• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 11, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

YEMEN
SYRIA/RUSSIA
SYRIA
RUSSIA/SYRIA
IRAQ
UKRAINE
IRAN
IRAN/RUSSIA
LIBYA
INDIA
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN/INDIA
BANGLADESH
DEPARTMENT
LIBYA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS/UNITED NATIONS
JAPAN
CHINA/JAPAN
RUSSIA
SAUDI ARABIA/EGYPT
IRAN
UAE

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:08 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Welcome, everyone. Are those American University students in the background I see? Way in the back. Welcome, everyone, to the State Department daily press briefing. I hope everyone had a somewhat restful weekend. Welcome, and happy Monday.

Just one thing at the top concerning Yemen. The United States welcomes the cessation of hostilities in Yemen which began last night at midnight. The cessation of hostilities is crucial for the people of Yemen who have suffered from over a year of fighting and a massive humanitarian crisis, which has resulted in over 80 percent of the population requiring some form of emergency assistance.

We urge all parties to fully uphold and respect the cessation of hostilities, which is critical to ensuring the unimpeded delivery of critically needed humanitarian aid, including food, fuel, and medicine to all parts of Yemen. Last week the United States announced nearly $139 million in humanitarian assistance in response to the Yemen crisis and is seeking to help ensure its implementing partners are well-positioned to utilize the cessation of hostilities to distribute the assistance through Yemen to all those in need. We urge all parties to ensure they are cooperating fully with humanitarian workers as they seek to access all parts of the country.

The cessation of hostilities will help lay the groundwork for the April 18th peace talks to be held in Kuwait under the auspices of the United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. We urge all parties to attend and engage in these talks in good faith in order to find a sustainable way forward in Yemen. The only durable solution to the conflict in Yemen is a political one.

Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I don't have a lot. But one thing – Syria.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: So the talks are to resume this week?

MR TONER: Yep. Go ahead, sorry. Finish. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Correct? Is that right? Is that wrong?

MR TONER: No, that's correct, yes.

QUESTION: And I'm just wondering if you have – what your expectations are for this given the fact that there seems to be concern that the Assad government and the Russians are driving to take or retake more territory.

MR TONER: First of all, I just want to check on the actual date for the continuance, but I believe it is this week.

QUESTION: It's on the 13th.

MR TONER: Yeah, thanks.

QUESTION: So that's Wednesday?

MR TONER: Wednesday, correct. So a couple of things, Matt. First of all, we are very, very concerned about the recent increase in violence, and that includes actions we believe are in contravention to the cessation of hostilities. And Secretary Kerry, in fact, expressed this concern to Foreign Minister Lavrov and also discussed how to make certain in the next days that every extra effort is made in order to sustain and solidify the cessation of hostilities, and that includes working to define where the different fighting groups are located and to make sure we're concentrating our efforts on Daesh and Nusrah, who have not signed on to the cessation of hostilities. To that end, we've got obviously teams – a team in Geneva. We've also got a team working in Amman to help sustain the cessation of hostilities.

But to answer your second part of your question, which is how this would affect the talks. Look, I mean, the cessation of hostilities has not been perfect, but it has brought about a substantial decrease in the level of violence. And to have it go off track right before the next round of proximity talks, we feel, would – could potentially harm the success of those talks, and we need to see real progress. And the Secretary has spoken about this, as have others, about the need really for the political – talk about – serious talk about a political transition to begin with these talks. We want to make sure the environment for these talks to succeed in is a good one, and so we are concerned.

QUESTION: So when did the Secretary speak to Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MR TONER: That was last night. I mean last night, I believe the middle of our day here back in – he's obviously – was in Asia, in Japan.

QUESTION: But Sunday?

MR TONER: Sunday.

QUESTION: Where he was too?

MR TONER: Correct. What are you asking me, where the Secretary was? Yes.

QUESTION: Well, 14 hours ahead of us.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So I just want to know – I mean, did he make the call – where he was when he made the call or took the call, was he – was it Sunday?

MR TONER: I feel like this is one of those really difficult math problems in grade school, but I think, yes, it was Sunday midday. For so – here so --

QUESTION: Because – okay. Well, that means that it –

QUESTION: Has been to sleep? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Clearly I have not.

QUESTION: If it was midday Sunday in Hiroshima --

MR TONER: I'll double-check on that. Hold on, actually.

QUESTION: I – let's not get bogged down on this.

MR TONER: No, let's not get bogged down on this, but let me just see if I have – so it has here Sunday, April 10th, as him having reached out to Foreign Minister Lavrov.

QUESTION: And so your belief is that the – all – that the ceasefire – the cessation of hostilities violations that you're seeing are all coming from the government side?

MR TONER: I don't think we've ever said that definitively but --

QUESTION: The ones that you're talking about now that you say you're very concerned, and it seems to be the government – you're concerned about the government doing – taking military operations to groups that you say are covered by the ceasefire?

MR TONER: That's correct, and we've also seen, obviously – look, I mean, all along we said for this thing to hold, this cessation to hold, parties that have endorsed it, have bought into the cessation of hostilities, can't attack or seek to acquire territory from other groups who are participating in the cessation of hostilities, and that's our very point here. We've seen – you've seen reports about plans for the regime to try to retake Aleppo, and as I said, that's concerning to us.

QUESTION: Yeah, but – all right, before we get back to Aleppo --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: -- I mean, what you seem to be saying so far is that the violations of the cessation of hostilities agreement that you've seen so far are all being committed by the government.

MR TONER: We would say that the vast majority of violations have been on the part of the regime.

QUESTION: Okay. And on Aleppo, you are concerned why? Because the Syrians and the Russians say that they're going after Nusrah and Aleppo.

MR TONER: Well, again, what I think – what I at least tried to convey was that we're concerned, in particular because it's not – and we've talked about this before – it's – there are – we understand it's a complex, fluid – however you want to put it – environment where there are groups that have signed on to the cessation and there are other groups like Nusrah and Daesh who are there as well. And they're not far apart and they're not clearly delineated, and that's one of the things I think the Secretary stressed very strongly in his phone call yesterday with Foreign Minister Lavrov, is that we need to make certain that we work to determine which fighting group is where. Certainly, we've talked about the fact that everybody needs to focus on Nusrah and Daesh, but we can't have overlap and we can't have violations against those groups who have bought into the ceasefire, or the cessation.

QUESTION: And you don't think that any of the activities that – any of the actions that the Syrians and the Russians have taken have targeted legitimate groups that are legitimately targets under the – because they're not in the ceasefire?

MR TONER: Sorry, just to rewind, you said I don't think that --

QUESTION: Are you – do you think that the Russians and the Syrians have gone after groups that are covered by the ceasefire --

MR TONER: I'm not --

QUESTION: -- or are they --

MR TONER: Yes, I think that – I think both. I mean, I think they have gone after Nusrah and Daesh in certain places. We've seen that. But they've also used the cessation of hostilities --

QUESTION: All right. So what's the consequence, then, of that?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, the consequence – and we talked about this before. The consequences are that – this whole process depends on a couple of things. One is the fact that the cessation of hostilities, the relative reduction in violence that the cessation of hostilities has brought for all sides, and that includes the regime as well, who may – we talked about prior to the cessation may have been making gains on the ground. But we're not – we're far from running the table, so to speak.

So this allows everyone to regroup and to pursue a political process that all hinges on the fact that there's this cessation in place.

QUESTION: Yeah, but if there isn't – if the ceasefire task force isn't --

MR TONER: But that's --

QUESTION: -- isn't prepared to call out violations that it sees and then --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- impose some kind of consequence for those who are violating it, what's --

MR TONER: But my point is --

QUESTION: -- what's the point of it?

MR TONER: -- the consequences are if this thing – if this cessation falls apart, everybody pays a price for that, without a doubt – the regime included. And part of the structure or part of the reason why they succeeded – God bless you – part of the reason this has succeeded thus far is that the members of the ISSG, and that includes Russia with – and its influence on the regime, are able to exert influence, are able to tell the different parties – and that includes the opposition who also – when violations occur, to adhere to the ceasefire, the cessation, and to abide by it. Otherwise the thing will collapse.

QUESTION: So that --

MR TONER: There's no --

QUESTION: Okay, but they --

MR TONER: But I mean, I know what you're asking: Is there a --

QUESTION: Short of wagging your finger at them and saying "no, no, don't do that," I don't see what the point of this ceasefire task – or the task force is --

MR TONER: But I – we're --

QUESTION: -- if they don't do anything.

MR TONER: I feel like we're arguing – anyway, we're arguing how many angels on the head of a pin kind of stuff here. My point is that if this thing – if people don't abide by the ceasefire, then it falls apart and then you've got – we're back to where we were a month ago.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, that goes without saying.

QUESTION: But isn't that a consequence of breaking the ceasefire is that the ceasefire is broken.

MR TONER: Well, that it collapses.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: The cessation collapses. Thus far, we've seen violations but we've managed to work through the task force – and that's us working with the Russians, working with others – to make sure that people still abide by them and still adhere to the cessation --

QUESTION: But why would someone breaking the ceasefire care if the ceasefire collapsed? They're attempting to collapse it.

MR TONER: Because, David – look, I mean, I – I would just offer the counterargument – it's – again, it's a very fluid environment on the ground. We fully admit this is not perfect. We want to solidify it going forward. We want to make it stronger, we want to make it more comprehensive. But --

QUESTION: The ceasefire task force is never going to tell us who's the least perfect, is it?

MR TONER: Well, again, that's part of this – the task force's goal is to work through these violations, these allegations internally as part of a group and then, as I said, to whoever the violators are, to convey that they need to adhere to the ceasefire.

QUESTION: The problem is – is that – well, first of all, the answer is four – four angels dancing on the head of a pin. (Laughter.) The problem is that you're accusing one member of – the co-chair, your fellow co-chair of being responsible for violations.

MR TONER: Well, they need to – again, that's what we're trying to convey, and that's what was part of the Secretary's message, is that we are very concerned about the prospects for the cessation to continue if these kind of violations continue, if the regime continues to carry out attacks.

QUESTION: Right. Well, assuming that it is accepted and that it is fact that the Syrians and the Russians are in fact violating it, I don't understand – maybe this isn't a question --

MR TONER: You want to – I understand what you're asking, which is there some kind – sorry, I'm putting words in your mouth.

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: But you're asking is there some kind of penalty --

QUESTION: Well, I'm just saying it sounds as though this is – this cessation of hostilities is based on a whim and a prayer if the only thing that you – the only consequence of breaking the ceasefire for someone who breaks it is that the entire ceasefire collapses. I don't see – there's not much incentive there for --

MR TONER: On the contrary, I would say there's a lot of incentive given --

QUESTION: Well, unless they don't want peace.

MR TONER: But I'm not saying that every – so --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Anyway.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: All right. So --

QUESTION: Follow-up on --

QUESTION: So if there's an offensive against Aleppo, that would be to target Jabhat al-Nusrah, but obviously they are co-located in many locations with other groups.

MR TONER: And that's part of the Secretary's major point to make, which is that we need to do – and that's – writ large, we need to do a better job of de-conflicting and delineating --

QUESTION: On the ground on a daily basis, is it the responsibility of ceasefire observers to get out of the way when there's a fight between non-observers and the regime? Are they effectively shields for al-Nusrah if they remain there if you're not going to permit the Russians and the Syrians to attack them?

MR TONER: It's a fair question. I would defer to others who know the battlefield and the terrain better than I would, but it's a fair question to – that there's such a --

QUESTION: Because you can't (inaudible) al-Nusrah with (inaudible).

MR TONER: That there is an overlap there. Yeah, there is an overlap there. I mean, and that's a serious challenge.

QUESTION: Mark, let me just follow up on this very point.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead, Said, and I'll get --

QUESTION: Now, when you say "violations" – the regime's violations, in this case; the Syrian Government's violations – that is excluding attacks on al-Nusrah, correct? Or do you consider attacking al-Nusrah a --

MR TONER: No, no, no. Al-Nusrah and Daesh --

QUESTION: So al-Nusrah remains a free game.

MR TONER: Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: The regime, the Russians, you (inaudible) can attack --

MR TONER: Yeah, and then the Secretary made that point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: We need to focus on – our efforts on destroying Daesh, al-Nusrah.

QUESTION: And you also agree that al-Nusrah is located in Aleppo and its environment, right? In – around --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: In and around Aleppo.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: So if they attack, why would you then – should you be so concerned if the regime or the Russians attacked al-Nusrah positions in and around Aleppo?

MR TONER: Again, I'm not – look, I mean, there's mixed groups in there, and – or let me put it this way: These groups are on top of each other. It's a very – I've said this many times – complex, however you want to put it. And so at the same time as we want to certainly take the fight to Daesh, to al-Nusrah, and support those efforts – at the same time as we do that, we also need to preserve the cessation of hostilities so you cannot pull opposition groups or you cannot carry the same attacks against those opposition groups who have signed on to the cessation of hostilities. What I was just saying to David – that's a challenge, and that's a challenge for the task force and it's a challenge on the ground there, to de-conflict.

QUESTION: Is it a challenge to the groups to – who obviously – they're at least tolerating Nusrah's presence.

MR TONER: Somewhat. Somewhat, certainly. I mean, that's – yeah.

QUESTION: De Mistura just, I think, concluded a meeting with Moallem, where he by – gave very strong words on the need to maintain the ceasefire and so on. Do you think that's an implicit message or indirect message that it is the regime that is breaking – or the – that is largely violating the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Again, what we've said is that – a couple of quick thoughts on that. One is we do have this task force in place. We're working very hard with Russia, with other members of the ISSG to make certain that we keep this – the pressure on all the parties on the ground to adhere to the ceasefire. We have said that our assessment is, by and large, the number of alleged violations we have seen – that the majority are on the part of the regime. We've also said that – and have expressed our concern that no one should use the cessation to seize additional territory or carry out attacks on these groups. Again, what we want to try to see over the next coming days is a redoubling of our efforts to really solidify the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Can you seize territory off of Jabhat al-Nusrah?

MR TONER: I would say – well, I mean, you've seen --

QUESTION: Or do you have to attack them then go home? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: No, I mean, look, we talked a little bit about this last week, where there were – well, there was clearly a – the regime took back some territory from Daesh. And while we certainly would welcome any successful effort that destroys and puts additional pressure on Daesh, we also recognize that for the Syrian people that's not an ideal result, to go back under regime control, given what the regime has carried out against its people.

QUESTION: So you don't think they should try to go for Aleppo?

MR TONER: I --

QUESTION: If Nusrah is there?

MR TONER: Again, I'd – what I tried to say, and I've – I'll restate it – is that we are concerned about plans to attack and seize and control of Aleppo when there are clearly opposition groups there that are part of the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Okay. So – but if they didn't – you say there is also Nusrah people there. So if they only go after Nusrah, is that okay with you?

MR TONER: I mean, is it okay with me? It's --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, not you personally. I mean --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I understand what you're saying.

QUESTION: Would it better if --

MR TONER: It's – sorry, just to finish --

QUESTION: -- the regime didn't go after Aleppo at all?

MR TONER: Again, I think – and this is what the Secretary was trying to convey – is there needs to be a clear understanding of where Daesh, where Nusrah are; where the cessation-of-hostility-adhering members of the opposition are. We certainly want to focus all of our efforts – and that's us, that's the Syrian opposition, that's the regime – against Daesh and Nusrah.

QUESTION: So you're okay or the U.S. would be all right, then, if there was that distinguish --

MR TONER: We have always said that we would --

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: -- if Russia and --

QUESTION: So you're not opposed – let me just make sure I understand.

MR TONER: Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, please.

QUESTION: You're not opposed to the Syrian army going after and – going after Aleppo and taking the – or at least the parts of it that are held by al-Nusrah. That's okay with you. But if they start going after groups that you guys think are part of – or say are part of the cessation of hostilities, then it – only then it's bad. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MR TONER: With the caveat that all of this is only temporary in the sense that we don't want to see – and we've talked about this in terms of other groups who are fighting Daesh as well in the north or in the west – is that we don't want to see any creation of semiautonomous zones. We don't want to see any – all of this needs to be resolved ultimately through a political transition.

QUESTION: Mark, just to clarify.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: It's a long discussion, I know, but just --

MR TONER: That's okay.

QUESTION: -- can you be more specific? Which group are we talking about exactly? If it's not Nusrah, which group is under the umbrella of cessation of hostilities that you said that it was a violation of the cessation of hostilities when the regime and --

MR TONER: Which groups are under --

QUESTION: When the regime and the Syrian forces attacked?

MR TONER: I mean, those are the groups that have already been defined by the --

QUESTION: There are several groups in Aleppo. Which group are we talking about?

MR TONER: So really the only groups – well, largely speaking, the groups outside – it's almost easier to say it that way – outside the cessation of hostilities are Daesh and Nusrah.

QUESTION: Yes, but --

MR TONER: They did not sign onto that. They're not part of any proximity talks. They're not part of the HNC. They're not part of this political transition process.

QUESTION: The thing is there is no monolithic structure within the FSA as well.

MR TONER: I agree.

QUESTION: So is it Ahrar --

MR TONER: So it makes it very difficult.

QUESTION: Is it Ahrar or is it Northern Storm – so it makes difference. And which group are we talking about will be more --

MR TONER: I don't have a full list in front of me. It's the list that was determined through meetings in Riyadh and through the – de Mistura's process as well.

QUESTION: Let me put it this way: Is there any group that the Russians and the Syrians are attacking that at the same time are working with the U.S.?

MR TONER: Is there any group that the Russians and the Syrians are attacking that are at the same time working --

QUESTION: Cooperating with U.S., yeah.

MR TONER: How I would put it is that it's more a matter of if they are attacking those members of the Syrian opposition who have signed on to the cessation of hostilities, then those are violations of the cessation of hostility. Does that make sense? I mean, that's more how I'd put it, rather than we're supporting --

QUESTION: Yeah, but if there is a --

MR TONER: I mean, of course we've been supporting different groups within the Syrian opposition insofar as helping them develop as a political structure, helping them develop their civil society structure, all those kinds of aspects. But for you to say that – what groups – it's easier for me to define it as we would have a problem with any violations against any member by another member of the – who's signed up to the cessation of hostilities, because that's obviously endangering the cessation.

QUESTION: Last one.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment about the release of the Division 30 members by Nusrah?

MR TONER: The --

QUESTION: They captured several members of the Division 30, who were trained and equipped by U.S., a couple of months ago.

MR TONER: I honestly have not seen those reports. I apologize.

QUESTION: They just released today and --

MR TONER: Yeah, I haven't seen them. I'd have to see those reports. I apologize.

QUESTION: Can we change the subject?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Iraq.

MR TONER: If that's okay.

QUESTION: No, no. No, no.

MR TONER: Or are we still --

QUESTION: Ukraine.

MR TONER: I'm sorry, Michel. We'll get to --

QUESTION: I have two questions on Syria.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: The Syrian regime will hold parliamentary elections on April 13th, the same day the talks will resume in Geneva between the regime and the opposition. Any comment?

MR TONER: Well, yeah. We've – I mean, yes. We have – we would view those elections as not legitimate in the sense that they don't represent – or they don't – yeah, they don't represent the will of the Syrian people. There is a – right now talks in Geneva on a way to chart a political transition that we believe is the ultimate solution for the conflict in Syria. So to hold parliamentary elections now given the current circumstances, given the current conditions in the country, we believe is at best premature and not representative of the Syrian people.

QUESTION: The second question is – you said Friday that you've been in constant and direct talks with the Syrian regime on general consular issues and the American detained in Syria. Can you elaborate on that? Who's talking to who and where and more details?

MR TONER: That's why I said we are in – I don't think I said "constant," but I said we're in periodic contact with members of the Syrian regime, and I'm not going to elaborate.

QUESTION: Ukraine.

QUESTION: But you don't have any – any more details? Who's talking to who here in Washington and Damascus?

MR TONER: Nope. No, I'm just not going to elaborate on that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Are we still on Syria? Who's Syria? Raise your hand.

QUESTION: On Syria.

MR TONER: If we haven't left. Please, sir.

QUESTION: One short question. So is United States ready to cooperate with Russia in fighting terrorists in Aleppo? Because it's reported Russia have – has proposed these ideas to United States to coordinate actions against terrorists, not to fight against – accidentally against opposition groups.

MR TONER: Well, I – so we've always said if Russia wants to carry out strikes or in support of our efforts to destroy and degrade Daesh or ISIL, we would welcome that. In terms of Aleppo, I think we need greater clarity on what is actually planned, who are we targeting. Obviously, like I said, we – we, and I'm speaking more broadly about the anti-Daesh or anti-ISIL coalition here, have really been squeezing ISIL and Daesh in many parts of Syria and in Iraq as well, especially in the north and the west of Syria. But in and around Aleppo, as I said, it's a very complex situation, very dynamic, lots of different groups.

So our concern, and that's the concern that Secretary Kerry relayed to Foreign Minister Lavrov, is that we need to clearly delineate who's where and how we go after them. So the idea being that, as I said many times already today, Daesh and Nusrah are fair game, but we need to make sure that we're not inadvertently or intentionally striking some of the opposition groups that are part of the ceasefire.

QUESTION: So can you help with that?

MR TONER: Can we help with?

QUESTION: With the delineating?

MR TONER: That's part of what we're trying to work through, part of these – part of the task force groups that we're trying to get a better sense of who's where.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Syria.

MR TONER: Let's finish and then we're done.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Ukraine?

MR TONER: I won't – I promise I'll get to you.

QUESTION: Okay. Secretary Kerry yesterday said that the Assad regime has a role to play during the transition period, and I was wondering if you can --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, who's – I apologize. What's the first part?

QUESTION: Secretary said --

MR TONER: Secretary Kerry --

QUESTION: -- that Assad regime has a role to play in transition period, and I was wondering if you can elaborate on that. What's the role of the Assad regime right now in this process?

MR TONER: Well, again, as part of any political transition with the expectation that they would ultimately lead to, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution and the Geneva communique, lead to free and fair elections, that – obviously the regime is part of that process and that we want to maintain some kind of infrastructure, some kind of governance so that we don't have a void appear in Syria. So I'm guessing or I'm assuming that that's what he was referring to.

So when he talked about the regime – now, what we've also said is that Assad himself, we firmly believe, cannot be part of any future of Syria.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Are you done with – are you on Syria?

QUESTION: No, Iraq.

MR TONER: Okay. I got it, guys. I'll get to you.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: You first on the side. Yep.

QUESTION: I'll ask --

MR TONER: It doesn't matter which one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. So Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy --

MR TONER: Oh, but you were Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I promise I will get to Ukraine. I just – I want to – how we do things here is we finish Syria, we finish one issue --

QUESTION: I thought that we finished Syria, no?

MR TONER: No, we're not – are we done with Syria? Okay, so let's do Iraq and then I'll get to you guys next, I promise. I'm here for the duration.

QUESTION: Let's go by the map.

QUESTION: So yeah --

MR TONER: It's true, we should.

QUESTION: A couple of questions.

MR TONER: I feel like I'm walking across the globe. (Laughter.) Sorry.

QUESTION: That's no problem.

MR TONER: Please go ahead. I'm sorry, I apologize.

QUESTION: No problem.

QUESTION: You need a pointer.

QUESTION: President Obama's envoy to the war against ISIS with the coalition against ISIS, Brett McGurk, had a meeting with Barzani – President Barzani of Kurdistan. Do you have a readout of that meeting?

MR TONER: I do know that he remains – or he remained in Iraq. He was obviously there for Secretary Kerry's visit. He's meeting with senior government and security officials and that includes from the Government of Iraq as well as the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. He's talking about – so I don't have a specific readout --

QUESTION: How about today's meeting?

MR TONER: -- of his – today's meeting, I'll have to check on that.

I mean, generally speaking, it's – he's discussing ongoing support for Iraq's efforts to defeat Daesh, including, for example, the isolation of Mosul and then other efforts to address Iraq's ongoing economic crisis as well.

QUESTION: The KRG presidency website did publish a readout --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and there's just a quote from the readout. It says, "Both sides" – meaning Brett McGurk and President Barzani – "agreed to continue their negotiations in order to find a way out of the political crisis." And the other day Secretary Kerry said, "We are not a mediator in this political crisis between Erbil and Baghdad." I don't know why – why he said that. And also, what is the role now that Brett McGurk has been playing in these back-and-forth meetings with Erbil and Baghdad officials?

MR TONER: Well, I think broadly speaking, look, I mean, the Secretary's visit there was meant to reinforce a few things. One is this is a critical moment for Iraq, for all of Iraq, as it seeks to overcome ISIL and Daesh on the ground. But it's also a time of political upheaval within the country. He wanted to express U.S. support for Abadi during this difficult period, and then I think also he wanted to emphasize the importance of unity and the need to keep focus of all Iraqis on the fight against ISIL.

I also think that we value our – clearly we value our partnership with Iraq. We do – but we do respect each other's sovereignty. And what the Secretary was trying to signal was that we support Prime Minister Abadi and his government as they address what are significant security challenges and also economic and political challenges, and we'll continue to do so. But ultimately, these are decisions for Iraqis to make.

QUESTION: So you don't call it a mediation because you respect sovereignty of Iraq, right?

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: These are internal political decisions for the Government of Iraq to make. That said, this is a critical period for Iraq. We support the prime minister. We support his efforts to increase the fight against – or the fight against ISIL and also to make tough decisions about the economy and about the political structure.

QUESTION: And what do you call, like, these multiple back-and-forth meetings between Mr. McGurk and Barzani, Mr. McGurk and Abadi? And even we've heard from, like, Mr. McGurk himself saying that certain things that Baghdad is doing against KRG such as cutting of the budget is not acceptable. What do you call these statements and these meetings if not a mediation?

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, as the special presidential envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, part of his job is to work very, very closely with the Iraqi Government. And that includes the Iraqi Kurdistan Region on how to best support their efforts to counter ISIL on the ground. That's not meant to necessarily make or influence the political decisions that they need to make, but it's – but it is – or a critical part of that process is making sure they have the support they need and to provide whatever advice or counsel we can provide in how they carry out this fight to retake their country.

QUESTION: My last question.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: A senior KRG delegation is in Washington, including the deputy prime minister for the region. Are they going to hold any meetings in this building?

MR TONER: I would have to check on that. I just – I'm not aware that there was a group here. I apologize.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Well, (inaudible) their top foreign affairs (inaudible) afternoon and he canceled because he had something else. Was that here?

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Well, maybe he just had better plans – I don't know – a better offer. I don't know. I honestly don't know, David. I'll check on that and get back to you.

QUESTION: Mark, Iraq?

MR TONER: I really promised these guys back here. We'll do Ukraine if you're --

QUESTION: After that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has recently resigned and now we know that one of his possible successors, head of the parliament Mr. Groysman, has refused to head the new cabinet. What are the U.S. expectations from the new government, especially in terms of lasting cooperation in and providing financial support for Kyiv?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, first of all, we thank Prime Minister Yatsenyuk for his tireless efforts to – on behalf of Ukraine really during an historic time, as we all know, for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. We also welcome his intention to remain engaged in the process of pursuing needed economic reforms, needed political reforms to ensure the future stability and prosperity of Ukraine, as well as its territorial integrity.

I would say, more broadly speaking, we believe it's important that the Rada approve as soon as possible a new cabinet that is committed to implementing needed reforms, in particular those recommended by the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, as well as the European Union. And I would just say that we do believe that the Government of Ukraine will carry out needed reforms. We do believe it's implementing and will continue to implement its Minsk agreements, and it's really the joint responsibility of Ukraine's president, its prime minister, and all those in government to put aside their differences and to deliver on the reforms that Ukrainians need.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there – is that resignation of the prime minister of Ukraine has any implication to the status of U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine? Does the United States give Ukraine any assurance of giving a loan guarantee if there is a new government formed?

MR TONER: We'll continue to work with the Government of Ukraine to finalize our loan guarantee agreement, and that – which will specify the conditions for the loan guarantee. But as was the case with previous loan guarantees issued in May 2014 and also May 2015, this agreement will be conditioned on Ukraine's progress in implementing needed reforms or needed – implementing key steps, rather, in the economic reform program. In particular, our conditions will reinforce adherence to new IMF program – to the new IMF program, as well as other steps needed to restore economic stability, counter corruption, strengthen rule of law and government – governance, and also ensure a social safety net that's stronger and advance other critical structural reform.

So again, pivoting back to what I just said earlier, it's really the responsibility now of the entire Ukrainian Government to pull together and to continue on the path of this – of the economic and political reforms they've already undertaken in order to deliver on what the Ukrainian people need.

QUESTION: Mark, the reason I ask is because yesterday the president of Ukraine said on TV – said that he – when – while he was in Washington during the Nuclear Security Summit, he got a word from the White House saying that Ukraine will receive the $1 billion loan guarantee if the new government is formed. Could you verify?

MR TONER: I – so – no, that's okay, Nike.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: It's a legitimate question. I just don't – I'm not privy to whatever conversation he may or may not have had with the President on this. I – again, though, that's – all I'm saying is that – exactly what Poroshenko – President Poroshenko may have been intimating, which is that what we need to see now are – that they continue to deliver on and meet the reforms they need to meet in order for that loan guarantee to continue.

QUESTION: But did the United States give Ukraine any assurance that they would receive --

MR TONER: Again, I just don't have – I don't have a readout on what conversations they may or may not have had. I just don't. Not saying yes or no.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Iran – I have a question on Iran. There's --

MR TONER: On Iran?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I'm sorry. Yeah, please. Are we done with Ukraine?

QUESTION: There's buzz in Tehran that there's a possibility of prisoner exchange between Washington and Tehran. Is that a consideration here by the U.S. Administration? Any --

MR TONER: So, I mean, beyond calling on Iran to allow consular access by our Swiss protecting power and to release as soon as possible those citizens who remain in detention in Iran, I don't have anything else to report.

QUESTION: Any sort of communication between Iran and the U.S. on any other subject besides the JCPOA?

MR TONER: Not that I – I mean, not that I'm aware of, to be honest. I just don't have any reports. I mean, if you're asking specifically about some kind of prisoner swap, I don't have anything to announce or anything to even point to in that regard. As far as other exchanges we may have had, I'm not aware of any recent ones.

QUESTION: You've probably seen the Russians have delivered or at least Iran says that they've delivered some parts of the S-300 missile defense system. Any reactions to that?

MR TONER: We are aware of reports of progress in – towards the delivery by Russia of the S-300 defensive missile system to Iran. You know where we stand on this. We've long objected to the sale to Iran of these kinds of sophisticated defense capabilities.

QUESTION: Libya?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Thank you. President Obama said failing to plan for the day after the intervention in Libya was the worst mistake of his presidency. Last month in The Atlantic interview, he blamed European leaders for the quote/unquote "mess in Libya," saying that they got distracted by other things. They were supposed to follow up and they didn't. So what exactly was the U.S.'s mistake?

MR TONER: Well, I'll obviously let the President's words stand and speak for themselves. I don't – I think we've said often in this room and elsewhere that in the immediate aftermath of NATO's intervention in Libya and the downfall or the death of Muammar Qadhafi there was a void, and in that void, in that absence of governance that the West didn't act expediently enough to bring in the kind of support that was needed to – in order for the Libyan people, the Libyan Government to stand up to build up the structure of governance that is needed in a situation like that, whether it's security, whether it's basic infrastructure – all those elements that make up governance. And so the President, I think, is simply saying that we needed to have done better in that immediate aftermath, because when you don't have that certainly what happens is you get the rise of militias and small groups and that creates conflict and a difficult situation.

QUESTION: What the U.S. specifically should have done that it hasn't done?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – I thought I answered that, but I'll try again. I think in any kind of intervention like that, part of the immediate follow-up after there is a transition that abrupt that we needed to stand up or we needed to support the Libyans as they stood up a new government. And that's something we've worked very diligently at in the time since and have had some success recently with the Government of National Accord. But it's taken us a while to get there. And in that absence of a strong central government, there's been conflict and there's been a lack of support and services for the civilian population, and there's also been that void that's created that is exploited by groups like ISIL.

Please.

QUESTION: Can I change topic?

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes, can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR TONER: Wait, do we – I've – I just want to --

QUESTION: Call on whoever you want.

MR TONER: I promise I'll get back to you, Said. I want to get to Lalit.

QUESTION: Whenever you want. Before we leave.

MR TONER: It's okay. Yeah, right. I'm here all week. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: On India.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Last week the Department of Homeland Security and ICE announced about 1,000 students of which 306 are from India are facing deportation. The visas were issued by the State Department. Did the State Department know that this was a sting operation being carried by Department of Homeland Security? Because these are genuine students who wanted to come to U.S. to study, and when they came here they found out there's nothing for them to study here.

MR TONER: All good questions. So last week there was this law enforcement operation that was conducted by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Homeland Security Investigations – what we call ICE. That was targeting members of criminal organizations who set up basically an operation by which they used a student – an exchange visitor program to fraudulently maintain foreign nationals' non-immigrant status in the United States for profit. Basically, they were – as you said, they were – it was a fraudulent operation. This was not – and so I would refer you to ICE for more clarity on what the operation was about. This was not, obviously – and I can't speak about individual visa cases, but these brokers who carried out these – this operation, they were not students, and the individuals who were – also the Indians and then others, and it was a number of people, and as you said, the Indians were, I think --

QUESTION: 306.

MR TONER: What's that?

QUESTION: 306.

MR TONER: That's right, 306. They – the most part – or for the most part, they all came on legitimate student visas. It was actually when they were in country here that some of them sought to – basically to stay here in the country, and that's when they sought, allegedly – again, because this is still I think a matter for legal action – but allegedly sought to extend their stay in the United States, is my understanding.

QUESTION: But the --

MR TONER: But again, I'd refer you to ICE for more information about this.

QUESTION: But did the – when these visas were issued by the State Department, or the embassies there, did the State Department knew that you were issuing a visa for these students for a university who never – doesn't exist?

MR TONER: No, no, you're – I'm sorry, you're conflating. So these students, these individuals who came here on a student visa did come either to work or to study legitimately. They did qualify – my understanding, they qualified for student visas. They met the qualifications. They were issued student visas. It was only after living here attending university or whatever that they then decided to, again allegedly, seek out the assistance of this criminal organization to extend their stay in the United States. So I think – so just, that's an important clarification. They did come here legitimately, on legitimate visas. It's not about a visa issue. It's about once they were here in the United States, they then sought through a criminal organization to extend their stay.

QUESTION: I think when they came here to study, they found out the university for which they were given the visa, the university doesn't exist at all. This was a fake university which was set up by ICE and HSI people.

MR TONER: I'm sorry, once again, your question? How this --

QUESTION: When these students came to the U.S. after getting all the documents by the State Department including the visa and they landed up in New Jersey, they found that the university for which they came and for which they were issued the proper documents never existed, and this fake university was set up by no one else but by the ICE and HSI people.

MR TONER: That's not my understanding at all. I mean, I – my understanding is that they, again --

QUESTION: It states --

MR TONER: -- and I really would refer you to ICE on this, but --

QUESTION: There's a press statement issued by the ICE people themselves for --

MR TONER: No, but so they did come here, qualified students, to study at American universities. Once they got here – or not once they got here. They were here for a time and they sought to extend their stay here in the United States, and that's when they sought to stay here illegally or they sought to – again, this is all allegedly right now, and I'd really refer you to ICE to talk about --

QUESTION: I don't doubt about those people who were involved in the racket, they're being arrested.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: My question is about the students who came here to study here on – in a university which was this fake university set up by the ICE people and HSI, and when they came here they found out this doesn't exist. Shouldn't – was the State Department aware before being issued the visa that they are being issued a visa for a university who doesn't exist on paper itself?

MR TONER: Again, I'm going to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security to answer all the details. That's not my understanding of the case, so I'm going to ask you to --

QUESTION: I have another question, and they are related.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: A special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan visited India last week. Do you have a readout of the meeting?

MR TONER: Are you talking about Ambassador Olson, Rick Olson?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Yeah. He was in New Delhi last Wednesday and Thursday to meet with the Indian Government as well as civil society leaders, discussed a range of issues, including support for the Government of Afghanistan and security forces as well as the Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process. He also, obviously, then joined the Secretary in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: What role do you see for India in Afghanistan right now?

MR TONER: Well, I think we certainly do appreciate the support that India has given for the people and the government of Afghanistan, including trade ties, security, development assistance, and India's role in promoting a stable and prosperous region. And I think that's ultimately what we would always encourage in terms of India's involvement, is that it's good for the region, it's good for the prosperity of the region, it's good for the economy of the region, and good for the political stability of the region.

QUESTION: And one of the things when Secretary was there, part of the unity government in Afghanistan was to hold a Loya Jirga in two years. That's not happening right now. What do you have to say on that? Because the post of CEO doesn't exist as per the --

MR TONER: You're talking about Loya Jirga in – obviously, in Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I mean, I think the Secretary, obviously, in his meetings with President Ghani as well as Chief Executive Abdullah, they did talk about the need to and – or the goals of having electoral reforms elections as well as a constitutional Loya Jirga in the coming – I mean, those – those goals remain, and the fact that he was there to reinforce the overall goals of the Afghan national unity government sends an important message of our continued support for them.

QUESTION: I have one more on Bangladesh --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- if I can. Last week, another blogger was killed in Bangladesh.

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: After that (inaudible), somebody post that U.S. is issuing visas on humanitarian grounds to those bloggers who are being threatened inside Bangladesh. Can you verify – can you confirm that? And how many people – such people have applied for those kinds of visas?

MR TONER: Well, we did, obviously, condemn this terrible attack on a blogger or student activist. It's been a matter of concern. We've seen these kinds of actions before. You're talking about something I mentioned on Friday, which is that – sorry – that one option, I guess, for some of these individuals who are under what we believe is imminent danger, they can pursue under those circumstances a request from the Department of Homeland Security to consider something we call humanitarian parole. I think I'd have to refer you to the Department of Homeland Security to see if that's under consideration in this case.

QUESTION: Do you know how many people have applied for that?

MR TONER: I don't.

QUESTION: And what's – in the context of these killings – seven so far – what is your impression about security inside Bangladesh? Are you worried or --

MR TONER: Well, it's obviously of great concern. We've offered assistance to the Bangladeshi Government, collaboration on the investigations, FBI assistance. We've seen reports in this most recent case that al-Qaida was behind it. These are horrific attacks. We urge the Bangladeshi authorities to take them very seriously and to fully investigate these attacks and to support the families of the victims.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Japan?

MR TONER: Let me get to you guys in the – you want to go, Catherine?

QUESTION: First – yeah. In light of the President's comments about the email investigation over the weekend, can you just bring us up to date on to how many emails were exchanged between then-Secretary of State Clinton and the President and why they're being withheld?

MR TONER: Sure. And we – I think we discussed this in our – part of our January 29th release. We denied, I think in full, 19 total emails comprising 8 distinct email chains that existed between former Secretary Clinton and President Obama. So that was in – originally, I think on – we said we denied in full 18 emails, but there was one additional email that was withheld in full. And as you probably know, the reason why we withhold these things are that these are presidential records, and as such, they remain confidential to protect the President's ability to receive frank and unvarnished advice and counsel from his team. And so they will be eventually released in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.

QUESTION: And just to be clear, this was on the clintonemail.com address, correct?

MR TONER: That's my understanding, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Was this address provided to the White House for communications between the Secretary of State and the President?

MR TONER: I don't have any clarity on that.

QUESTION: Okay. The White House spokesman has just told my colleague that the President was aware of the address but not aware of the server that was being used to support the email system. Was that also the case here at the State Department?

MR TONER: I'm sorry. Does – what was --

QUESTION: Knew about --

MR TONER: No, I understand what you're asking --

QUESTION: Yeah --

MR TONER: I understand the first part of your question. You're interested in the case within the State Department that we didn't --

QUESTION: Yeah. I'm just wondering if that was the same understanding. The President knew about the address, but did not know about the underlying system. Was that also the case here at the State Department?

MR TONER: Again, I hesitate to speak on behalf of everyone who was using this email address. I think what I'll just say in that regard is Secretary Kerry has been very forthright in saying that in addition to releasing all of the 55,000 pages, which we've done, of these email records, that we will conduct necessary reviews and investigations into what happened. And those investigations and reviews are ongoing, so I don't want to speak prematurely and prejudge those – the outcome of those.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you, thanks.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Wait. All of them are?

MR TONER: I apologize --

QUESTION: You made a pretty big deal out of halting one of them not so long ago.

MR TONER: We did.

QUESTION: So are they all halted or are they --

MR TONER: No, we didn't – so there's a – there's a number of these. And I mean, there's obviously the – which we've talked about but can't speak to because it's a separate entity, which is the IG, the inspector general, which is carrying out its own review. And then --

QUESTION: As far as we know, those are going on.

MR TONER: Those are going on, as well as the FBI's.

QUESTION: It's the – is the DSI (inaudible) --

MR TONER: And the FBI had asked us if we could suspend our own internal investigation from Diplomatic Security.

QUESTION: I thought that they asked you to do what you usually do --

MR TONER: Do what you usually do.

QUESTION: -- to follow your standard procedure, and that you guys decided it was your standard procedure to – right? Is that how --

MR TONER: I mean, that is our standard procedure, to --

QUESTION: Okay. So the only thing that's going on at the State Department – well, actually, is there another State Department non-IG review going on?

MR TONER: Not to my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay. So the only investigation or review that the State Department was conducting into the emails – on its own, not the IG – has been suspended, is on hold, pending the FBI. Is that correct?

MR TONER: So yes and no. I mean, we do have – and the Secretary has spoken to this as well – as part of this overall issue, we've been looking at how we also formalize, institutionalize, and improve our maintenance of email records. And that's another process, a part of this.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. That's not necessarily related to --

MR TONER: It's a different thing. I'm just saying – I understand what you're saying.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: But yeah, there's the other two – yeah, that's correct.

QUESTION: So there isn't any?

MR TONER: My understanding, that's correct.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

MR TONER: Said.

QUESTION: I have --

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up to your previous question about --

MR TONER: On Libya?

QUESTION: -- Libya, yes.

MR TONER: On Libya, okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Why has the U.S. made that mistake, admitted by the President, on Libya? Why?

MR TONER: Why has – that's a big question. Look, I think there's always – I mean, we were obviously quick to establish a presence in Libya in the aftermath of the conflict there. We did have the tragic events at Benghazi. The security situation was very difficult at the time, as you well know. But I also think that there's always the challenge of being able to provide the necessary support in any kind of these – in post-conflict environments – working with the right people, the right groups to re-establish, as I said, governance and infrastructure. This is something that nobody has frankly perfected yet. We've seen this elsewhere in post-conflict situations. Libya is unfortunately not exclusive in that regard. I mean, I don't want to necessarily go through a detailed analysis of who did what or what we didn't do, but I think just in the aftermath there's a recognition that we – and by we, I mean the United States, but also our partners and allies could have done more and in a better way to really ensure that there was that kind of structure and support given to the Libyan people.

QUESTION: Was there some kind of an arrangement with the Europeans that they would take care of Libya immediately after the intervention?

MR TONER: Again, you mean some kind of, like, deal or something?

QUESTION: Yeah, with Cameron (inaudible).

MR TONER: No, I don't necessarily think so. I mean, I think – and I think we've all been part of this process, and certainly we've looked very closely with the Italians and others most recently in trying to – as I said, to – trying to get in place the Government of National Accord. But I don't know there was any deal per se. I think there was just a recognition that we all needed to do as much as possible.

QUESTION: I'm just – I'm trying to --

MR TONER: Yeah, it's okay.

QUESTION: -- figure out what the President meant when he said it was the biggest mistake of his Administration. Was the biggest mistake leaving it to the Libyans and not interfering in the aftermath? Was that the mistake?

MR TONER: I mean, I guess I'd refer you to – I mean, the President spoke about this when he was at the UN General Assembly. And he said, "Even as we help the Libyan people bring an end to the reign of a tyrant, our coalition could have and should have done more to fill the vacuum left behind." We recognize that we must work more effectively in the future to – as an international community; not just the United States – but to build capacity for states that are in distress before they collapse.

QUESTION: Mark, on – very quickly can I go to the Palestinian issue?

MR TONER: Yeah, Said. Yeah. Yeah. Please, sir.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up on a point that I think you responded to on Friday regarding the United States position on a possible UN resolution on the settlements.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Now the Palestinians insist that you guys remain undecided on this issue – in other words, you will not automatically veto whatever anti-settlement resolution that may be proposed before the UN Security Council. Can you clarify your position?

MR TONER: So just – and we did this a little bit on Friday. I'm just --

QUESTION: I'm just --

MR TONER: That's okay. That's okay. I'm just saying I don't have a lot more to say --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) by saying (inaudible). This is to follow up on what --

MR TONER: That's okay. Yeah. No, of course, of course. I just don't have a lot more. Right now it's all hypothetical. We've seen very early drafts of this. I can only give you what our position is on settlements, which is that we believe they're illegitimate, we believe they're counterproductive to the cause of peace. But I'm not going to judge what is not a fully fermented or fully developed Security Council resolution yet. Let's give this time to --

QUESTION: If you are so opposed to the settlements and the world is opposed to the settlements and so on, why would it be – why would the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council not be the proper forum to actually – where you can come together and issue a very strong statement against the settlement? Why is that – why would that stand opposite to your position?

MR TONER: You're saying why isn't the UN Security Council --

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, why wouldn't you come out and say we will support an anti-settlement resolution at the United Nations Security Council?

MR TONER: Well, again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. Our positions or with regard to action at the UN hasn't changed. I'm not going to speculate on possible actions. We might take it to a UN Security Council resolution – or UN Security Council, rather. Our preference is that any kind of an agreement on final status negotiations, that those take place by the parties themselves.

QUESTION: Now I have a question also on Gaza --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- because the Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator Robert Piper issued a very bleak picture of what's going on in Gaza. He said that 16,000 families have been uprooted or dislocated as a result of the 2014 war. They have not been replaced. There has been calls for settlement of at least 6,000 and he's talking about people not meeting their commitment in October 2014 in Cairo. Everybody committed to resettling the – or at least reconstruction of some of these homes and so on. What is your position on this? Are you pushing the donors to fulfill their obligations? Are you pushing to lift, finally lift, the siege that has gone on since 2008 against Gaza in the face of looming humanitarian disaster?

MR TONER: Well, we're very much aware of, as you point out, the humanitarian challenges with respect to Gaza. I haven't seen this particular report. We'll have to look at it and give you our assessment of it. But we do remain concerned. As we've said also before, that's not – that the security situation is not necessarily or not the result of Israeli actions but rather Hamas's ongoing presence and efforts to create instability. But all of that I think aside, we do recognize that there is – that there are significant humanitarian challenges with respect to Gaza and that we all need to do a better job at addressing them.

QUESTION: Mark, on Japan, please?

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Yes. So after visiting the Hiroshima Peace Memorial --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- Secretary Kerry said that he would encourage President Obama to visit when he goes to Japan. Have representatives from the State Department began discussing, laying the groundwork for a possible visit with their counterparts?

MR TONER: I think they – we just left. I mean, look, I'll let the Secretary's remarks stand. Clearly it was a very moving experience for him. He spoke very eloquently about it afterwards. It's not for me to speak to what the President may or may not do with respect to his travel.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Can you elaborate a little bit on what message Secretary Kerry will bring back to President Obama?

MR TONER: Not necessarily. Again – and I'm not avoiding it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) visit?

MR TONER: I'm just saying I feel like he spoke to it in his press avail that he had immediately after visiting the memorial park. He talked specifically about his own impressions and about the fact that it underscored how we need to make every effort to diminish or reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world and pursue peace and diplomatic solutions to problems. And --

QUESTION: And then one more on Japan?

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: In Okinawa it's now been 20 years to date since the agreement to relocate Futenma to Henoko. Now the relocation is on hold by the Japanese Government. Is the U.S. still committed to the relocation?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: And what steps are you taking to move along the process?

MR TONER: I don't have any specific steps to outline other than that we remain very much engaged with the Japanese Government. We remain committed to this process moving forward.

Please.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Japan, the G7 countries also issued the statement on maritime security and you expressed a concern on South China Sea and East China Sea, but China is not mentioned at all. Why is that? Were you trying not to embarrass China given the fact that Chinese foreign minister just mentioned that South China Sea or any territorial dispute shouldn't be on the agenda of G7?

MR TONER: I don't think there was any intention to embarrass the Chinese foreign minister by any means. Look, I think they were simply trying to convey the concern of all members of the G7 about the need to de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea and to, as we've said many times, avoid actions that restrict freedom of navigation in what is a critical waterway.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: But whom do you address to since the statement didn't mention China at all?

MR TONER: I don't know what the intention was there.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Russia. So --

MR TONER: And then I'm going to take the last question, Michel, after this.

QUESTION: Plutonium case. So today's – today Russian foreign ministry's official Mikhail Ulyanov* said that Moscow did not allow to change the method of disposal of plutonium. So that's the case and that's the main point in that agreement between Russia and United States. So could you clarify United States position in terms of method of disposal? I mean --

MR TONER: What I can say is that since 2013 we've been in communication with Russia about the U.S. review of disposition methods and its results that's consistent with the U.S.-Russia Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. And this agreement essentially provides a path for the parties to consult and agree on disposition methods that do not involve irradiation in nuclear reactors. So I wouldn't speculate – I wouldn't speculate on what he meant in his remarks. I'm just saying what we're trying to adhere to in this process.

QUESTION: So are you ready to have a new round of consultations with Russia with respect to this case?

MR TONER: I mean, I think we're in communication with Russia on this. I don't think we're necessarily – I don't think accommodating any kind of new method would necessarily require a renegotiation of the agreement, certainly, but I'm not going to speculate beyond that.

Please, Michel, last question.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia and Egypt have announced a bridge is to be built across the Red Sea between the two countries. Do you support this project?

MR TONER: I apologize, I just missed it. Bridge --

QUESTION: Yeah. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have announced before yesterday or yesterday --

MR TONER: Libya and Egypt?

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia.

MR TONER: I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

MR TONER: Oh, announced the plans to build a bridge.

QUESTION: Exactly, across the Red Sea. Do you support this project?

MR TONER: I don't have any comment. I haven't seen those reports, Michel.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: I have three extremely brief ones. One, Iran is saying that a group of Boeing executives have or are wrapping up a visit to Tehran now during which they offered three types of aircraft for sale. Given the fact that there is so much – the remaining sanctions are so complicated and there is so much confusion over them, were you guys aware of this trip?

MR TONER: So, yes – first part of your question. But in general, the U.S., as part of the JCPOA, is committed to license three limited categories of activity that would otherwise be prohibited --

QUESTION: I know.

MR TONER: Yeah, okay. I didn't know, didn't know.

QUESTION: I mean, I know that there is --

MR TONER: But one of those – so one of those things includes the licensing of sale to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft.

QUESTION: Yeah. But you were aware of the visit of these executives? Did they come to you and say, hey, we're going to go?

MR TONER: I believe we were aware of that. We have seen a number of major companies make plans to take advantage of new commercial opportunities afforded by the JCPOA, and we're not going to stand in the way of these companies conducting what we view of permissible business under the JCPOA.

QUESTION: You're talking about American companies specifically?

MR TONER: That's correct. Yes, I believe so.

QUESTION: And I'll let – can you go ahead and just finish reading the first bit? The three permissible --

MR TONER: Oh, yeah. Sure, of course. So three limited categories of activity, including the case-by-case licensing – this is under the Iranian transactions and sanctions regulations – and that includes the case-by-case licensing of the sale to Iran of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services exclusively for commercial passenger aviation. There's two others; I don't have them in front of me.

QUESTION: All right. Secondly, you were asked last week about a case in the UAE or there was supposed to be a hearing today on these two Libyan Americans.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Did you have anyone there, or what happened?

MR TONER: Yeah. Let me see, Matt. I may have to get back to you on that. I apologize.

QUESTION: And then the last one – I really don't expect you to have an answer in your book, but if you could take the question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: There's two prominent Palestinian human rights lawyers – one from Gaza, one from the West Bank – who are going to be in D.C. next week, and I'm just wondering if they have plans.

MR TONER: Let me get to your – let me do the other thing first, and then I actually do have – and that's with regard to what I said on this matter last week, that regard – that needs a little bit of clarification regarding the charges that we said they were being held under. So we previously stated that the charges alleged their association with a terrorist group rather than an armed group. So we understand that at a hearing held on March 21st, the prosecutor amended the charges from providing material support to two terrorist groups, to two charges of supporting armed groups without permission from the UAE Government. So we misspoke – I misspoke on that. And this change placed the case under the 2008 penal law instead of the 2014 antiterrorism law.

And then there was a hearing today on April 11th, just to speak to your immediate question. The al-Darat lawyers did present their defense. They requested a mistrial. They claimed the case is baseless as the charges have been amended midtrial and the prosecutors' evidence does not match the current charges. So the next hearing now is scheduled for May 30th, and the judge is expected to read the final verdict.

QUESTION: May 30th?

MR TONER: May 30th. That's all I got for you.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR TONER: Thank you, guys.

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

DPB # 60