Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 28, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
IRAN
COTE D'IVOIRE
SYRIA/RUSSIA
DPRK/CHINA
CHINA
JAPAN/TAIWAN
INDIA
TURKEY
IRAN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
RUSSIA/GEORGIA
UNITED KINGDOM
TRANSCRIPT:
1:06 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Afternoon.
QUESTION: Welcome back.
MR KIRBY: Thank you. Thanks very much.
A few things to start with. And as I – you know, we're doing this Free the Press campaign this week, so for today's case for World Press Freedom Day we're going to highlight Mohammad Sedigh Kaboudvand, a journalist and human rights activist from Iran who's been held in Evin prison since July 2007. He reported on torture in Iranian prisons, women's rights issues, and cases of human rights abuses against Iran's ethnic minorities.
In July of 2007, Kaboudvand was arrested and charged with acting against national security and engaging in propaganda against the state. A Revolutionary Court ultimately sentenced him to 11 years in prison. Kaboudvand was reported – has reportedly suffered several heart attacks while in custody and has suffered from serious kidney and intestinal problems. Prison authorities have reportedly denied requests to transfer him to a hospital where he can receive treatment appropriate for his illnesses.
Kaboudvand has now served nearly nine years of his sentence. Iran's penal code allows for early release after prisoners have served more than half of a sentence over 10 years. He has also reportedly been recommended for release by the warden of Evin prison. We call on the Iranian Government to release Mohammad and all other Iranian journalists and citizen journalists who are imprisoned simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
On Cote d'Ivoire – I'm sorry, Cote d'Ivoire – today in New York --
QUESTION: You can say Ivory Coast if you're not comfortable with the French.
MR KIRBY: No, I'm going – I have to get this right. I have to – (laughter) – I have to work at the – I appreciate the pass you were going to give me, but I'm going to hold myself to a higher standard.
Let me start that again. On Cote d'Ivoire – how's that? This is – and this is actually --
QUESTION: Cote d'Ivoire.
MR KIRBY: Is that okay? Cote d'Ivoire?
QUESTION: No, no, Cote d'Ivoire.
MR KIRBY: Cote d'Ivoire.
QUESTION: Yeah, but give him – yeah, but he's trying, right?
MR KIRBY: D'Ivoire.
QUESTION: Cote d'Ivoire.
MR KIRBY: All right, we'll try --
QUESTION: Don't worry, you get points.
MR KIRBY: We will try this again. This is actually good news. On Cote d'Ivoire, today in New York the UN Security Council adopted two resolutions that reflect the significant progress that has been achieved toward restoring peace and security in Cote d'Ivoire. The council agreed to terminate UN sanctions on Cote d'Ivoire that were first imposed in 2004 in response to political turmoil and violence. The council also adopted a resolution that continues the downsizing of the UN peacekeeping mission there and endorses its final closure in June of next year, 2017. Today's resolutions are notable example of how multilateral tools are an effective vehicle that can contribute to promoting our shared peace and security interests.
Now just briefly before we start, I want a quick note on this airstrike, which I know many of you have covered or have asked about, in Aleppo on a Doctors Without Borders hospital. And I want to preface this by saying I think you're going to hear something more specific from the Secretary soon on this. But I didn't want to relinquish the podium at the outset without mentioning that we're obviously – find this attack reprehensible in every possible way. We're looking at dozens, if not several dozens, of casualties in this strike on what was clear that was a medical facility. The details and the circumstances of the attack are still coming in, but it sure bears all the hallmarks of the kinds of strikes that the regime has done in the past on treatment facilities and, frankly, on first responders.
So once again, we call on the regime to cease these absolutely senseless attacks, which are, of course, violations of the cessation of hostilities. And we continue to call on and urge Russia to use its influence on the Assad regime to bring these kinds of strikes to an end. But again, you're going to hear more from the Secretary on this very shortly, but I did want to just put that out there right at the top since I know you've all been interested in it and it just happened.
QUESTION: Right. Well, let's start with Syria and the cessation of hostilities more generally. I mean, it really appears to be dead now. What – last night, the UN envoy, Mr. de Mistura, issued an urgent appeal for both Russia and the United States to do something to save what's left of it.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I presume when he says something like that, he's referring to Secretary Lavrov and Minister – I mean to Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: What have they – have they been in touch? What does the United States intend to do, if it does intend to respond to Mr. de Mistura's request?
MR KIRBY: Well, actually, a couple of things there, Matt. We certainly share his deep concerns about where things are going in Syria with the cessation of hostilities and with the difficulty now in terms of the political process. So we absolutely share his concerns about the violence and where things are going.
I don't have any recent discussions between Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Secretary – recent, by in the last few days. I think that you know there was one a few days ago. There hasn't been one since, but I certainly couldn't – wouldn't rule it out one way or the other. As you know, they speak frequently, so I would fully expect that there will be a conversation soon between the foreign minister and the Secretary regarding Syria. I have no doubt about it. I just don't have one to read out to you.
As for – and I know you didn't specifically ask for this, but I'll say it anyway. As for the statement by Mr. de Mistura about needing another urgent meeting of the ISSG, what I can tell you is that while I don't have one on the schedule to tell you about or to announce today, that the Secretary has talked quite a bit in recent weeks about the need to get the ISSG back together again and it's our expectation that they will, that there will be another ISSG meeting. I just don't know where or when. I do think that it's something that's very much on the Secretary's mind and he agrees with Mr. de Mistura that it's probably time to start thinking about when would be the right time to do that and what would – and working out an agenda. We just don't have it nailed down yet.
QUESTION: Has he been in touch with – I realize not Lavrov, but has he been in touch with other members of the ISSG in the last day or so to try to organize something?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any specific phone conversations or other conversations with ISSG members in just the last day or so.
QUESTION: Well, can I follow up? Beyond the calling for an ISSG meeting, I mean, it seems as if Mr. de Mistura has really --
MR KIRBY: Before – I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I wanted to just correct my answer to Matt, because I – I'm glad I pulled this out, but he did speak on Tuesday the 26th with Mr. de Mistura. So while no ISSG calls to read out, he – I just – I do want to flag that as the discussions in Geneva were coming to a close, he did reach out and talk to Mr. de Mistura. So we're not just reacting to his press conference. There was a private conversation with him, and obviously the special envoy relayed the same concerns to the Secretary as he has relayed to all of you through his press conference.
I apologize, Elise, but go ahead.
QUESTION: That's okay. I mean, I'm just – Mr. de Mistura, in addition to calling for an ISSG meeting, I mean, he made – it seems as if he made a pretty desperate call to the United States and Russia for help in terms of stopping this cessation of hostilities from completely falling apart. I mean, he basically said that talks are hanging by a thread and that a Syrian is being killed in Syria in the last 48 hours every 13 minutes. And I mean, he seems pretty desperate at this point, Mr. de Mistura does.
MR KIRBY: I think we all share the same sense of deep concern and urgency about what's going on in Syria. And again, I don't have any U.S.-Russia bilateral meetings to announce here today or to speak to. But back to what I said to Matt, even though he – the Secretary spoke very recently with Foreign Minister Lavrov and I certainly wouldn't rule out another discussion in the near future. I mean, this is a topic of frequent conversation between the two men, and I fully expect that there'll be another one and probably soon. But I think more broadly, we believe the ISSG continues to have value. We agree with Mr. de Mistura that the ISSG can continue to provide some structure and hopefully help reinvigorate a sense of momentum here. But I don't have a meeting right now on the schedule, but I do think that the Secretary is interested in gathering the ISSG again together.
QUESTION: Okay, but how is an ISSG meeting of 17 nations going to stop a cessation of hostilities that largely it seems as if what the Secretary said last week to The New York Times and what you've said from this podium – I mean, it's largely seen as being violations at the hands of the regime and the Russians.
MR KIRBY: Well, the short answer is the ISSG by itself can't do that. It has to be Assad.
QUESTION: And the Russians.
MR KIRBY: Well, that's what I was getting to – and the Russians using their influence on Assad to get to a better outcome here, because it is the regime that is causing by and large the vast majority of violations of the cessation. So the ISSG meeting in and of itself? No, that can't stop the violence simply by gathering, but it can result – as it has in the past, it can result in some consensus views and some initiatives and imperatives that can be put forward through the UN to try to bring about more progress and a better sense of momentum on the political front.
So while gathering 17 nations, as you put it, in Geneva isn't necessarily going to stop the bombs from flying, it can certainly help lead to better outcomes, as it did at the outset. I mean, we readily admit that the cessation is very much in peril. We don't disagree with that statement at all, but let's not forget that it was put in place after an ISSG meeting and then followed up by the UN and it held – it has largely held for quite some many weeks now.
QUESTION: Right, right. But at the time, cynics would say that the Russians and the Syrian regime were just playing for time in order to kind of regroup and re --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- look at the map and see where they want to go next. And given the fact that these cessation – these violations continue, I mean, some would say that that – that that belief has a lot of credibility. And I mean, I'm just wondering, like, at what point – like, what kind of pressure can you bring to bear on Russia and the regime at this point? Would you say it's time to consider new options in terms of what the U.S. is willing to do in terms of helping the opposition? It just seems as if you're back to kind of square one.
MR KIRBY: I don't think that we would agree that we're back to square one. Certainly we're not where we'd like to be with respect to the cessation of hostilities, and we're certainly not where we'd like to be on the political talks. No question about that. But I wouldn't describe it as back to square one.
On your second point about what options, the Commander-in-Chief has made clear that he – that he wants the cabinet to continue to think through options and to think through alternatives. But he has also said – and so has Secretary Kerry – that – (phone rings). Wow, that took me right back to my Navy days. (Laughter.) That scared the bejeebies out of me.
QUESTION: You almost fled the room.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. That's the "jump overboard" siren. (Laughter.) Which actually would've been convenient right in the middle of this answer.
QUESTION: Yeah, then you could have an out.
MR KIRBY: Oh man, I forgot my train of thought now.
QUESTION: You were trying to say that you're not back to square one.
MR KIRBY: We're not back to square one.
QUESTION: You're back to square, like, zero --
MR KIRBY: Oh, Plan A, Plan A. Yeah, right.
QUESTION: -- or square negative one. (Laughter.) Look, if you're going to --
MR KIRBY: Now, wait a second. Now you got me going now. I can remember.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: So --
QUESTION: Yeah, but can I follow up?
MR KIRBY: The Commander – no – the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary have made clear that our commitment is on what we've colloquially called Plan A, which is the political process, and trying to keep it alive and to get it moving in the right direction. It doesn't mean that it would be imprudent not to consider other alternatives. And again, there's been – it's been made clear to cabinet officials that alternatives should be considered and thought about. But that doesn't – but if you're asking me – and I think you are – are we sort of at that point now, the Secretary would tell you no, that we aren't, that Plan A, the Geneva process, and getting to a political solution is still the preferred path. Because the other alternatives, whatever they --
QUESTION: Well, it would be the preferred path if Assad really wanted to negotiate. But I have to bring you back to the Secretary's comments, like, the first day he took office, was that until you change the calculation of Assad on the ground, nothing's going to change. And it seems as if maybe temporarily he said he was interested in a political process, but can you point to anything that indicates – whether it's engagement at the talks, or on the ground with the continued violations – that he's really willing to have a political solution?
MR KIRBY: It's certainly on the face of it – and particularly when you look at what happened there in Aleppo today against this Doctors Without Borders hospital – on the face of it, it would certainly appear that to – that Assad is not showing a willingness to contribute in a constructive way to Plan A, if you will, to the political process. I mean, you have to but assume that when you look at dozens dead and a hospital being bombed.
That said, let us also not forget that after the UN Security Council resolution and the Munich meeting, we did get a cessation in – largely in place. And as I've said many times, we freely admit that even on day one there were violations, and there were violations virtually every day. But largely it held. And up until the – just the last several days, I think we would still maintain that it had largely held. But it's obviously very, very fragile right now and of deep concern to everybody.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up, please? Can I have a follow-up, please?
MR KIRBY: Okay. We'll go to Lesley, then Pam, and then Dave. Okay?
QUESTION: So if you're saying Assad is not showing a willingness to contribute to a political process, does that mean that you believe that the Russians don't have that influence over him right now, given what's going on --
MR KIRBY: No, I don't think – I – no. I don't think we're at the point where we'd say they don't have influence over Assad. They still do. Of course they do. And look at the message they sent when President Putin decided to withdraw some of those aircraft. I mean, there was – it was an unquestioned message to Assad about the limits of Russian patience with respect to Assad's willingness to contribute to the political process. So yes, they have influence. What's curious is to – and I think what we'd like to know more of is to what degree are they actually assertively, aggressively using that influence right now. Because again, on the face of it, when you look at what the Assad regime is doing, again particularly today in this absolutely reprehensible attack, it would appear that that influence isn't being exerted as energetically as we believe it could be.
QUESTION: Or at all.
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, it's hard to know the degree to which this is either not enough influence being applied or not enough attention being given to the influence being applied. Or maybe it's a combination of both. It's just difficult to know. I don't – we're not inside that decision loop, so it's hard to know. So it's one of – it's one or the other or both, either they're not applying enough or what – Assad is ignoring what's being applied, or a combination --
QUESTION: It sounds like --
MR KIRBY: In any event – in any event though, regardless of what is the case, the trend is not moving in the right direction, and that's worrisome. And that's certainly putting in – undermining the political process and the cessation of hostilities, and that's obviously not what we want to see happen.
Pam.
QUESTION: You keep saying Plan A. What is Plan B? What is Plan B?
MR KIRBY: We've talked about this before.
QUESTION: You say Plan A. Does that mean that Plan B could involve some sort of changing your strategy --
MR KIRBY: I'm not --
QUESTION: -- to include some sort of military action?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, this mythical Plan B.
QUESTION: I mean, what is the alternative?
MR KIRBY: I mean, I don't think there is a --
QUESTION: Well, then stop saying Plan A.
QUESTION: Yeah, because you keep saying Plan A.
MR KIRBY: Well, I did that because you guys say Plan A. I was trying to make it understandable to you.
QUESTION: Let me just --
QUESTION: You guys are the ones that came up with Plan A.
QUESTION: -- let me just follow up on this, because now --
MR KIRBY: Look, whether we call it Plan A or Plan One, Plan C-2 – look, what I'm saying is our focus is on the political process. And the Secretary still believes that that is the best way forward. And that while we – it would be irresponsible to not think through options and alternatives, should it fail completely – I mean, that's what you're supposed to do, is think through options – those options are not – they're – none of them are great. And I'm not going to detail the various options here from the podium. I think you can understand why I wouldn't do that. But none of them are great and none of them are preferred. And frankly, we --
QUESTION: Plan A isn't going so great either.
MR KIRBY: Well, but that doesn't mean – just because it's not – the trends aren't moving exactly how we'd like them to, doesn't mean we should just give up and throw away on it. I mean, because look – but look, I mean, keep it in perspective, guys. I mean, we're – over the last, what, seven weeks or so the cessation largely held. And there are still areas – as you and I talk here, Said, there are still areas in Syria where life is less violent and where the cessation is holding. I agree it's fragile. We don't want to see what we're seeing in Aleppo. But the political plan that's being pursued, the Geneva process that's being pursued, we believe still can have traction, can still work, and still requires – demands our full energy and attention. And that's where the Secretary's headspace is.
QUESTION: Would you say that the deployment of the 250 Special Forces in Rmelian, which is in the north near Hasakah and the Kurdish areas and so on – is that like the prelude for Plan B? Is that like in anticipation, that maybe the truce will completely collapse --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, you --
QUESTION: -- the cessation of hostilities, and you want to be ready to help and assist and so on?
MR KIRBY: You know I don't like talking about military issues, but --
QUESTION: But it's --
MR KIRBY: But on this one, I am going to correct you. I mean, no. The answer – short answer is no, because, as the President made clear when he announced this additional – these additional deployments, they are there to advise and assist in the counter-Daesh fight. This is not about them assisting or participating in issues resolving the civil conflict in Syria. This is about the counter-Daesh fight and about advising and assisting forces in Syria that can be and – are and can be more effective against going – going against that group. So it has nothing to do with the Geneva process, in terms of getting to a political solution in Syria.
Pam.
QUESTION: John, two questions. First of all, a minute ago you said that the U.S. continues to believe that Russia has influence with the Assad regime. But is it safe to say that the U.S.- Russia relationship with Syria has deteriorated – continuing these types of strikes, like this one in Aleppo, continue and the fact that U.S. and Russia are co-chairs of the ceasefire taskforce, which outwardly doesn't seem to be having an impact on these types of activities?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would say no in terms of has the U.S-Russia relationship deteriorated as a result of these recent violations. We are co-chairs of the cessation task force. That work continues. And there's constant daily communication inside that task force and between the U.S. and Russia every single day. So no, I would not say that at all. And I think U.S.-Russian leadership is still required inside the ISSG with respect to the Geneva political process.
QUESTION: And one more on – this is a follow-up on Said's question about the Special Forces. In light of the situation in Syria, is the U.S. looking at perhaps expanding the amount of support that it has been giving to the Syrian Kurdish fighters who have been very effective in some regions?
MR KIRBY: I'll let DOD speak to that. I think Secretary Carter already talked a little bit about that recently, in terms of the manner in which we were intensifying the effort against Daesh. I'm not aware of any specific additional proposals, but really that's a military equity to speak to, not us.
Michel.
QUESTION: Could I --
QUESTION: Following up on the --
MR KIRBY: Oh, I'm sorry. You already – I promised to go back to you, Dave.
QUESTION: Yeah. So the --
MR KIRBY: You've got to wait. Sorry.
QUESTION: -- Russians have asked to add Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam to the list of terrorist organizations that are eligible for strikes. Obviously they're currently represented by the HNC, so I assume you'd oppose that call, since these are groups that are apparently attempting to observe the ceasefire. But does it not suggest that Russia is planning to expand its target list, not in fact to enforce the ceasefire?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'd leave it to Moscow to determine – to speak to why they would want those groups added on to the list, but --
QUESTION: They are the backbone of the armed opposition.
MR KIRBY: In many ways and in many places, that's right. And there's – nothing's changed about our position here that the only two groups that need to remain on the outside of the cessation of hostilities is – are Daesh and al-Nusrah. Nothing's changed about our view on that.
QUESTION: And also on Russia, often you and Mark from the podium have said that you don't want to daily read out the allegations of ceasefire violations that the ISSG group is working in private to develop --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- to develop reports. The Russian ministry of defense website however just put up a daily update from their reconciliation center in English and Russian.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you not worried that they appear more open about this than you do?
MR KIRBY: No. I mean, that's – if they want to do that, they can. We have just determined that we don't find that useful. What we want to put our energies into is to working through the cessation of hostilities task force to properly analyze and account for violations, and then try to work within that process to get them to stop. It's not an enforcement mechanism. It's not capable of physically impeding or standing in the way of violations. But it is useful in terms of analyzing it, collecting the data on them, and then rapidly sharing that information so that those who have influence on the violators can hopefully use that influence in the most constructive manner.
And I get the argument that, well, gee, in Aleppo that isn't going go well, and I've just spoken a long time about how we recognize that trends there in Aleppo are not in the right direction. But there are other areas in Syria – and there have been examples where the work of the task force has actually de-conflicted and prevented, in some cases, violations from happening. And that's the goal. It's – from our perspective, this work should be done at that level, and we just continue to not find it helpful to read out every single violation.
And again, I also – I haven't seen the database that they've put up, but I'd be careful assuming that that is somehow the sole, definitive source of violations.
QUESTION: They say it's their take on the situation.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: But if you're worried that they put out their take every day and that you're refraining from giving your take, they obviously find it useful to get their side of the story out there.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, we find it more useful to work inside the task force to get these things to stop as best we can. And look, I mean, we're up here every day answering questions about this and doing the best we can to communicate, so I don't – our – I'm not saying you are arguing that we're not being transparent, but I would fundamentally --
QUESTION: Just that Moscow's being more transparent.
MR KIRBY: I'm sure you would love for everything about the U.S. Government and the State Department to be more transparent, but we're as transparent as we believe we can be and should be. And we stand up here every day and answer these questions. We're not bashful about doing that.
QUESTION: Yeah. Yesterday, Mark said that the State Department did not share the Russian and Syrian assessment that Aleppo was under Nusrah control. So are you saying to the Russians – is the message to the Russians that it's bad to attack Aleppo, even if there are pockets of Nusrah there, that they should just not be attacking – Syrians should not be attacking?
MR KIRBY: No, I think what Mark was – he was restating a simple fact, which I've talked to myself, which is that we know it's a very fluid, dynamic environment, that there are – that there is intermingling between the groups. Some of that is by design because they want to be near one another and some of it is by happenstance. And it is why strikes in and around Aleppo become a more problematic issue, because it's very difficult to separate some of these groups from one another geographically in order to – and then to be precise enough that only the group that you're trying to go after is going to be hit.
QUESTION: But given the fragility of the ceasefire, would it be the view here that those strikes on Aleppo, even if there is a Nusrah element there, should stop because of the civilians and the other rebel groups in place?
MR KIRBY: No. So a couple of things here because I think we need to unpack this. If you are not party to the cessation – and al-Nusrah is not – and there is a legitimate opportunity to hit al-Nusrah, even if it's in Aleppo, that wouldn't be in opposition to what everybody has signed up to. They are fair targets. What we're seeing, however, is that they aren't being that precise, these strikes against al-Nusrah groups. And in fact, in many cases, such as the one I just talked about today, there's blatant disregard for the cessation at all by the regime. I mean, they're deliberately going after opposition groups and civilians, and now doctors and first responders. So that's what we want to see stop. And I've also said – we've also said, with respect to Aleppo, the expansion of Assad regime control inside Syria is not a good thing for the people of Syria writ large. And so talks about this liberation, if you will, of Aleppo are – it's a falsehood.
QUESTION: Just finally, the Secretary mentioned in The New York Times piece last week – he talked about an absolute line, the possibility of trying to draw an absolute line in Aleppo beyond which one side shouldn't fire on the others. Is that something that's being discussed?
MR KIRBY: I think without getting into any more detail than the Secretary did, I would just tell you that we're – we are going to continue to talk to the Russians about ways to keep the cessation going and to get it into a better – to get it into better condition and to get it to be more sustainable. So we're looking at ways in which we can do that, but I won't go into any more detail.
QUESTION: Sorry, and Colonel Warren said a couple of days ago when he was talking about Aleppo – he said that Aleppo is primarily in the hands of al-Nusrah. Is that a view you're (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think, again, Mark talked to this. I mean, our view of Aleppo is that it's a very mixed, very fluid environment and that the – and the groups are intermingled, and that's our view of it.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So are you confirming that the Russians are not enabling the Assad regime to do these attacks?
MR KIRBY: No, I'm not. In fact, I've said from the podium that we know that some of their military moves in and around Aleppo have been supported by Russian airpower.
QUESTION: But you don't know that particularly this one today?
MR KIRBY: But this one, as I said, the facts and circumstances are still coming in. The indications that we have now – and again, this just happened – are that these were – that these strikes were conducted by the regime.
QUESTION: Not with the backing --
MR KIRBY: Solely by the regime.
QUESTION: Solely – but not with the backing of Russia?
MR KIRBY: Not from any measure we can tell at this point. But again, this just happened; we're trying to get details and circumstances surrounding it.
QUESTION: And then the Russians today have said – are blaming – according to our information, on the evening of April 27th for the first time after a long break, there was a plane over Aleppo that belonged to one of the so-called anti-Islamic State coalition countries.
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything on that.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: They said that the coalition was operating there today and the Russians were not.
QUESTION: That's --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, again, I'd refer – I just don't have that level of tactical detail.
QUESTION: Yeah, they put that out in a statement.
MR KIRBY: Are you – is the suggestion that it was a coalition aircraft that --
QUESTION: Yes, that's the suggestion.
MR KIRBY: I have seen absolutely no indication that the coalition was in any way involved in this airstrike that we're talking about on the Doctors Without Borders facility. As I said, the facts are still coming in. Every indication we've seen so far would point to the regime.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: Secretary Carter today seems to have suggested that there was a direct link between the YPG forces in Syria and the PKK, which you designate as a terrorist group. It – that was in response to a question by Lindsey Graham in today's hearing. He said, yes, that – when Graham asked him whether there was a link. So is there a mixed message sent out from this building and the Pentagon about the nature of the group YPG, whether --
MR KIRBY: You mean – you're talking about Deputy Secretary Blinken?
QUESTION: No, no, today – Secretary Carter.
MR KIRBY: Oh, Carter. I thought you said Kerry.
QUESTION: Yeah, Carter, he was at the hearing and then he was asked by Graham, Senator Graham --
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: -- whether there was a link between YPG and PKK. He said yes. And I wonder – because you described the YPG as an independent group from the PKK in the past, and that's why you've supported them militarily and politically, one could say, but – so is there a mixed message sent out from this building and the Pentagon about the YPG?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not – I didn't see Secretary Carter's comments. I'd let them – let him speak for his views and the Pentagon views. Nothing's changed about our take here. The PKK is a foreign terrorist organization. That hasn't changed. And as I've said before, those Kurdish fighters who are effective against Daesh in Syria – while we're not providing direct arms, which as I – once again, I think your question sort of implied that. That's not – that's not what's happening, but --
QUESTION: In Kobani, for example --
MR KIRBY: But --
QUESTION: -- you air-dropped weapons to them clearly, openly, publicly.
MR KIRBY: They do benefit – when fighters are being effective against Daesh, they do benefit from air power, and as I've said before, that support will continue. But it's not just Kurds. And I know you love to bring everything back to that group, okay? But there are other effective counter-Daesh fighters in Syria which continue to benefit from coalition air power, and they will as long as they're being effective.
And that is why the President approved additional Special Operations Forces to go into Syria to do advise and assist, to help those forces that are being effective against Daesh become more effective against Daesh.
QUESTION: So can you say, again, that the YPG is not linked to the PKK?
MR KIRBY: I'm not – I'm going to tell you clearly, as I've said before, our position on the PKK and the YPG have not changed.
QUESTION: What is --
QUESTION: Can we move to North Korea?
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Can you say, just again, it's not linked to the PKK – you support it. If it was linked to a terrorist group, you wouldn't support it otherwise?
MR KIRBY: We don't – YPG's not a designated foreign terrorist organization. PKK is. Nothing's changed about that.
Michel.
QUESTION: John, on the deployment of U.S. forces in Syria, the Syrian foreign ministry has strongly condemned the deployment today and said this intervention is rejected and illegitimate, it happened without the Syrian Government's approval, and it's a blatant act of aggression that constitutes a dangerous intervention and a gross violation of Syria's sovereignty. The defense – the Iranian defense minister has said that the U.S. decision to send more troops to Syria is a flagrant aggression too. Any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: Well, he's right. We didn't seek the Syrian Government's approval before making this decision, and I find it the height of irony to call this a blatant act of aggression when they continue to gas and barrel bomb their own people and are reportedly now bombing a hospital in Aleppo. That and those are blatant acts of aggression against their own people, their own citizens.
This is – and I'll say it again, as I've said several times today – this is an additional increase of Special Operations Forces that will be doing advise and assist missions to help those fighters who are going against Daesh become more effective in the field. That's it. That's their job.
QUESTION: And what about Iran defense minister's statement too?
MR KIRBY: What about Iran's --
QUESTION: Iran defense minister has said the same thing and he --
MR KIRBY: Well, why would my answer be any different to Iran if they said the same thing?
QUESTION: Because you didn't say anything about Iran. You said about the regime.
MR KIRBY: Well, yeah, but it still stands. I mean, I don't know why my answer would be any different.
QUESTION: There are Iranian forces in Syria --
MR KIRBY: That assessment – you're saying the Iran defense minister said it was a blatant act of aggression for us to put Special Operations Forces --
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, my answer would be the same. It's not. It's not.
QUESTION: Isn't it a breach of sovereignty, though? Is it a breach of Syrian sovereignty, as you recognize that sovereignty?
MR KIRBY: This is a – we have had this discussion so many times, Said.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Another topic?
QUESTION: We've only been doing this 40 minutes.
MR KIRBY: We have – the President has the authorities he needs to go after Daesh, and that's what this is, and this is part of a coalition effort. We're not the only ones involved in this fight. There's 66 other nations in the coalition and there's plenty – there is legal authority to do this.
Yes, go ahead. North Korea.
QUESTION: Yeah. North Korea launched two – tested two midrange missiles today.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: It looks as if the UN Security Council is going to be meeting later. What is the purpose of the --
MR KIRBY: We've seen – certainly seen the reports; no reason to doubt them at this point, and again, another example of their flagrant violations of international obligations and putting the peninsula in a more unstable condition. We once again call on these actions to cease, and as I think I indicated in a response to this earlier, we have every intention of having this discussion in the UN, and to look for ways to continue international solidarity to hold the North to account for these kinds of provocative actions.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: I can't predict now where that discussion's going to go or what this means in terms of additional sanctions or measures. I don't think we're at that point in the conversation.
QUESTION: Deputy Secretary Blinken just said – I think it was yesterday; I'm not sure if he repeated it today – but he basically said that sanctions were not working and the day is approaching where – because North Korea's missile and nuclear program continues unabated, that the day will – as a result, the day is approaching where North Korea will have the capability to launch a nuclear-tipped missile either against the United States or one of its allies. So, I mean, if sanctions aren't working, what are your other options, either to get them to the table to negotiate something to curb their nuclear ambitions or, if you can't do that, to do something to prevent a nuclear attack from happening?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we're focused right now on implementing the new set of sanctions, which are tougher --
QUESTION: But he just said they're not working, though.
MR KIRBY: He was referring to sanctions over a long period of time obviously have not dissuaded the regime's desire to continue to pursue dangerous nuclear capabilities. We've just got a new set implemented and we obviously are going to focus on continuing to enforce them. They are stronger than ever before. So sometimes sanctions take a little time to have an effect.
QUESTION: Take a long time.
MR KIRBY: Sometimes they can take a long time, that's right. But that doesn't mean that after just enacting them you throw them out the window because you get another test.
QUESTION: I didn't say throw them out the window, but like, what are --
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: -- it seems as if maybe the sanctions will work over the long term, but the warnings by both the Chinese president, the deputy secretary of state, military commanders that have spoken over the last several months – I mean, the situation does seem to be getting more grave as the weeks go on.
MR KIRBY: Look, we're certainly – we take the threats that he poses seriously, and we're going to continue to work with the international community, we're going to continue to consult with the UN about the best ways forward here. I don't have specific measures or alternatives to proffer here today for you, nor would I necessarily think wise to do so from the podium. But I can tell you that we're going to continue to work with the international community to try to find ways to hold them to account for obviously what appears to be recalcitrance at best in changing their direction.
QUESTION: They don't seem – I understand, but they don't seem – obviously the sanctions are tougher than they've ever been.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So – but they don't seem --
MR KIRBY: Well, let's see how they do.
QUESTION: It definitely doesn't seem that they're deterred. It seems as if, in fact, since the sanctions have been implemented, they're increasing their --
MR KIRBY: So we need to let the sanctions regime continue to play out, but we also need to continue to explore ways to hold them to account, and we're going to do that. I just don't have any specific decisions or alternatives to speak to today.
QUESTION: Follow-up on that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: So President Xi Jinping in China said that, "As a close neighbor of the peninsula, we will absolutely not permit war or chaos on the peninsula," referring to the Korean peninsula, obviously. Do you have a specific comment on that, a response to --
MR KIRBY: We don't want to see war on the peninsula either.
QUESTION: And so do you see this as a sign that China is going to be taking stronger measures against North Korea?
MR KIRBY: We certainly hope that China will use its significant influence and its leadership in the region to help the international community hold the North to account and to work with the international community to that end. That's what we've said all along.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Stay in China?
QUESTION: Stay on DPRK, real quick?
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Couple questions. Has the Secretary talked with his counterparts in the region yet, or does he plan to?
MR KIRBY: About this --
QUESTION: About this test.
MR KIRBY: I don't have any phone calls or conversations to read out.
QUESTION: And just a second question: How does State view how well China's been enforcing the sanctions?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, they're new, and they've just recently been implemented. China signed up to it, and they've been clear that because they share a border and because there has been historic commerce between China and the North, that these sanctions would be felt in China. And yet they still signed up and agreed to do it. Our expectation is that they're going to enforce the sanctions just like we want everybody else to. I've seen no indications that they aren't, in fact, enforcing them.
QUESTION: One more on China.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the passage of a new Chinese law that targets foreign NGOs?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I think this is another one where I think you can expect to hear from us a little bit later this afternoon with a more detailed reaction to it, but obviously it's very concerning to us, because we believe that the work of civil society in China benefits not just the world and the global community but China itself. So we have concerns about this law, and again, I think we'll have a more detailed reaction here later this afternoon.
QUESTION: Just one more. Now that the law has passed, is it still going to be an issue in the U.S.-China dialogues following?
MR KIRBY: This law, because it's not a new development, that has been an issue in the dialogue between the United States and China. And the issue of the role of civil society and human rights in general is always a topic of discussion in our bilateral relationship. As I said, we've got concerns about this law. You'll hear from us later this afternoon with a more detailed reaction.
Do I think it's going to tear asunder the relationship and rip everything apart? No. This is the most – one of the most consequential relationships we have in the world, and we're not always going to agree with China on everything. And when we don't, we'll say so. And we have. But it doesn't mean that you let that one thing rip it all down. It's an important relationship that we want to continue to work on and continue to improve. There are lots of other areas where we do cooperate with China, and those are important too.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that topic? Will you be issuing any kind of new or revised guidance to organizations operating in China as a result of this law?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any new guidelines. If – certainly if we do that as a result of the law, we'll keep you posted on that. Again, it just passed, so as I said, you'll hear I think more from us a little later today.
QUESTION: Well, it just passed, but there's been drafts circulating for the last year.
MR KIRBY: I understand. I understand. But drafts don't necessarily mean final product, so let us absorb it, and if we have changes or things to announce as a result of it, we'll certainly – it would be irresponsible for us not to make that public.
QUESTION: May I change the topic to the Okinotori in the West Pacific Ocean?
MR KIRBY: The what?
QUESTION: The Okinotori in West Pacific Ocean.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. The tension between Japan and Taiwan seems escalating regarding the dispute in the Okonotori in the West Pacific Ocean. Are you aware of that?
MR KIRBY: I'm going to have to take that question. I wasn't – I just don't have enough – I'm not steeped enough in that issue, so you're going to have to let me take that question.
Yeah. Tejinder.
QUESTION: India. The Indian Foreign Secretary Jaishankar is here. He met yesterday the – Susan Rice, and do you have anything, update on – from this building?
MR KIRBY: Well, I believe he already did meet with the national security advisor. I'd point you to the White House for a readout of that. He is expected --
QUESTION: We had a readout of that.
MR KIRBY: Hmm?
QUESTION: Anything from this building?
MR KIRBY: He is going to meet with Deputy Secretary Blinken today. As far as I know, that meeting hasn't happened yet.
QUESTION: And from that readout, what we understood it was all very generic. Was there a visit of Prime Minister Modi, fourth visit of Prime Minister Modi in two years, came up, or is there – are there plans?
MR KIRBY: Again, you'd have to talk to the White House to read out that meeting. I won't speak to that. The meeting with the deputy hasn't happened yet, so I can't speak to that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And as for Prime Minister Modi's travel, as I've said repeatedly, I make it a point of not speaking to the foreign travel habits or plans of foreign leaders.
QUESTION: Yeah. I have a question on – which you might be able to. One is --
MR KIRBY: No, don't be so surprised. I --
QUESTION: One is that for last three visits, was he given one visa or every visit he gets a separate visa? That you can answer, State Department. And for the fourth visit, has he applied for a visa?
MR KIRBY: Visa records are confidential. We've said – (laughter).
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Multiple-entry.
QUESTION: Okay. And what is not confidential – who else is other head of state of any other country who has come to the U.S. more than thrice or twice, thrice, four times, in two years after being denied a visa for 10 years?
MR KIRBY: I think --
QUESTION: That's not confidential.
MR KIRBY: I mean, you might want to try Google, but --
QUESTION: I tried. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Look, I don't know. We'll see. I don't know if we have that kind of data, but if we do, we'll see what we can get and get back to you. I'm going to have to go here in just a couple minutes.
QUESTION: On Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Really? Surprising. Turkey, out of you. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: John, I know you had a statement about the Iranian journalist in the beginning. I don't know if you had a statement for Turkish journalist who sentenced to two years jail for publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons. This was – just happened today.
MR KIRBY: Let me see. I think I might have something on that. While I'm looking for that --
QUESTION: I've got a whole bunch of little ones.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Well, then let's wait.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Turkey.
MR KIRBY: A follow-up? I haven't even answered the first one on Turkey. (Laughter.) What are you following up on? Holy cow. (Laughter.) Following up on me saying I'm going to look. All right.
So we continue to defend freedom of speech, as you know, and freedom of expression in Turkey and around the world. We also understand and respect that some have strong feelings about depictions of religious figures. We've said that before too. As Turkey's friend and NATO ally, we urge the Turkish Government to ensure that official bodies, law enforcement and judicial authorities, are not used to undermine the Turkish democracy.
Media organizations should have the freedom to use their independent professional judgment when determining what they publish. These are complicated issues – of course we know that – but ultimately ones that journalists have the right to make themselves. And frankly, that's what we're doing here every week is kind of reminding all – not that you need reminding, but reminding everybody else in the world that we stand by that principle.
QUESTION: I wonder if you still think that the Turkish democracy – if you still think the Turkish democracy is vibrant as you --
MR KIRBY: We still think that it is fully capable of living up to its own constitution and to the aspirations of the Turkish people, and we want to see it succeed. We want to see Turkey succeed. And the reason why we worry about freedom of expression issues and press freedom there is because we don't believe that's the best path to success is to repress the freedom of journalists to do their jobs.
QUESTION: Are you finding new ways to convince Turkish Government to change this course since it seems like it is failing very badly?
MR KIRBY: We continue to raise this at every juncture, as appropriate. And as I've said in the past, this is a worrisome trend that we see there, which is all the more reason why we continue to speak out.
I've really got to go. I'm going to --
QUESTION: One follow-on.
QUESTION: One more on Turkey please.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: On Monday, the chairman on the parliament told that secularity mustn't be a part of the new constitution. Are you concerned about that? I mean, after that, there were a lot of protests all over Turkey and the police attacked the protesters very harshly. I'm wondering if you have comments.
MR KIRBY: Is this about – is this – is this about lifting the immunity of parliament?
QUESTION: The speaker of parliament said secularism should not be part of the constitution.
QUESTION: Yeah, part of the new constitution, because you know now Turkey is talking about changing the constitution. I mean, AKP, the ruling party, is talking about that.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those particular comments so I'm going to refrain from a reaction on those particular comments. Again, we want to see Turkey live up to the constitution that it has, which enshrines many of these principles.
QUESTION: Do you think secularism should be in constitution?
MR KIRBY: Do I think what?
QUESTION: Secularism should be in Turkish constitution?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to respond to that comment since I haven't seen it, and I'm just not going to be able to say much more than that today.
QUESTION: All right, I've got about four subjects, but they'll all be very brief. One, on Iran, is it the Administration's view that if this $8.6 million purchase of heavy water does not – of Iranian heavy water does not go through per Senator Cotton's amendment, that the Iran deal will collapse? Is it that important to spend $8.6 million for this heavy water?
MR KIRBY: Well, remember, the – the short answer is no, Matt. I mean, it's not --
QUESTION: Okay. So --
MR KIRBY: The deal won't --
QUESTION: So someone else could buy it just as easily, correct?
MR KIRBY: Look, what matters is that they meet their obligations, and the sale of heavy water will help them do that. It also, we believe in this case, helps us accomplish some research and scientific goals.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you could buy it from elsewhere and they could sell it elsewhere; is that not correct?
MR KIRBY: I'm not an expert on heavy water procurement.
QUESTION: All right. Secondly, on --
MR KIRBY: But is it going to rip the JCPOA up if it doesn't happen?
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: Of course not, but that doesn't mean we still don't want the sale to go through.
QUESTION: All right. On the S-300s, a while ago you said there was a review going on to see if that transfer destabilized – was destabilizing and thus sanctionable under U.S. law.
MR KIRBY: I don't have anything. I think we still believe it's worthy of reviewing for the potential use of U.S. sanctions.
QUESTION: So there's no decision.
MR KIRBY: But no decisions. We still oppose the sale.
QUESTION: All right. Israel: The Israeli Government today came out and said it has rejected the French proposal for a broad peace conference, but also, more specifically, for a foreign ministers meeting to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian peace process on May 30th. What does the Administration think about that?
MR KIRBY: About --
QUESTION: The French idea.
MR KIRBY: -- the prime minister's rejection of it or about the French proposal?
QUESTION: No, about the idea in the --
MR KIRBY: Well, the same as what we've said before. I mean, we want – we're reviewing the French proposal. We're certainly interested in talking to all our partners about ways in which we can try to get to a two-state solution. But I know of no judgment rendered about this so-called French proposal.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don't have any comment on the Israeli decision?
MR KIRBY: That's for them to speak to.
QUESTION: All right. And then May 30th, does the Secretary not have other plans on May 30th?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) I don't have anything on the calendar for May 30th to speak to one way or the other right now.
QUESTION: It's Memorial Day. It's a national holiday here. Would the Secretary be willing to spend his Memorial Day in Paris for – at a peace – at (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: I don't have travel – I don't have travel for the Secretary to read out, but he --
QUESTION: I know. It would seem to rule that date out though, no?
MR KIRBY: Well, he obviously, like all veterans, takes Memorial Day very, very seriously. I just don't have anything on his schedule to read out.
QUESTION: Okay. I got two more. Ambassador Lute last week made some comments in London that have gotten some prospective NATO applicants a little worked up. He said that the situation in Russia and with Russia precluded more NATO expansion at the time, which some thought to as – some took to suggest that Russia essentially has a veto over new NATO membership. Do you have anything you can say about that?
MR KIRBY: I would just say that the United States remains committed to NATO's open door policy, and we continue to support Georgia's aspirations for integration into the Euro-Atlantic institutions, including NATO.
QUESTION: Okay. And last one on the UK. I'm just wondering if this whole situation involved – that's (inaudible) with the Labor Party now has raised any – or has gotten anyone's attention here with the suspension of two members for anti-Israel or anti-Semitic comments. Has that hit your radar at all?
MR KIRBY: Let me take that one. I don't think I have anything on that.
Thanks, guys. I really got to go. Sorry.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:01 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
