the agreement we reached regarding Iran's nuclear program will, we're convinced – if Iran continues to comply with it, and thus far it has – prohibit Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That was the goal from the outset of this. That said, as we negotiated this agreement, we also retained the ability to apply sanctions, continue to apply sanctions, and recognize the fact that we're under no illusions that Iran is going to change its behavior in other fields such as some of its nefarious actions in the region via Hizballah and other involvement in Syria, elsewhere, but also its testing of ballistic missiles.
So we can parse the language, but I think what's important here to emphasize is the fact that we still retain the ability to apply pressure through sanctions on Iran for its behavior.
QUESTION: It sounds somewhat dismissive when we talk about parsing language, but that's a good deal of what diplomats and lawyers in this building do.
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: And so certainly the United States has not been shy about describing past Iranian behaviors or the behaviors of other countries as warranted as violations of relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which carry the force of international law. Why the hesitancy in this case? Why go with the sort of weaselly language of "inconsistent with"?
MR TONER: I'm not sure it's – I would term it "weaselly." Look --
QUESTION: You're not sure?
MR TONER: I am sure. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: How about ferret-like. (Laughter.) Weaselly doesn't --
QUESTION: That's hyphenated.
QUESTION: Badger.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Badger.
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: Don't pepper him.
MR TONER: That's right, don't pepper me. Stop it. Again, inconsistent with – you're right. I mean, it's in the sense that it is very parsed and diplomatic language. It reflects the consensus that it took to reach agreement on how we would move forward in addressing some of our concerns about Iran's behavior. But again, what is really critical in all of this is that we have given up no ability to carry out, where we see a need to, sanctions or our ability to sanction Iran when it acts, as I said – I mentioned a number of areas, but you mentioned ballistic missiles – when it acts in a way that we believe undermines regional stability.
QUESTION: The reason for this series of questions, and I'd like to wrap it up with this one --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- and perhaps move to something else that will go by much more quickly, I assure you --
MR TONER: It's okay.
QUESTION: -- is that, as you may know, Congressman Pompeo, member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has launched kind of an informal effort to determine whether lawmakers were the subject of, to put – to use the word he used, "deception" on the part of the Administration in the period where senior officials were testifying before Congress about what the deal would and would not include. So I guess the point-blank question to be put to you is: Did this Administration mislead the Congress or deceive the Congress about the terms of this deal?
MR TONER: So two things. One, of course we'll respond to Congressman Pompeo's concerns, as we do with any congressional inquiry or concern. To your very pointed question, no. We made every effort, and I can give you the statistics in terms of numbers of hearings of high-level U.S. officials, including the Secretary on multiple occasions, including Secretary Moniz, made ourselves available to members on the Hill to explain every aspect of the JCPOA agreement and made every effort in engaging with Congress to be as transparent as possible about what we were trying to achieve through the actual agreement but also the fact that we would retain every ability to continue to exert sanctions and pressure on Iran when we saw it exhibiting bad behavior.
QUESTION: You may retain the ability. I think what's coming under question here is the willpower to do so.
MR TONER: Again, we --
QUESTION: If you're not even going to call a violation a violation, but you're going to call a violation something that's inconsistent with the law, then doesn't that legitimately call into question your willpower to do the right thing?
MR TONER: Not at all. And I think you saw with the ballistic – the recent tests is that we actually did follow through and are taking action. And we're going to continue to do that through the UN Security Council but also unilaterally.
QUESTION: Mark, I have a follow-up on this --
MR TONER: That's okay. Yeah, sure, sure.
QUESTION: You said in response to one of James's earlier questions that the U.S. Government has no plans to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. Does that mean that – does that statement rule out granting non-U.S. companies – like, say, a European bank – the ability to do transactions with the United States where the end party on one side of the transaction is Iran? In other words, a European company wants to buy something from Iran or wants to do something with Iran. They want to do a payment; the payment has to go through dollars at some point. Is it okay or are you considering the – is your statement meant to imply that you would not allow a European bank to clear or handle such a transaction?
MR TONER: The President actually spoke to this question on Friday. The specificity of your question I'm not certain of, but he did mention the fact that there are other available options for some of these companies that are separate and apart from the U.S. financial system. As to the specifics of your question, I'd have to look into it, I'd have to take that question. I just don't have the level of detail.
QUESTION: Well, then what --
QUESTION: Then let's make it less specific.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You might have to defer to Treasury on this, but access – allowing Iran to have access to transactions that are conducted in dollars is not allowing them access to the U.S. financial system. Is that correct?
MR TONER: That's my understanding.
QUESTION: So in other words – okay, so that's the deal.
MR TONER: That's my understanding.
QUESTION: But one other thing --
QUESTION: So you would make clear or the Administration intends to make clear to banks, to foreign banks, that if they want to handle transactions where the ultimate payee is in Iran, that those transactions can use dollars and it won't run afoul of any U.S. law. Is that correct?
MR TONER: So, right. I mean, it's not necessarily that we are going to take the approach of them going through dollar-denominated transactions, but it is possible for them to work through European financial institutions. And we're going to work to continue to clarify that to the – to any businesses.
QUESTION: That doesn't answer Matt's question though.
QUESTION: I think that you're – what you're getting at is you're saying that the Administration is at least considering, and may actually go ahead with, plans to clarify or to issue a new rule that would make it clear that foreign banks would not face any kind of penalties from the United States if they cleared currency transactions in dollars, even if the payee, the ultimate recipient of the money, is in Iran.
MR TONER: Again, I – for that level of specificity and for – I mean, we're not there yet. I'd have to refer you to Treasury for any --
QUESTION: One other question --
QUESTION: No such plan or inkling of such a plan was put before the Congress at the time you were testifying on behalf of the Iran deal, correct?
MR TONER: But again, I mean, the – the JCPOA specified what steps in terms of companies or businesses, what they were able to do if Iran has complied with or meet – met its obligations with – or through the JCPOA.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: And as it – yeah.
QUESTION: And my first question to you was whether any language appeared in the main text of that document or the annex documents suggesting that Treasury might make it permissible for Iran to access U.S. dollars through selected foreign banks. Was that part of the deal that was briefed to lawmakers at any point?
MR TONER: I'd have to look back and see if it was in the original text. I don't have that in front of me.
QUESTION: You don't recall it having been in that text, though, do you?
MR TONER: I don't recall it.
QUESTION: So one --
MR TONER: But that said, what it did clearly lay out was a clear – a – rather, a clear list of actions that Iran had to take in order to comply with the JCPOA, and if those actions were taken, that certain sanctions would be lifted but also that certain companies could do business with Iran. And as I said, the President spoke to this I thought very eloquently last Friday, when he said part of this is about Iran changing its behavior and convincing many of these companies that it is a place where it can do – where they can do business. And that includes, frankly, changing some of its – some of the actions that it takes and continues to take in the region. And he said – he talked about ballistic missile testing, he talked about other behavior that Iran continues to take that sends, frankly, a message to companies looking to invest in Iran that is unfavorable.
QUESTION: Change --
QUESTION: One other --
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: -- thing on this, please. Sorry. Just still in the weeds.
MR TONER: That's okay. Sure, Arshad.
QUESTION: But it was in fact originally the State Department position put forth by Kirby that if it turned out that Iran had launched these ballistic missile tests, that that would be a violation. I mean, that's in the transcript. That's inarguable.
MR TONER: That is, yes. Yes.
QUESTION: And then subsequently he then moved to the "not in compliance with or in defiance of the resolution," right? So just so we're clear, as I understand it, it is not the U.S. Government's position that ballistic missile tests are a violation of – I think it's 2251. Is that not correct? It's in defiance of, but it's not a violation, correct?
MR TONER: I'd have to check the specific wording on that, Arshad. I think that's correct.
QUESTION: Can we move --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Can we change topics?
QUESTION: No, I've just got one more on --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure --
QUESTION: I've spoken to European officials who say that they're concerned that their bankers are unwilling to do business in Iran, that they were hoping that they would get a windfall, as the Iranians would, out of the JCPOA. But their bankers are concerned that they'd be arrested by Preet Bharara next time they set foot in New York. Have – when you say this needs to be clarified, is this because of requests from the private sector, from foreign governments, from Iran, or just from questioning in rooms like this one?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, it's also incumbent on us – and we've been actually working with banks and governments around the world to provide this kind of guidance and ensure that they do understand clearly what – or to the extent – or the extent, rather, of U.S. sanctions relief provided under the deal, but also the appropriate – so that the appropriate relief, I guess, is, rather, put into effect under the JCPOA. And that's going to continue. We're going to continue to have these discussions with these companies and with banks and governments around the world to – as we move forward to make sure that they understand the playing field.
QUESTION: Issuing that clarification in the form of waivers, or just public guidance?
MR TONER: Public guidance.
QUESTION: Can I move on to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Very quickly, I met today with --
QUESTION: You sure about public guidance and not the issuance of waivers or a general license by the Treasury?
MR TONER: Sorry, I mean – I'd have to refer you to the Treasury on that. I don't have that specificity.
QUESTION: Something --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that is a bit more mundane. Let me – I wonder if you are aware that a Palestinian deacon, the head of the Palestinian Presbyterian Church, is in town. I think he will be meeting with some officials at the State Department and so on. Apparently they – there is a foundation called the Irving Moskowitz Foundation, was able to get $10 million together and so on and transact some sort of a transaction deal which the church was not aware of, and they purchased the land. And consequently they threw the church out. I mean, these are American foundations that under all kinds of fraudulent cover claim to purchase land in the West Bank and so on, and consequently the Presbyterian Church in Bethlehem cannot use its facilities. I wonder if you're aware of that or if you have any comment.
MR TONER: I think you're talking about the Palestinian Presbyterian Church of Bethlehem?
QUESTION: Right. Beit Baraka, yes.
MR TONER: I can say that Ambassador Saperstein, who's here in town, is meeting with I think the son of George Awad.
QUESTION: Right. Danny Awad, yes.
MR TONER: And I think – Danny. Thank you. Danny Awad. And that's going to be later this afternoon. And we've already spoken to this issue, I think back in January. But we remain very concerned about this decision to kind of expand existing – the existing settlement boundary of the Gush Etzion Regional Council to include a former church compound.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, see, the issue is the land, the West Bank, is still governed by Jordanian law. And Jordanian law prohibits the sale of church property. In this case, I don't know how they come up – they came up with some fraudulent documents and so on. So will this – this is the issue that Ambassador Saperstein will be discussing with Father Awad today?
MR TONER: I mean, I – he's clearly going to talk about this action that is going to obviously push the church off of its – off of the – its property. I can't tell you to what level of detail they're going to get into but, obviously, we are always concerned when we see decisions that, as I said, seek to expand settlement – existing settlement boundaries, and certainly when that involves --
QUESTION: Question --
MR TONER: -- pushing churches off their land. That's concerning.
QUESTION: A couple more questions on the Palestinian issue.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: There are, according to UNICEF, according to the UN, 400 Palestinian children under the age of 18 in Israeli prisons, among them a 12-year-old girl, Dima Wawi. Do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: Other than to say we have an ongoing dialogue, I would say, with the Government of Israel about our concerns on this specific issue, and we also discuss it in detail in our Human Rights Report.
QUESTION: And my last is the excessive use of force. Since the confrontation between the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation army erupted in September, 209 Palestinians have been killed, among them 48 children under the age of 18, mostly execution-style. Does that propel you in any way to sort of – or does it cast any kind of urgency on your response to the Senator Leahy letter of last – that came in last week?
MR TONER: I think Elizabeth spoke in detail about the Senator Leahy letter and our response to that, I mean, on Friday. I would just say overall it certainly adds urgency to our efforts to have both sides de-escalate tensions in the region. Certainly, as we've said many times, Israel has a right to defend itself against these attacks and violence against its people. But we've also many times called on Israeli security forces to exercise restraint. And so we do have concerns about the mounting violence in the region.
QUESTION: Have you responded to that letter?
MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of. No, not yet.
QUESTION: It's been over a month.
MR TONER: It's been --
QUESTION: How long does it usually take?
QUESTION: Since the 17th of February.
MR TONER: Yeah, it's been a couple months. I mean, I can't give you a timeline on these kinds of letters.
QUESTION: You have spellcheck, yes?
MR TONER: That's peppering. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I mean, did you even let him know that you received it?
QUESTION: On Japan?
MR TONER: Sure. Sure. Let me finish and answer his question and I'll get to you guys. I mean, yes. I mean, we're – of course we're engaged with Leahy's staff and talking to Congress and engaged in our response in this letter. But we're going to do --
QUESTION: But the Department has not yet – has yet to respond to the letter; is that correct?
MR TONER: My understanding is that it has not yet.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: But you can clarify that it is a response and not an investigation that you are doing, right? You will not investigate --
MR TONER: It's a response. I mean, we're always --
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: I mean, we have a team --
QUESTION: If you don't understand, you could say --
MR TONER: No, no, no, that's okay. But we --
QUESTION: Your response could say, we received the letter and we hereby acknowledge it and so on. But it's a different thing altogether to, let's say, go by the law that was passed in 1997.
MR TONER: So, again, we will respond to the letter when appropriate or when we are able to. But our vetting via Leahy goes on all the time, that we have a team of people working constantly on vetting – or rather conducting Leahy vetting of various organizations, of various groups around the world not just regarding Israel and Egypt, and that work continues around the – or not around the clock, obviously, but continuously.
QUESTION: Gotcha.
QUESTION: Nagorno --
QUESTION: Mark, on Turkey?
QUESTION: -- Karabakh?
QUESTION: I have question, Karabakh.
MR TONER: Let's to Karabakh, Turkey, and then over to you.
QUESTION: Right. The fighting continues even after the weekend. There was a unilateral announcement from the Azerbaijan president but – and then I wonder if you see the announcement from president of Armenia that the ongoing fighting may escalate into a full-scale war. And he has also warned Armenia may recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. I wonder if you have any response.
MR TONER: Well, I would just say we've expressed our concern about the escalating violence. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders of these two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, to find the political will to reach peace, to reach a ceasefire, and to achieve a lasting peace to this ongoing conflict. For our part, we're going to continue as one of the co-chairs of the Minsk Group to make efforts to get both sides back to the negotiating process.
QUESTION: Last week, Secretary was welcoming the president of Azerbaijan here at the State Department. I wonder if he reached out to both sides after the conflict has escalated over the weekend.
MR TONER: Whether the Secretary --
QUESTION: Secretary of State did.
MR TONER: -- himself has reached out to both sides?
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: Let me just check this handy-dandy – he hasn't spoken to either leader. But obviously, it came up during their – I mean --
QUESTION: Mark --
MR TONER: -- excuse me – it came up during their discussions, during the bilat. But since the violence escalated over the weekend, I don't believe he's talked to either leader.
QUESTION: Yeah, but your response if Armenia recognized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and normalized relations?
MR TONER: I think what's important here is that, first of all, the violence stops. We don't want to see any kind of escalation. We want to see de-escalation. We want to see a credible ceasefire return. There is also a process here via the Minsk Group that can lead to, we believe, a peaceful negotiated settlement with respect to Nagorno-Karabakh. So we would urge both sides to return to that process, de-escalate the situation, and then hopefully work out a political – or a resolution to the ongoing hostilities.
QUESTION: It's on Nagorno as well.
MR TONER: Yeah, in the back. Yeah.
QUESTION: Mark, on the first of April, Russia's ally, Armenia, started attacks against Azerbaijan again. They are killing civilians, destroying schools and houses. The normal life of the local population has been disrupted. Don't you think that it is a reaction to the successful visit of the President Aliyev to Washington? And what is the United States position to the continuing Armenian aggression?
MR TONER: So it's certainly not for me to speak to what the motivations might be behind this recent escalation, except to simply reiterate our strong belief that both sides need to de-escalate, end the violence, return to a ceasefire. And that, again, there is a mechanism in place – the Minsk Group – through which we've been working very hard with both sides to reach a peace settlement, or a settlement, to this conflict. And we would urge both sides to return to that.
The violence over the weekend only exacerbates the situation, only increases tensions. We need, again, both governments, both presidents to step back from further escalation and return to what is already an established process to reach a peaceful settlement.
QUESTION: Same topic.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Okay. On March 30th, you guys issued a statement attributable to John Kerry, and in the statement John Kerry actually expresses full support of the United States Government to territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. And he also expresses commitment of the U.S. Government to working with the sides to reach a comprehensive settlement based on international law, UN Charter, and Helsinki Final Act. So as you know, there are four UN Security Council resolutions – 822, 853, 874, 884 – which demand unconditional and immediate withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan. So when you make statements calling the sides to restraint, why is it that State Department is not also asking, or demanding for that matter, the Armenian Government to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions? That – because they are at the core of the international law on this --
MR TONER: Sure. What I would say to that is we strongly support the Minsk Group process. We strongly support the co-chairs' efforts to mediate a fair and just resolution to Nagorno-Karabakh that is based on the principles of international law, the UN Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, particularly principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity, and self-determination. As I said, ultimately, this is up to the two leaders and the two governments to find the political will to reach that lasting peace. We are willing, through the Minsk Group process, to work with them to get there.
Guys, I'm really pressed for time.
QUESTION: Karabakh.
MR TONER: Karabakh.
QUESTION: Different subjects?
MR TONER: Let's finish Karabakh.
QUESTION: No, on same subject, just to finish up. The call you read out earlier with Mr. Lavrov --
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: -- was that a call you were planning to have anyway about Syria and Ukraine, and then Azerbaijan and Armenia came up? Or did you initiate the call because of concerns about Azerbaijan and Armenia? And if it was for that, or if that obviously became a very important part of the call, do you think Russia is a partner in trying to end this conflict? There was something you – was there something you want Russia to do or want Russia not to do in terms of --
MR TONER: Well, I mean, we – I mean, Russia is part of the Minsk Group. Our own ambassador, James Warlick, is the – one of the co-chairs, but with Russia and with France we continue to work diligently to try to come up with proposals.
QUESTION: You had conversations with Mr. Lavrov but not with Mr. Aliyev or anyone in Armenia that --
MR TONER: Not that we're – and I don't know, frankly – I don't have an answer for you in terms of whether this call was scheduled. I believe he did reach out to him this morning, but I don't know if it was already scheduled or not.
But I mean, there is real concern, obviously, with the – or on the part of the Secretary, as we've seen with other leaders, including Russia, about the – this sharp escalation.
QUESTION: Different subject really quickly.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: What role did the State Department have in the extradition of the hacker or the suspected hacker known as – I may get the pronunciation wrong here – Guccifer, from Romania?
MR TONER: I don't have – no, I --
QUESTION: This was the hacker --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- who exposed the Clinton-Blumenthal correspondence and thereby the Clinton email account.
MR TONER: I don't believe we had any – I mean, other than – this is an extradition of a hacker. I think it would be Department of Justice who would have the specifics on that.
QUESTION: The Department of Justice Panama papers, do you have anything on that?
MR TONER: Very briefly, we're obviously not going to talk to – talk about the contents of any leaked documents. As you know, we assiduously avoid that for a variety of reasons, but what I would say is that it's very important to note that the U.S. Government does focus on strengthening financial transparency and global compliance and investigating any possible illicit and sanctions evasion activity. And we use all sources of information, both public and non-public, to do so. That's really a Department of Justice function. I think Treasury's – or rather – forgive me – Department of Treasury function. I think its Office of Foreign Assets Control does carry out these kinds of efforts, drawing from both publicly available information, law enforcement, intelligence community sources, as well as other sources of information.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR TONER: You, sir, and then that's it, I've got to – I'm sorry, Samir.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Today, half a dozen Turkish journalists arrested and their house raided. This just happened a day or two after President Obama criticized Mr. Erdogan's press record. Do you have any comment, and do you see any tie to – between these two events?
MR TONER: I can't speak to whether there's any tie. As you said – saw, the President made very clear that he's concerned about this ongoing trend that's counter to Turkey's commitment to a free press. It's part of any number of issues that we continue to discuss with Turkey, who's a strong partner and NATO ally, but we do have concerns about the ongoing trend there.
QUESTION: About these arrests of today?
MR TONER: Not arrests today. I just – I don't have any comment on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:54 p.m.)
DPB # 55
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
