Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
AFGHANISTAN
ECUADOR
SOUTH SUDAN
LIBYA
CHILE
IRAN
AFGHANISTAN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
SYRIA
RUSSIA/UKRAINE
CHINA
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
SAUDI ARABIA
JAPAN
STATE DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
2:12 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: I actually have quite a bit here at the top, so bear with me if you can.
On Afghanistan, I think you've seen the statement that I just recently put out, but I want to reiterate that the United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack that took place today in Kabul. We've seen now reports of yet another attack. We're still getting information about that. But the first one we know killed dozens of Afghans and wounded many more. We certainly send our condolences to the loved ones of all those who were killed and injured.
Attacks like these today only deepen and underscore our support for the people and the Government of Afghanistan and its efforts to bring security and stability to their country. We will continue to monitor the situation as closely as we can, knowing now that there are reports of another attack.
We don't have any indications that any U.S. citizens were harmed in the attacks in Kabul today. But again, we're watching this very, very, very closely.
I do want to give you a readout of a phone call today that the Secretary made to the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Foreign Minister Long. He placed a call this morning to the foreign minister to express again our condolences for the tragic loss of life in the earthquake. He reiterated the commitment of the people of the United States to supporting Ecuadorian citizens in this very, very difficult time. He noted to the foreign minister that a USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance team has arrived in Ecuador to coordinate the U.S. response and support – and to support – I'm sorry – the distribution of emergency relief supplies to earthquake-affected populations. All this support was at the request, of course, of the Ecuadorian Government. And finally, he made clear that we stand by and ready to assist in any way possible going forward, again, in keeping with their needs and their requests.
On South Sudan, the United States is deeply disappointed by Riek Machar's failure to return to South Sudan's capital of Juba today to form the Transitional Government of National Unity. This represents a willful decision by him not to abide by his own commitments to implement the agreement on the resolution of the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan.
The United States and other partners have gone to great lengths to facilitate his return, including the return to Juba of his political advance team and his security detail. His failure to go to Juba despite efforts from the international community places the people of South Sudan at risk of further conflict and suffering, and undermines the peace agreement's reform pillars, which are demilitarizing South Sudan, injecting transparency of public finances, and pursuing justice and reconciliation, all of which offer South Sudan a chance for renewal.
We call upon the government to exercise maximum flexibility for the sake of peace and on Machar to return to Juba, as he has promised to do. We will coordinate with our partners on appropriate responses to this obstruction of the peace process – the peace agreement by Dr. Machar.
On Libya, today the President issued a new executive order authorizing the United States to impose sanctions on individuals and entities who threaten the peace, security, and stability of Libya. This executive order allows the United States to take action against those who seek to obstruct, undermine, delay, or impede the political transition to the Libyan Government of National Accord, as well as those who threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya through the supply of arms or related material. The President took this action in support of Libya's Government of National Accord, and the United States stands with, as we've said before, Prime Minister al- Sarraj's government as it begins their important work in Tripoli and continues to implement the Libyan political agreement to build a better future for the Libyan people.
Following today's authorization, the Department of Treasury designated Khalifa Ghawil for being responsible for and complicit in certain activities outlined in this executive order. We're going to continue to consider other actions, as appropriate, under this executive order.
We encourage all Libyans to continue facilitating a peaceful handover of power so that Libya's new leaders can begin the hard work of restoring stability to their country.
And finally, on behalf of the State Department I wish to extend my deepest condolences to the people of Chile on the passing of former President Patricio Aylwin. Former President Aylwin will be remembered as a leader who did commit to the greater good for the people of Chile. He was a lifelong champion of justice who presided over Chile's peaceful transition from a military dictatorship to a vibrant democracy. And our thoughts and prayers are with his family and with the people of Chile today.
Matt.
QUESTION: Right. I'll get back to Libya in a little bit, but I want to start with Iran and the Secretary's meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif in New York, which I realize is probably not over yet, but --
MR KIRBY: It is not.
QUESTION: Understanding, however, that the readout of the meeting was probably already been written, maybe you can offer us a Tuesday preview of the meeting that has begun, or a review.
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) The meeting is underway, so I'm not going to get ahead of the readout that's coming, that hasn't yet --
QUESTION: There will be one, though, yes?
MR KIRBY: There will be one. It'll be a written readout. You'll see it come from Mark, because he's up there. So I don't want to get ahead of that, but you're right, the meeting's underway right now. I think I would just reiterate what I said yesterday, that high on the agenda is going to be issues related to the implementation of JCPOA, in particular sanctions relief.
QUESTION: All right. On sanctions relief, the Secretary gave an address last night to J Street in which he talked about the sanctions, the whole deal, the sanctions relief, and the – what Iran has done to comply with it.
And I'm confused about something that he said. He was talking to a group that was supportive of the Iran deal and therefore, I mean, kind of preaching to the choir a little bit about the merits of it. But he said – and he took issue with groups and people who have criticized the agreement – the nuclear deal by telling J Street about the arguments – mistaken arguments against, one of which he said was that Iran would get $155 billion in sanctions relief. And I just want to quote him here so it's clear.
The Secretary said: "We never thought it would be that. Others thought it would be about a 100 billion. We calculated it to be about 55 billion when you really take a hard look at the economy and what is happening. Guess what, folks; you know how much they have received to date as I stand here tonight? About 3 billion. So what we said to people was true."
So my first question is: How does Iran getting 3 billion mean that "what we said to people was true"?
MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary's --
QUESTION: What does he mean?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary's referring to the fact that the exaggerated claims of the amount of assets they would have available to them was nowhere near accurate. And we – we've been maintaining that for many months now, that it wasn't going to be 100 or 150; that it was more like 50 to 55. So it was much smaller than many of the critics said it was going to be. And he was using our current estimate that what, so far, after only 4 months, they've been able to get access to is about 3 billion, so that's – it's – his point was that's indicative of the fact that this isn't some windfall of cash that was going to happen on day one to the exorbitant sum of $100- to $150 billion.
QUESTION: But you yourself admit that they're going to get more. Are you – I mean, your whole argument --
MR KIRBY: We still --
QUESTION: -- is they are – is they're going to get more. I mean, right now you're – all you're saying is that if you use the --
MR KIRBY: We're saying right now --
QUESTION: If we accept the 55 billion – your figure – the 55 billion is correct --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- they're still owed 52 billion, or they stand to get 52 billion.
MR KIRBY: We still believe that our estimate is accurate --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- of about 55 – somewhere between 50 and 55 billion is about what they'll have available to them through this sanctions relief – through the sanctions relief. Right now, our best estimate is that they've --
QUESTION: Yeah, right. And --
MR KIRBY: -- they've received about 3 billion of that, but that yes, we still maintain the estimate.
QUESTION: And it's not possible – it's not possible that it could be more than 55 billion. It certainly isn't going to be limited to 3 billion. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: All right. Well, isn't this an argument – and he's making the Iranians' argument here, right? One of the things that Zarif and other Iranian officials have been complaining about is --
MR KIRBY: Is it hasn't gone fast enough.
QUESTION: Yeah, that they haven't gotten the --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, he's not --
QUESTION: So aren't – aren't they right, then?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we still believe 50 to 55.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: And it's only been four months. So, I mean, nobody said – even at the outset we said it wasn't going to be this quote/unquote "windfall" of cash.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: So no, he's not making the Iranians' argument; he's not making anybody's argument. He's simply stating a mathematical fact.
QUESTION: But he's making the Administration's argument, which seems to be --
MR KIRBY: Well, certainly, we're – certainly he was --
QUESTION: -- and to a crowd that supported the deal that --
MR KIRBY: Certainly, he was defending the deal, as he has done staunchly --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- since implementation.
QUESTION: So I haven't – I should have, but I haven't done the math here. So if they get 3 billion every four months, how long are they going to have to wait to get to 55 billion?
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't know that that algebra works, math – I mean, Matt – I mean, that it's going to be every four --
QUESTION: That was a nice slip though.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, it was. (Laughter.) I was a history major. That --
QUESTION: "I don't know that that algebra works, math?"
MR KIRBY: I don't know that that algebra works, Matt.
QUESTION: Gotcha.
MR KIRBY: That you can't just assume that every four months they're going to get 3 billion.
QUESTION: Yeah, but so – isn't he, though, saying that the Iranians are correct when they complain that they have not gotten the sanctions relief yet that has been promised to them?
MR KIRBY: He wasn't making that overt case that he was – he wasn't arguing the Iranian – the Iranian perspective in case.
QUESTION: But it essentially is the – that case.
MR KIRBY: But --
QUESTION: I mean, he was trying to make it the other way around saying that critics of the deal --
MR KIRBY: He was saying that the – or he was reiterating the fact that there's not this big windfall of cash. He wasn't trying to make the Iranians' case. That it comports with Iranian concerns that they've expressed, I don't think I can dispute that. But it wasn't --
QUESTION: Sounds like he was bragging, though. It sounds like he was bragging a little bit that they haven't gotten any money.
MR KIRBY: He wasn't bragging.
QUESTION: Well, I don't --
QUESTION: Well, I mean, he was – it sounded like he was like --
QUESTION: "What we said to people -- "
MR KIRBY: Might have sounded like that to you, but that wasn't the – that wasn't the --
QUESTION: No, but it sounded like he was saying that – that he was trying to, like, placate their concerns that they're not getting – that they're not getting the money at the same time he's trying to tell the Iranians they're going to get their money.
MR KIRBY: I listened to the speech, and I think – and Matt quoted it absolutely correctly. He was making a point about the arguments that we faced at the outset that there was going to be this windfall, that the $150 billion was just going to fall into the laps of the regime in Tehran and they were going to use it to fund terror. And his argument last night was that that hasn't occurred.
QUESTION: Yeah. But Kirby, why hasn't it --
MR KIRBY: And we said at the time that it wasn't going to occur that way.
QUESTION: Kirby, why hasn't it occurred? Is it because of the financial restrictions that the Iranians are arguing about?
MR KIRBY: I can't – honestly, I don't know how the pace of sanctions relief is being implemented and executed. And I think, frankly, it's the issue of sanctions relief that we know are – that that's on the minds of Iranian leaders. We fully expect that Foreign Minister Zarif will bring that up today. And again, we'll see where it goes at the end of the afternoon.
QUESTION: Could I just follow up very quickly? I mean, just to understand it clearly, whether it's five or 52 or 100, we're talking about Iran's money, right? I mean, that is Iranian money; that is not American money.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: Not taxpayer's money, not something that – not aid or anything like this. This is Iranian money --
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: -- that had been frozen.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: So in theory, why shouldn't they get it right away?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not an expert on the financial system and how the money gets freed up. I just don't have that level of detail for you. All I can tell you is that – look – and it shouldn't be a surprise that over four months – I mean, it's – these sanctions have been in place for a very long time, and there are lots of questions out there, not just in the domestic banking and business communities but internationally, about how to handle this – lots of questions. And perhaps maybe some of those questions are – and the fact that they're still unanswered by – or for some institutions, maybe that's one of the reasons why. I don't know. All I can tell you is after four months that's our best estimate. And you – and nobody expected and nobody should have expected that it was going to be sort of a day one it was just all going to happen.
Now they are – they – you're right. This is their – these are their funds. And under the deal, as long as they continue implementing their obligations – and they have – they're entitled to get that money back. Now, how it happens and the pace, I just – I'm not a financial expert on that. I couldn't tell you the levers and the mechanisms that go into that. We're committed and we have met all of our obligations. Thus far, Iran has met all of their obligations. And again, this is one of the issues – this is one of the reasons why the Secretary and Foreign Minister Zarif are meeting today, to talk about this process, very much a process kind of discussion.
QUESTION: How can you say you've met all your obligations if they're still missing $52 billion?
MR KIRBY: They're not missing the money. It just hasn't been --
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: -- all released to them. It's not that – it's not missing.
QUESTION: All right. Well, they haven't --
MR KIRBY: And it's not all --
QUESTION: It – I just --
MR KIRBY: -- it's not all like in the United States, like in a piggybank here in the State Department --
QUESTION: I understand. It just seems to me that --
MR KIRBY: -- that we're just going to break open and give to them.
QUESTION: In making this comment, it just seems to me that the Secretary is saying --
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: -- that the Iranians have a point here. So has the Administration decided what it's going to do to either ease or clarify this – or to clear up this confusion that exists out there in the international financial system so that Iran can get the money that you say it's due, which is roughly 55 billion, of which they're still missing 52?
MR KIRBY: So a couple of points there. One, he wasn't making the case for the Iranians. And if you read the quote, he was simply --
QUESTION: I did.
MR KIRBY: We can argue that all day, Matt, but that wasn't the purpose.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And number two, we continue to work with and consult with banking and business institutions here at home and overseas to explain to them how this sanctions relief process is supposed to work. We actually have officials that are on the road, actually making --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- trying to inform and educate people around the world on how this is supposed to work. And frankly, we talked about this yesterday. It was one of the reasons why Steve Mull sent those letters to governors and to local authorities --
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: Why didn't you do that --
MR KIRBY: -- to do the same thing.
QUESTION: -- before implementation day? While they were doing their kind of due diligence and making good on their commitments, why weren't you putting this all in place and sending letters to the governor and sending people out so that the money could be released on implementation day?
MR KIRBY: There was a – there were education efforts underway as we were getting there. But I think we also needed to wait to get to implementation day to make sure everything was set. And look, this is a process. And we're going to continue to work at that. I can't --
QUESTION: But what if the Iranians said to you, "Well, our making good on our nuclear commitments is a process." No, you needed – they needed --
MR KIRBY: It is a process. They have said that.
QUESTION: I know, but they – there were certain things that they had to do on the outset.
MR KIRBY: They had to – there were – it took them a while. I mean, they had to work at getting – it was – to getting to implementation day was not --
QUESTION: I understand, but it took – yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- wasn't the day that the deal was inked. You know that. It took us a while to get to implementation day. We had to take some steps on our part. We did that. We're going to continue to meet our commitments under JCPOA, and we expect them to continue to meet theirs.
QUESTION: Can we --
MR KIRBY: But look, it is a process on both counts, and we're working at this.
QUESTION: Can we move on to --
QUESTION: I just have one more on this. So you said – in response to one of Elise's questions, you said that there was this myth out there that the Iranians were going to get $155 billion and dump it all into terrorism and fomenting instability in the region. Back when we were in Davos, the Secretary said that – I believe it was on CNBC – that there was no doubt that some of the money that Iran got in sanctions relief would be used to go to terrorism.
MR KIRBY: Right. He did say that.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: You're right. We've said that.
QUESTION: So what's your estimate of how much of the 3 billion they've gotten so far has gone into funding terrorism or destabilize – activities that destabilize the region?
MR KIRBY: We don't know. We don't know.
QUESTION: You think some of it --
MR KIRBY: We don't have a way – we don't have a way – again, the 3 billion is an estimate, at best. We don't have perfect knowledge --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- of what has actually been freed up for them, and we don't have perfect knowledge of how every dollar of that is going to be spent.
QUESTION: Would you say --
MR KIRBY: And we – and – stand by what the Secretary said, that it's entirely possible that they can use some of this funding --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- to support terrorist networks.
QUESTION: Well, can – but you – can you say that you think or the Administration believes that some of the 3 billion --
MR KIRBY: No, I cannot.
QUESTION: -- has been used for this?
MR KIRBY: I cannot say that.
QUESTION: Okay. And --
MR KIRBY: We don't know.
QUESTION: So – but you don't know? So they could have used it all, right?
MR KIRBY: Matt, "we don't know" means we don't know.
QUESTION: So – but you don't think it's zero? You don't think it's --
MR KIRBY: I would not even hazard an estimate.
QUESTION: All right. But do you assume that some of it has gone into these --
MR KIRBY: We're not making any assumptions specifically with every dollar that is going to be freed up. What we do know – and we've talked about this before – is they do have significant investment needs, infrastructure and economic investment needs in Iran, that we believe will tie up most of the monies that they will get back. But we can't say with certainty that it will – that they'll behave that way, that they'll spend the money that way. We just don't know. We don't have a way of tracking every dollar.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Again, back to Said's point, it's their money.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: How do you see reconciliation talks with the Taliban now, especially considering – reconciliation talks --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, yeah.
QUESTION: -- with the Taliban now, especially considering a little over a week ago they admitted to trying to kill Secretary Kerry when they launched rockets in Kabul?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think – I'll just be brief here, but I'll – I can also point you to the press conference that the Secretary and President Ghani had when we were there in Kabul. They're both – they were both committed – certainly the United States is committed – to seeing a Afghan-led reconciliation process succeed. And to date, it's been very difficult to get it going. And there's a certain onus, obviously, on the Taliban to come – to be willing to participate in that process and to do so in a constructive way, and we haven't seen that happen yet.
QUESTION: But you still want them to participate, of course.
MR KIRBY: And – I'm sorry?
QUESTION: You still want them to participate --
MR KIRBY: Of course we do, yeah. And the attacks – such as we saw today, the one you mentioned the evening that we were in Kabul – certainly are worrisome, and as I said at the outset, underscore our commitment to continuing two things: one, the – our support for the military mission there, the NATO mission in Afghanistan – and he got a briefing by General Nicholson while we were there – and our support to President Ghani and his political efforts, as well as his efforts to restart the reconciliation process.
QUESTION: Does --
MR KIRBY: Nobody said it was going to be easy. And we're mindful of the threat that the Taliban continues to pose to the people of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: But I mean, this is just the beginning of the fighting season. And don't you think you kind of have an answer in terms of their willingness to join a peaceful reconciliation process? This is not some small attack. This is one of the largest attacks in some time. It's at the beginning of the fighting season, and it pretty much sends a signal that they're going to keep going through the fighting season, and they're – the President has already announced that he's planning on withdrawing many of – a good half of the troops by the end of the year. So at what point do you take no for an answer?
MR KIRBY: I don't think that we're at, as you put it, "no for an answer." And --
QUESTION: You don't think that the attack today reflects an unwillingness to join reconciliation process?
MR KIRBY: It certainly doesn't do anything to advance the reconciliation process, Elise, but it doesn't mean that the effort to try to get it restarted is dead or that President Ghani should just give up and quit trying. The – and you know as well as anybody in this room the Taliban is not a monolithic organization, and not everything is so well coordinated from some sort of central command structure.
QUESTION: A pretty massive attack, though.
MR KIRBY: That said – that said, nobody's diminishing what happened today or what happened a week or so ago and the continued violence the Taliban is capable of, and we're obviously mindful that thus far, whether it's in word or deed, they've proven reluctant at best to advance a reconciliation process. And that – but that doesn't mean we're going to give up on it.
QUESTION: What about in terms of the President's decision to withdraw --
MR KIRBY: Let me say just one more thing on that, because we've talked about this before. To the degree that they continue to use terror as a tactic, they will remain legitimate targets of the Afghan National Security Forces and further justify and validate our counterterrorism mission there in Afghanistan. So it's not like they're being given a free pass here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: In terms of the size of the attack and the inability of the Afghan intelligence forces or ANSF to prevent it, what does that tell you about their kind of readiness to have this drawdown, especially since it's the beginning of the fighting season, not the end? I mean, the President's going to – if the President is going to make good on his pledge to withdraw the troops, he's going to have start doing it not – in several months.
MR KIRBY: So you mean our readiness. I didn't --
QUESTION: Yeah – no, the Afghan readiness.
MR KIRBY: To have – yeah.
QUESTION: For us to leave, for the U.S. to leave.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, you heard President Ghani last week say that he fully respects President Obama's prerogative here in terms of determining force levels, and I don't want to stray into DOD equities. But since it did come up in the press conference in Kabul, I mean, I'll just restate what the Secretary said, which is that this is a decision that rests with the Commander-in-Chief and in consultation with his military commanders. He has made it very clear that he is going to be willing to listen to his military commanders and weigh their advice and recommendations – recommendations which, as far as I know, have not yet been made.
You're right when you said the President decided to go down to about 5,500 at the end of the year. He's also supportive of General Nicholson's desire and effort as the new commander to review the operational landscape and to provide recommendations going forward. As far as I know, that work is still ongoing, and when the general puts it forward, I'm sure that the President will consider it seriously. But I don't know – couldn't even begin to predict what that might be.
QUESTION: Can I change topics?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: On Afghanistan, one more?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Earlier today Russia's presidential envoy for Afghanistan said Russia would no longer consider the Taliban as terrorists and would recognize them as a political force if the Taliban accepted the constitution, ceased hostilities, and cut ties with extremists. And in addition, Russia would – they would want the decision to be approved by Afghan Government and UN Security Council. Do you think this is helpful to the reconciliation process?
MR KIRBY: It's pretty darn near identical to the approach that we've taken with respect to the Taliban, so I certainly wouldn't say it's unhelpful. I mean, we've long said that we're not going to – just by being a member of the Taliban doesn't mean you are in fact a terrorist and therefore are in fact going to be a target of military activity by the Afghan National Security Forces. If you're engaged in acts of terror, if you pose a threat, then obviously you become a legitimate target. So the way you've couched it there, if that's indeed how they have, that's very similar to the approach that we've taken now for about two years.
QUESTION: And would you welcome that, that Russia's – that you and Russia are being more aligned – are in alignment on this? Would you welcome this?
MR KIRBY: Let me just – rather than welcoming it, I'll just tell you that that is a very similar approach that we have taken now for two years, and it certainly is not – if that is in fact their approach, it's not unhelpful to trying to move a political process forward in Afghanistan. But what really matters here is President Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah and their efforts to try to get at a reconciliation process and their commitment to that, and which they both stated unequivocally when we were in Kabul just a week or so ago. That's what really matters, those – that's the opinion, that's the view, that's the perspective that matters the most.
QUESTION: And they said they would want to get approval from the Afghan Government and the UN Security Council. Do you think that's an appropriate or necessary process?
MR KIRBY: Again, I – I'll let them speak for their views. We've not talked about taking this to the UN Security Council. This is a NATO mission to keep advising and assisting Afghan National Security Forces. There is a U.S. mission there in terms of counterterrorism; that will continue. No decisions have been made yet about the – well, the President has decided he's going to get down – he's made the decision of 5,500 by the end of the year, but he's willing to consider views by his military commanders. So, I mean, I think I'd just leave it at that. I mean, the – we believe – we continue to believe that reconciliation – and we've said this now for a long time – needs to be Afghan-led.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Move on to just – I want to – can we move on?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure, Said. I don't think anybody's disputing it now.
QUESTION: Different topic. Okay. Very quickly on the Secretary's speech yesterday --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- at J Street, he said that, quote, "I can tell you for these next nine months," talking about the peace process, "we will not stop working to find a way." Then he went on to say, "And so we will continue to advance the two-state solution as the only solution because anything else will not be Jewish and will not be democratic and we understand that," unquote.
Now, does he have – like, is there something in the offing? Is there going to be some sort of an initiative that the Secretary might undertake, perhaps either – because we're talking about a very short period of time.
MR KIRBY: The Secretary is very mindful of the time left while he has in office, and he's also mindful of the importance of this issue. And I don't think I can improve upon his words from last night, that he is very committed to continuing to try to work to get to a two-state solution. Does he have an initiative or an announcement to make? I have nothing for you on that today. I can just tell you that the point he was trying to make last night was that for as long as he's the Secretary of State, he's going to continue to work on this and work as very – as hard as he can.
QUESTION: The reason I ask this question, because only months ago – maybe couple months ago – the President himself said there's not likely to be anything. But listening to the Vice President and listening to the Secretary of State, they're basically saying that this thing is alive and kicking and we're going to push for it. So --
MR KIRBY: I don't know that anybody said it wasn't still an objective. We've also said – I know I've said and I know the Secretary has said that it's up to the leadership there in the region – all parties, the leadership on all sides – to take the kinds of affirmative steps and initiative to get us there. We can't do it for them. It can't be legislated externally. It has to be something that they decide to move forward on. And as both, I think – as both the Secretary and the Vice President said last night, it's difficult to see that way right now because that sort of leadership isn't being fully exerted. But that doesn't mean that we aren't still committed to it, that we aren't still going to try to help them get to a position where they can make these decisions and we – they can take the kinds of actions to reduce the violence, restore the calm, and move forward. I don't see the gap, quite frankly, the way you've described it.
QUESTION: Maybe just --
MR KIRBY: We're all still committed to it.
QUESTION: Just quick questions related: Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, said in Germany that he denounces all forms of terrorist activities. Is that enough? I mean, he was talking about the bus bombing yesterday in Jerusalem. So, first, if you have any more information on the bus bombing, and second, is that enough by Abbas just to say we condemn or we are opposed to all acts of terrorism, whether it's against Palestinians or Israelis?
MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly welcome the – we certainly welcome the comments. That's obviously encouraging. But as I've said before, words are not going to be sufficient, as we – it's not just about rhetoric. It's about action. It's about deeds. It's about real leadership getting us closer to a two-state solution. That's what we really need. So, yeah, I mean, obviously, we welcome those sentiments, and we would associate ourselves with those sentiment. There's no justification for terrorism.
Now, on the issue of the bus attack, I don't have any additional information on this. Israeli authorities are investigating this. They are treating it as if it is a act of terrorism. We have no indication that it isn't, in fact, an act of terrorism. But I'd refer you to Israeli authorities for any kind of updates.
QUESTION: Can we change the subject?
QUESTION: And finally – I promise this is really a quick one – journalists – Palestinians and international journalists are saying that they are not receiving protection equipment in Gaza, like PPEs – personal protection or flak jackets or shields or something like this. You have any – first of all, you have any information on that?
MR KIRBY: I don't.
QUESTION: And would you encourage the Israelis to allow this equipment to protect journalists that report on Gaza?
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything for you on that, Said. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Can we change the subject?
QUESTION: On a Palestinian-related question. It'll be quick, because I think you're going to have to take it. Yesterday, a group of 20 – I think it's 28 but I might be counting wrong – senators wrote to the Secretary saying that the UNFCCC – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, one of the Secretary's big interests --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- has admitted as a member the state of Palestine, which the senators say would trigger U.S. law, meaning – that bars the United States from funding UN agencies or affiliates which recognize the state of Palestine. I know that this letter was just sent yesterday, so I don't expect you to have the full answer now, but I'm wondering, one, does the Administration believe that the UNFCCC is a UN agency or an agency or affiliate of the UN that would be covered by this U.S. law? And two, if it does, will it stop any funding for it, as the law calls for?
MR KIRBY: Well, we are aware of the letter. But you're right, Matt; I'm going to have to take that, and I'll get back to you on that.
You wanted to change?
QUESTION: Just one more on Syria, yeah.
QUESTION: No, no, can we stay on Israel? Yesterday, Jordan has decided to call off a plan to install surveillance camera at Jerusalem holy site. Do you have anything on it?
MR KIRBY: Yes. I would ask you to consult yesterday's transcript.
QUESTION: Thank you so much. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I dealt with it extensively yesterday. I don't think I can improve upon my eloquence. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Has the Secretary – did the Secretary make any calls this morning on Syria peace talks?
MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of. His – the only call that I'm tracking is the one to the Ecuadorean foreign minister about the earthquake.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of --
QUESTION: And do you believe that – the opposition believes – says that the truce has ended. There's been a – airstrikes that killed 40 people in this marketplace in opposition territory. Do you know who – does – is the U.S. ready to say who actually is responsible for those --
MR KIRBY: We've seen the reports of that. It is our understanding at this time that it was most likely regime forces, but information's still coming in. So I want to be a little careful here on how I couch that. And it has been – as we've said, by and large, the majority of the violations have been by the regime. We have reason to believe at this point that that was the case with this particular bombing.
QUESTION: Do you believe that these peace talks – the opposition has basically said that the talks are being suspended indefinitely, not just to Friday. Do you really believe that under these circumstances and in this atmosphere that those talks can take place and come to a conclusion?
MR KIRBY: You mean this week?
QUESTION: This week or the next few weeks.
MR KIRBY: You want to try it?
QUESTION: No, I just --
QUESTION: While the regime is violating – as you said, it appears that most of the violations are theirs – while the regime is violating --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- do you think it's appropriate for talks to continue? Or should there be some kind of consequences for the regime and to change their calculus, as the Secretary always says, to bring them back to the table in earnest?
MR KIRBY: Okay, there's a lot there. The short answer is we continue to believe in the political process and in the importance of these talks. What the special envoy said yesterday was that they – that both sides had agreed to stay in Geneva, that talks would be paused, so there are no active – as far as I know, no active talks going on right now, but they are still there – and that they all agreed they would sort of reassess the way forward on Friday. So that's one.
Number two, nobody ever thought – ever thought – that with this new round of talks that all the problems would get solved. The goal was to start – and the key word there is "start" – having a conversation about the political transition itself. And they did start. Now, obviously, the opposition, in light of the continued violations of the cessation – and they noted a concern we share, the lack of access of humanitarian aid and assistance, which the regime continues to stifle – has led them, compelled them to pause their participation in the talks. So we understand the concerns over that.
But nobody ever thought that this week in Geneva would be the end-all, be-all of the political process or the talks themselves. And I thought Mr. de Mistura was very clear about that yesterday, that the – that they – when we started, they – both sides were very, very far apart; they are still very far apart, and he had no expectations that they were going to draw dramatically closer this week in Geneva – and that there will have to be many more rounds of discussions before we can get to any progress towards further defining the political way forward. I think everybody is mindful of the difficulty here.
Now to your point, Elise, obviously, when there still continues to be violations of the cessation and there continues to still be people that are being barrel-bombed and gassed and denied basic food, water, and medicine, that makes it very difficult for the opposition to participate fully in these talks – and we understand that – which is why the cessation was so important, to have it in place. And I would remind you that while we – I'm certainly not going to walk you away from the notion that there have been additional violations in the last week or so – the violence has increased from what it was a week ago – it is still dramatically down from what it was just a couple months ago before the cessation, to the degree – and I think Mr. de Mistura said it was about 70 percent; where it had been 80 to 90 percent reduction in violence, it's now about 70.
So the trend lines are not going in the right direction, but it is still a noteworthy reduction in violence, and more Syrians today are – even with the increase in tensions, they're still living safer – not completely safe, but safer lives than they were before the cessation. So we still believe the cessation is in place, that it is still largely holding, and that it is important to keep it in place and to keep it going. And we'd like to see – frankly, we'd like to see the conditions improve, not decrease. But we're very mindful --
QUESTION: So you --
MR KIRBY: -- of the tensions that it's creating on the political process.
QUESTION: So you believe that you can salvage these talks? Because the mood in Geneva is less optimistic than it is here. Do you believe you can still salvage those talks?
MR KIRBY: Before I answer the second question, let me – it's not like we're looking at this through rose-colored glasses. It's not like we don't see what's going on in Geneva for exactly what it is. We – our special envoy, Michael Ratney, is there. He's monitoring this as best he can. He's not a participant, but he's there. And we're – so we're very mindful of the breakdown in the talks this week. And nobody is fooling ourselves here that it is – that it's becoming resoundingly successful or easy this week, not at all. But do we think that there's – do we think there's still a purpose in this process and in trying to get it back on track and to move it forward? Absolutely we do.
QUESTION: Don't --
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't use the verb "salvage" the way you did, but I would say that we certainly believe in the value of this and in trying to get it back on track.
QUESTION: Well, don't you think perhaps this is a ploy by the Syrian regime and perhaps Russia to get the opposition to quit the talks so that the regime says that it doesn't have a partner?
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for the Assad regime. We don't talk directly with them. Again, we judge actions, not words, and by their actions they are certainly --
QUESTION: Well, do the actions say that?
MR KIRBY: By their actions they are certainly not keeping their commitments and their obligations that Russia assured us that they would do, using their influence. I would tell you that the Russian Government remains – again, from the communications that we've had directly with them and with Foreign Minister Zarif, they remain committed to this political process.
QUESTION: Right. But what I'm saying is – and this is what Staffan de Mistura kind of said last time when they had to – when the opposition had to leave the talks or they didn't start on time – because they were saying – and there were U.S. officials that were saying the same – that what the regime was doing was maybe there was this technical cessation of hostilities, but they were pushing the opposition with violations so that the opposition would leave the talks and then the regime would say, well, we don't have a partner in these talks --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- and go back to its full-scale assault.
MR KIRBY: So are you asking that Russian support for Assad --
QUESTION: Are you afraid this is the beginning of a pattern that is trying to push the opposition out of talks?
MR KIRBY: We certainly hope not, and we've seen no indications from the Russian side that that's their intent, that they are anything other than 100 percent committed to the political process.
QUESTION: Are they going to tell you that's their intent, though?
MR KIRBY: Well, you asked me what do we think they're up to. I mean, they should speak for their intentions and motivations. Everything they've said and everything we've seen coming from the Russian side is that they remain committed to the political process and to seeing it succeed.
QUESTION: Kirby, I just want to go back to something --
MR KIRBY: I don't know how else to put it.
QUESTION: I just want to go back to something you said. So the opposition says that the truce has ended, but you're saying that it's largely still holding.
MR KIRBY: The cessation of hostilities --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- that's what we call it –
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- is still holding. It is. Now, it's fragile, but we continue to see that it's still holding.
QUESTION: I don't understand how you can say the cessation of hostilities is in place or is holding and then the next sentence later say we're not looking at this through rose-colored glasses. No one believes that it's holding. I mean, it might exist as a – on a piece of paper someplace, but if you look at the statements coming out from the opposition and the government accusations of rebel violations, you're the only one who thinks that it's still there, still exists as a --
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't think I'm the only one, Matt.
QUESTION: All right. Well, maybe there's some blind guy in – somewhere. No one --
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no.
QUESTION: Both sides – all the sides --
MR KIRBY: Look – come on, now.
QUESTION: -- that are supposed to be actually adhering to the cessation of hostilities – none of them say that it's still in place.
MR KIRBY: Look, if you're using a binary definition of here, and that one shot fired means that it's no longer holding – if that's your definition, then that's your definition of it. But --
QUESTION: I don't think that that's what they're saying. There's barrel bombs going off --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely.
QUESTION: In Latakia, there are actions in Latakia.
QUESTION: I mean, my God, this isn't --
QUESTION: The opposition took over three --
MR KIRBY: Guys, you don't have to --
QUESTION: How about the binary equation true or false? How's that?
MR KIRBY: No, you can't --
QUESTION: Does that work for you?
MR KIRBY: But you can't do it that way.
QUESTION: You can't?
MR KIRBY: And you're not telling me something I don't know. I've been saying it for the last few days. In fact, I said it yesterday: We continue to see that the regime continues to violate the cessation and does continue to drop barrel bombs, and we do think they were responsible for this terrible attack today. That doesn't mean that the cessation isn't holding in other places inside Syria. There have been violations of the cessation since the day it was announced.
QUESTION: And you've always placed the blame on the regime.
MR KIRBY: Largely.
QUESTION: I mean, you – you know beyond the shadow of any doubt that most violations are committed by the regime?
MR KIRBY: We believe – we still believe most of the violations are from the regime.
QUESTION: How do you --
MR KIRBY: But I'm not saying they all are.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And folks, it doesn't – just because there are violations – and it doesn't mean that we don't take them seriously, it doesn't mean that we don't recognize the impact they're having on the political process. We do. And I still maintain that we're not looking at this through too optimistic of a view here. We recognize the challenge that it's placing and the stress it's placing on the political process. But it doesn't mean that still – and you can – I can point you back to what the special envoy, the UN special envoy, who isn't blind, who said himself yesterday in Geneva that 70 percent – there's still a 70 percent reduction of violence in the country and that he, himself, felt that the cessation was still holding largely. But he also said, as I've said today, it's fragile. We recognize that.
QUESTION: But if the opposition has said it's over, if they launch loads of attacks tomorrow, they'll be violations of a cessation of hostility that they don't – no longer recognize.
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I'm not going to guess about what's going to happen on the battlefield tomorrow.
QUESTION: If they say they're no longer a party to a cessation, why would we hold them to anything?
MR KIRBY: Well, let's see where we are tomorrow.
QUESTION: Would you --
MR KIRBY: I don't – I'm not going to guess about where things go tomorrow.
QUESTION: Would you urge them to go back to the talks if we were maintaining a 70 percent reduction level? Or do we have to work to get back to a 90 percent reduction level?
MR KIRBY: We're not – I don't think we're tying participation in the talks to a certain percentage level of violence. We would like to see – that we would like to see --
QUESTION: But you did urge them back into the talks?
MR KIRBY: We have continued to try to urge them to participate fully in the talks, absolutely. We also, that said, recognize the concerns and the stress and the pressure that they're under, given the regime violations.
QUESTION: You don't think that the concerns in the cessations that exist at this moment, that you've already acknowledged, are sufficient to warrant their walkout then?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to make a judgment about their decision. They've made this decision. We understand the concerns and the frustration that they have expressed. We obviously would like to see the talks continue, recognizing of course that the more that the regime violates the cessation and the more the regime prevents the delivery of humanitarian aid and assistance, it makes it that much harder for them to do that. Are we continuing to encourage their participation in this, despite the violations? Absolutely we are. It would be ridiculous for us not to. But that doesn't mean we don't also understand their reasons and their frustrations.
QUESTION: John, would --
QUESTION: Will Plan B – will Plan B – if the talks fail completely, will Plan B to go full steam ahead in arming the opposition?
MR KIRBY: Look, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: Because that's what's being said.
MR KIRBY: Said, I know what's being said. Our focus is on Plan A. That's where the Secretary's head is. That's what his focus is on, is on making sure the political process moves forward.
Are we off – are we off --
QUESTION: Iraq? Just --
QUESTION: No, can you take a couple more?
QUESTION: No, no, no. I have one more on Syria. And this is directly related to the U.S. Government actions. So from this podium, you and other spokespeople have lauded the work of the Syria Civil Defense group that is known as the White Helmets. You're familiar with their work? They're the guys who rescue people from attacks.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: You're not familiar with them?
MR KIRBY: I'm not an expert in this particular group, but --
QUESTION: Okay. Well, last – it's a group that has been praised by the U.S. Government, including you, I believe, from this podium, certainly Mark. Anyway, the head of this group was supposed to come to the United States to get an award from InterAction, which you might know is a big umbrella group for NGOs. Last night, as he tried to get in, he was denied entry. This man's name is Raed Saleh. I'm wondering if you can explain why he would be turned away from the United States.
MR KIRBY: I cannot. I have not seen that report and can't comment on it.
QUESTION: Can you check it out?
MR KIRBY: I can, but I would also remind you, again, it's ICE and Department of Homeland Security that makes these kinds of decisions.
QUESTION: But don't you --
MR KIRBY: But I can't confirm it.
QUESTION: Don't you work with them on this kind of stuff?
QUESTION: He clearly had a visa. He presented himself to U.S. authorities.
MR KIRBY: Our job is to work --
QUESTION: So you gave him a visa.
MR KIRBY: Our job is to work the visa process.
QUESTION: Can you --
MR KIRBY: But the decisions about entry made onsite are made by Homeland Security Department and ICE. And it's not as if there's, at that level, at that tactical level, there's some sort of muscle and sinew connecting them here to Foggy Bottom on this. These are decisions that they have to make. So I would check into it --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: -- but my guess is that we're going to refer you to ICE on this.
QUESTION: Well, they don't – okay. They don't do briefings like this once a week, let alone five days a week. So if you could push them, it would be great to get an answer --
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: -- on why he was denied.
MR KIRBY: We'll take the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: And we'll refer – we'll refer – are we good on Syria?
QUESTION: No. One – a couple more on Syria.
MR KIRBY: Whoa, back there. (Laughter.) You got me fooled there, Pam. You're normally over there.
QUESTION: I know. First of all, concerning the Syria ceasefire task force that the U.S. and Russia are chairing, any indication on when we'll hear back from them with initial findings on some of these violations that they're looking into?
And then secondly, one of the other things that the opposition group called for today was a renewed push from the International Syria Support Group to intervene in the humanitarian crisis and also look into what it says are the regime ceasefire violations. Are there any behind-the-scenes talks going on on when this group might meet again?
MR KIRBY: Well, you know I don't normally talk about behind-the-scenes talks of any kind, but there's not an expectation that the cessation task force is going to issue some sort of final report. The job is to catalog and to document and to analyze as best we can – as best we can – violations of the cessation and to do everything we can to present in real time what we're learning to try to get them stopped. It's not a task force in a military sense that they're going to go out and physically stop cessations. That's not the purpose.
And as for humanitarian aid and assistance, there are predominantly the UN, but other international nongovernmental agencies, that are trying to get the aid and assistance to the people – to people in need. What we need is the regime to allow that access to occur. And thus far that's proven very, very difficult. But there are bodies already there set up and organized to deliver these goods.
QUESTION: At some point will we see something public from the ceasefire task force on what it has been cataloging?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any public report, as I said, that the task force is prepared to submit or to distribute.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act?
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: Is that because --
MR KIRBY: I don't know.
QUESTION: -- you don't – is that because you don't agree on who is responsible that you're not making these findings?
MR KIRBY: No, you're – I think you're thinking about the work in the wrong way. The task force is set up to monitor as best they can in real time violations of the cessation and to then push that information out to those who have influence over those who are doing the fighting and to get them to stop. That's the goal.
QUESTION: Okay. So if you – okay, so if you are having all these violations that you say are from the regime, and the person or the country who has the most influence at this point probably would be the Russians, and they're chairing that task force, then why do you think that there hasn't been lessening of these violations?
MR KIRBY: That's a great question for Moscow to speak to the degree to which they are using enough influence on the Assad regime. And I think – I'd point you back to the President's conversation with President Putin – what, yesterday – and conversations that I've read out recently between Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry where a key component of those discussions are exactly that, to urge the Russians to do more, to use their influence in a more constructive, more assertive manner to get the regime to comply.
QUESTION: But just a few minutes ago you were saying that you have every indication that the Russians are still committed --
MR KIRBY: They are.
QUESTION: -- to the cessation of hostilities. Yet they're not using their influence at the same – those are two inconsistent statements.
MR KIRBY: I don't know that they're inconsistent. They still are committed and --
QUESTION: They say they're committed.
MR KIRBY: They still say they're committed to the political process in Geneva. They are signatories of all the communiques and of the UN Security Council resolution which codifies the political process that's playing – that is – that continues to be worked there in Geneva. And they have – they have in the past used their influence to try to change the calculus of Bashar al-Assad.
But because we keep seeing violations of the regime, we keep making the case – and we'll continue to do so to the Russians – that we want them to do more; we want more influence, more pressure put on Bashar al-Assad to do the right thing. So it's not inconsistent. It's a matter of degrees. That we don't – that we think they can do more doesn't mean that they aren't intrinsically still committed to seeing the political process succeed.
QUESTION: The political process and the – I understand that the two are linked, but you can be – let's just take the political process off the table for the minute. They're signatories to the cessation of hostilities and are a chairman of the task force on the violation of these hostilities.
MR KIRBY: That's right.
QUESTION: Yet those – yet the violations are continuing. So how can you say that the Russians are committed to keeping the peace and lessening the violence when they're not putting – when you're saying also that they're not putting pressure on the Syrians?
MR KIRBY: We still believe they're committed to the process, Elise. But we want them to use their influence more assertively to get Bashar al-Assad to comply. I mean, they're both true. Again, it's not like – it's not like we're giving them a free pass here. I mean, we continue to make this case with Russian leaders.
QUESTION: Just one more on Ukraine?
QUESTION: Iraq – China (inaudible) question --
MR KIRBY: Let me go to the back here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the high-profile Ukraine female pilot who is soon to be released, according to an announcement from the Ukraine president? And her lawyer said that as soon as the end of this week she will be released.
MR KIRBY: I don't. I mean, we still want to see Nadia Savchenko returned to Ukraine and to her family where she belongs. She still – we still maintain that she's been unjustly detained, but I don't have any additional information.
QUESTION: You may refer me to the White House, but do you – but it won't hurt to try. Yesterday there was a phone call between President Obama and Russian President Putin. Do you know if this was discussed during the conversation?
MR KIRBY: I would point you to my colleagues at the White House to speak to the President and his conversations.
QUESTION: Do you see the release – her release coming – do you think Russia is going to get some political and economic gain out of this?
MR KIRBY: You're asking me to predict her release. I can't do that. We obviously continue to call for it on the face of it. She needs to be returned to Ukraine. She's been unjustly detained.
I got it. I got – your hands are up. Just give me a second. She needs to come home, period. And I can't – I can't be predictive. I can't tell you what the odds are or – I've seen these press reports that you're referring to. I can't speak to the veracity of them. We continue to make the case that she needs to be returned, she needs to come home.
QUESTION: Are you aware any of the prisoners or hostage swap planned on the way between --
MR KIRBY: I've seen press reports only. I have nothing to confirm one way or the other about this. So again, I just don't have anything for you on that right now.
You had – go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. On China, do you have any comment on the landing of Chinese military aircraft on Fiery Reef from Sunday?
MR KIRBY: Seen the reports of that. It's difficult to understand why they – if it's true, and we have no reason to doubt it, that – why they would use a military aircraft for some sort of medical treatment mission or evacuation or whatever it was they were doing. It's difficult to understand why they needed a military aircraft for that. So again, we continue to make the case that militarization of outposts in the South China Sea is counterproductive to peace and stability in the region. But I'd point you to the PLA to speak to why they chose this particular aircraft for that particular mission. It's difficult to see why it was necessary from our perspective.
QUESTION: So the --
QUESTION: So does that mean if it had been a civilian plane, you would not have an issue?
MR KIRBY: It's – if you have – there were --
QUESTION: I mean, the U.S. runs medical trips on military aircraft all the time.
MR KIRBY: Look, we're not going to deny medical aid to people that need it. So, like, all I'm saying is that it's difficult to understand why it had to be a military aircraft.
QUESTION: Well, my question is – my question is: Is the – your issue is the fact that it was a military aircraft, or your issue is the fact that it was a plane, any plane at all landing on the reef?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I understand it the workers were working on further infrastructure improvements of a military nature, so that still is a problem, right?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: But if they're sick and they need help, we're not going to --
QUESTION: Right. So they should fly in a civilian plane.
MR KIRBY: We're not going to take an issue with them having – getting help. I'm just – we're simply asking the question. It seems odd that it had to be a military aircraft when it could have easily just been a civilian aircraft to get these folks the help they need.
QUESTION: I don't know, that's just kind of odd. I mean, what difference does it make what kind of plane it was?
MR KIRBY: One could argue that it's just another sign that the Chinese are willing to keep militarizing the effort in general.
QUESTION: But couldn't it also be a sign that a military plane happened to be the one that was – could get there the quickest --
MR KIRBY: Could very well be, which is why I said --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible). All right.
MR KIRBY: -- it's difficult to understand why it had to be a military aircraft.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Foreign ministry officials have responded and said that it shouldn't be surprising, given that it's Chinese territory. Do you have a response to that?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to respond in any other way than I've already done. I think I've reacted to it.
Yeah.
QUESTION: In return for the recent military assistance, the Pentagon says they expect the Peshmerga to play, quote-unquote, "a critical role." Do you share that as the State Department that the Kurds will be an important element to retake this Arab city? Because there has been some historic animosity. And do you think they will be welcomed by the Arab civilians in the city?
MR KIRBY: I can't – look, you're asking me again to predict a future. They have played a vital role thus far in the fight against Daesh. Our commitment to them remains. I've talked about this. We talked about this yesterday. Nothing's going to change about our commitment to helping them through and with the Government of Iraq in Baghdad. But as for predicting battlefield success or the degree to which people are welcomed, I wouldn't – I'm not going to do that, and I'm certainly not going to get into talking about military operations.
QUESTION: Because they are certainly not welcoming Shia militias. I just wondered whether you believe the Kurds will receive the same kind of --
MR KIRBY: I simply am not going to make a prediction about the degree to which people are welcomed or not welcomed. Peshmerga forces have been brave and courageous in the fight. We have, through the Government of Iraq, supported them. We will continue to do that. I would point you to the Defense Department and the announcements they made yesterday for more detail on that. Nothing's going to change about our commitment to helping Iraqi Security Forces and Peshmerga forces defeat Daesh.
QUESTION: I have just one more question on Afghanistan and a separate question on Saudi Arabia, if I may. As I understood, you said you would like to see reconciliation talks with the Taliban, despite the attacks. Can specifically those who carried out the recent attacks and targeted Secretary Kerry participate in the talks?
MR KIRBY: I – if you're – the short answer to your question is no, right – I mean, because we've said that we want to see the Taliban return to the table and to reconciliation, but to do so they've got to renounce violence and terror. They have to support the constitution and the reconciliation process itself. So it's difficult for me to see how somebody who's capable of that sort of violence could be part of a reconciliation process. But again, the lines are very clear about what the expectations are of the Taliban to participate in a reconciliation process.
QUESTION: On Saudi Arabia, does the Administration believe that no current or former Saudi official or member of the royal family was in any involved in the 9/11 attacks?
MR KIRBY: Look, I'm not going to re-litigate history here. The – you can go online and see the story of the attacks and how it happened and who was responsible, and I'm not going to re-litigate it here.
QUESTION: But can you say that no – President Obama is heading to Saudi Arabia --
MR KIRBY: As it says in the report, there's no indication that Saudi officials or the Saudi Government was behind or supporting in any way those attacks. It's all there --
QUESTION: So you believe --
MR KIRBY: The public record is all there for you to see, and I'm certainly not going to re-litigate that history here today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just --
QUESTION: Hold on a second. Before he – Dave makes a good point here. You're advising people to go online to find out the real story of 9/11? Because there's a lot of stuff out there online about --
MR KIRBY: I meant the 9/11 Commission Report, which is online.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Of course you know that.
That's the same tie you wore yesterday, by the way.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Yeah, and I've also got some soup on it today. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I see that. (Laughter.) Go ahead. You had a question.
QUESTION: No, I was just being sarcastic quietly to Matt.
MR KIRBY: Oh, you're being sarcastic.
QUESTION: Yeah. You say the record is online. There are 28 pages of it not online.
MR KIRBY: Well, look, again, the 9/11 Commission Report is pretty exhaustive. It states clearly who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. And for us to sit here, this many years later, and try to debate it I think is just a fool's errand.
QUESTION: Thank you. On Japan, let me just follow up the Secretary's trip last week to Hiroshima.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: He mentioned at the press conference, he would explain to the President what he experienced in Hiroshima. Did the Secretary meet and explain to the President? If so, can you share with us what's the response from – of the President?
MR KIRBY: No. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Did he meet – did he --
MR KIRBY: No, I can sit up here and talk for Secretary Kerry all day, but I will not talk for President Obama. That's – my colleague at the White House is responsible for that.
QUESTION: Did he meet and talk about this issue last week?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary has – as you might expect, because it was such a powerful experience, he's certainly shared that experience with others in the government. I'm not going to speak to private conversations. And you heard him – you were there and you heard how the visit affected him and how he would continue to urge everybody of all walks of life to go visit the Peace Park and the museum. And I think I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: John, any readout on Secretary's meeting with the BBG today?
MR KIRBY: We'll – we can issue a short readout after this. It was a useful discussion. The Secretary appreciated the opportunity to meet with them again to talk about ways in which we can continue to try to get more effective in the information environment, particularly when it comes to countering violent extremism.
Last one.
QUESTION: Just on the issue of the 9/11 bill making its way through Congress, the – after the Administration came out against it, a number of senior Republicans said today that they're open to revising the legislation, and Speaker Ryan said we want to make sure we're not making mistakes with our allies. What is the Administration's view on how the legislation would make a mistake with our allies?
MR KIRBY: I talked about this yesterday, so I'd point you to the transcript as well as my colleague at the White House, but essentially we believe it sets a potentially harmful precedent going forward in terms of the sovereign immunity that the United States also enjoys overseas. But I'd encourage you to look at yesterday's transcript.
QUESTION: How would they fix that? How would they fix the bill?
MR KIRBY: We're going to continue to consult with Congress. I'm not going to get into legislative remedies here from this podium.
Thanks.
QUESTION: Well, are there negotiations going on, though, in Congress about – sounds like there are some competing drafts going on.
MR KIRBY: All I can say is we're going to continue to consult with members of Congress, and we don't, obviously, support it in --
QUESTION: What does – does "consult" mean negotiate on --
MR KIRBY: It means consult and communicate and talk with them about their concerns and about our concerns.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:17 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
