Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 2, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/RUSSIA
SYRIA
IRAQ
EGYPT
BANGLADESH
PORTUGAL
INDIA/CHINA
PAKISTAN
TAIWAN/JAPAN
SAUDI ARABIA
EUROPEAN UNION
DEPARTMENT
PAKISTAN
TURKEY
TRANSCRIPT:
2:08 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: Just a couple of things at the top here. We finish our Free the Press Campaign today, and for that campaign, in honor of World Press Freedom Day, which is, as you know, tomorrow, we're going to highlight today a man named Sergei Reznik, a journalist and blogger from the city of Rostov-on-Don who was – who has been, I'm sorry, imprisoned since November of 2013.
Before his imprisonment, Reznik's writing routinely criticized municipal and regional authorities in Russia and uncovered local corruption and abuses. The series of unrelated charges pursued against him include insulting a public official, bribery, and deliberately misleading authorities. A month before his conviction, Reznik was also physically attacked, when two unidentified men beat him with baseball bats and shot at him. Although he was not hit by bullets, Mr. Reznik suffered head and neck injuries from the beating.
While he sits in jail, authorities have made no progress in investigating the attack against him, consistent with a broader pattern of impunity in Russia for those who attack journalists. So again, we call on the Russian Government to release Sergei Reznik immediately.
I also want to note that, as you know, the Secretary is returning this evening from a couple of days in Geneva, where obviously high on his agenda of topics to discuss with foreign leaders was the situation in Syria and the continued fragile cessation of hostilities there. He also spoke today with Foreign Minister Lavrov by phone. Both ministers again talked predominately about the cessation, acknowledging that it is in fact fragile, and talking about ways in which it can be restored throughout the country, quite frankly. And they did talk about the potential for another ISSG meeting sometime in the near future. I don't have any specifics to read out in terms of dates, locations, but they did talk about the possibility of another ISSG meeting. They also spoke about Nagorno-Karabakh and the conflict there and the need to continue to try to restore a better sense of calm between the sides.
With that.
QUESTION: Thank you, John.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Since you mentioned Syria, before leaving Geneva, Secretary Kerry and Special Envoy de Mistura gave a press conference, and Secretary Kerry said that the situation is out of control in Syria, and he said also that they are working on new mechanism to control the ceasefire. So how – what are your expectations to restore the ceasefire, and what are these new mechanisms they were talking about?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the Secretary was asked specifically about that and said that he wasn't going to get ahead of the discussions since not all the mechanisms and modalities have been worked out. So I am surely in no position to go into more detail about it today. But they did talk about some ideas of how, in certain areas in Syria, it can be restored and in other areas bolstered and made more secure than it is now. I would note that over the weekend, we did see in areas around Latakia and in areas around Damascus, we did see a restoration of the cessation of hostilities. We have always been focused on areas like Aleppo and that was certainly a topic of the discussions that the Secretary had in Geneva, and with Foreign Minister Lavrov today.
So Aleppo is obviously the starkest example of where the cessation is most at risk and continues to be violated by the regime, but there are other areas in the country too that we're concerned about.
The other thing – and I didn't mention this in my readout, and I apologize for that – but they did talk also about humanitarian assistance and the need to continue a sustained, unimpeded avenue of delivery of humanitarian assistance to so many areas in need. Now, I know that – I think the ICRC reported today that they were able to get to some areas, but there are so many others where the needs are desperate, and this is another area where we really do need Russia to use its influence on the Assad regime to allow that access.
QUESTION: And are you sure that Aleppo will be included in the new ceasefire, cessation of hostility agreement you are looking for? And do you trust Russia to put pressure on the regime to make this agreement possible?
MR KIRBY: The short answer to your – both questions is yes. That said, I do want to make it clear that Aleppo was never not on the table. Aleppo was never not part of the cessation. Remember, the cessation of hostilities when agreed to was nationwide and that's what – and when we say "nationwide," we mean nationwide. Now, we knew that there were going to be violations even on day one, but we've been up here talking about the situation in Aleppo now for some – a matter of weeks. It's obviously of deep concern. And so, obviously, we're going to stay focused on that. I don't want to convey by saying, "Yes, it's going to be a part of the new – of new efforts" – it would intrinsically be anyway simply because it is such an important part of Syria and because we have seen so many violations of late.
But to – and I'm not saying your question is doing this, but I want to take the opportunity: to argue that it was never part of renewed efforts is not accurate. It's always been – particularly in the last couple of weeks, it's always been a topic of discussion and concern and emphasis for the Secretary.
QUESTION: John, the UN Security Council on Syria has set a timetable for the political process which is two years. Do you think that this timetable is still respected?
MR KIRBY: Look, the timetable that we're operating off of is the one that has been codified in the UN Security Council resolution, which itself codified the Geneva process. That is still the timeline. That is still the goal and the objective of the political process.
QUESTION: But this resolution talked about six months to establish a transitional body in Syria. Now four months has – have gone and there is nothing yet.
MR KIRBY: There's not nothing. I mean, it is correct --
QUESTION: But the talks in Geneva didn't --
MR KIRBY: It is correct that the talks have struggled and nobody's arguing anything other than that. But to say there's been nothing, I think, doesn't exactly accurately characterize the amount of --
QUESTION: On a political --
MR KIRBY: -- effort and progress that has been made. Now, I understand – do we have a transitional process fully baked now and in place or a transitional body that's been designated? No. But we do have – we've had now three rounds of talks on the political front. Much more work needs to be done – we fully agree – but we do have at least a common set of principles that both the regime and the opposition have agreed to. As I said at the top, I think you can expect the ISSG to gather again soon to help work out what the next best steps are on the political process. But again, nobody's arguing that the political process hasn't struggled, and we're certainly not indicating that we're satisfied that things are exactly on track. We understand that they're not but there has been discussion. And after five years of brutal violence and just vicious atrocities perpetrated on the Syrian people by the Assad regime, nobody expected that the political process was going to be easy or linear.
So I recognize that there's a timetable. We all recognize that. And timetables are a good thing because they can be forcing functions. And maybe you don't meet every single wicket, but the work towards that is important and the Secretary fully supports this – the timeframe that was set out. You saw when he – when we were in Moscow he and Foreign Minister Lavrov, in fact coming out of their meeting with President Putin, said that by August we hope to have some sort of political framework in place, and that is still very much the goal.
QUESTION: Do you expect this body to be created by August? Do you --
MR KIRBY: I can't be perfectly predictive, Michel. What I can tell you is the Secretary fully expects that the ISSG will continue to work very hard to meet the goals set out in the UN Security Council resolution which itself codified the Geneva process around which the ISSG was formed and operates. We're 100 percent committed to that.
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: Do you – same subject.
MR KIRBY: Abby.
QUESTION: I believe Secretary Kerry was the one who mentioned that there would be an increase in staff on both the U.S. and Russian side on the ground in Geneva. Do you have any more details on that and what the numbers are now or how that would increase?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional details. Again, we're still working through the specifics on this, but it would stand to reason – I mean, look, we've been – the task force has been monitoring the cessation of hostilities since the beginning, and as it has proven increasingly fragile and more and more at risk, it would simply make sense and I think logically follows that we would, that the Secretary would want to look for ways to enhance that effort and to make it more effective, including making the cessation more effective. So I don't have additional details, and when we do and we can speak to them, we will. But I would simply point back to what the Secretary said, which is that we are looking at ways to increase the resourcing and the physical effort of monitoring the cessation.
QUESTION: One of the ideas that's been discussed in reports is the idea of creating safe zones within the area of Aleppo. Is that something that's on the table or being discussed at the moment?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I mean, I've seen reporting on that. Again, I'm going to refrain from getting ahead of the specifics here. Some of these modalities that the Secretary talked about with Foreign Minister Lavrov and, frankly, with Special Envoy de Mistura are still being fleshed out, and I think it's just a little too soon to get into the specific details of them. What we would obviously like to see is that the whole nation of Syria be a safe zone where people are not being gassed and barrel bombed by the regime. What we would like to see is the cessation of hostilities be enacted and be fully observed by all parties all throughout the country. That's what we're really after here. The specifics of how we're going to try to help restore it where it has fallen down, again, we're still working through.
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: Syria?
MR KIRBY: Are we on Syria? I want to stay on Syria right now. Syria?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: John, do you have anything on the hospital bombings by the Assad regime?
MR KIRBY: The hospital from last week?
QUESTION: Right, weekend. And I think one more hospital was bombed yesterday, right, or Saturday.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don't have anything additional. I mean, obviously we've seen these reports. I think you saw the Secretary speak to this in Geneva before he left to come home. I mean, those kind of attacks are unconscionable. They need to stop. And it is in keeping with what we've seen as a pattern out of the regime to target innocent people, and now going after people who are trying to help innocent people and first responders. And that's just absolutely reprehensible.
I don't have additional details. I've seen press reports now of more such attacks, but I'm not in a position to confirm or deny them.
QUESTION: And you said the cessation of hostilities is most at risk in Aleppo, and in last 10 days hundreds of civilians are killed in Aleppo by the Assad regime. And does your suggestion imply that the cessation of hostilities is holding in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: No, I think we've been very honest that there have been many violations in and around Aleppo. We've been nothing but candid about that, and Aleppo remains of deep concern. It has – as I mentioned in my answer to Nick, it has always been a part of the discussion, particularly in the last couple of weeks. It remains a very dangerous area. We understand that.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Do you have --
QUESTION: On the task force, please, John, do you have any details how does this work? Who's represented in this task force?
MR KIRBY: The task force is co-chaired by the United States and by Russia, and they meet constantly to talk about reported violations of the cessation of hostilities, to compare data and analyze the information, and then to work hard to try to get the parties who are – who we believe are culpable to stop those violations and to heed the cessation of hostilities. And without going into great detail, I can tell you that there have been occasions throughout the work of the task force where actual potential cessation violations have been prevented or stopped. So there has been – it has helped at least increase a sense of situational awareness.
What the Secretary talked about today was what can we do bilaterally with Russia specifically as a co-chair – what can we do bilaterally to help boost this effort and to make it even better going forward – because we all recognize that the cessation has not been observed in every area of Syria, that there have been significant violations, that Aleppo is still very much under threat. And we – the whole reason he went to Geneva was to be able to have meetings directly and specifically on this because it is such a serious matter.
QUESTION: That means that Russian, Americans, and UN personnel only work on this task force and – or all the ISSG members --
MR KIRBY: I don't have a list of every person that sits on the task force. It's co-chaired by the United States and Russia. As I understand it, there are participants by the UN and other members of the ISSG involved, but I don't have the manning list of exactly who's there. But it is co-chaired by the U.S. and by Russia.
QUESTION: John, just a clarification: Reaching an agreement, a fresh agreement on the cessation of hostilities – is it a condition for organizing the ISSG meeting in the near future?
MR KIRBY: I think there's no question that any future meeting of the ISSG is going to discuss the cessation of hostilities and where we're at, and hey, look, it's going to depend on when and where this meeting happens in terms of what's to be discussed about the cessation. Hopefully we don't have to wait for another gathering of the ISSG to make progress on the cessation of hostilities, but will it be a part of the discussion? I can't imagine that – any other scenario, I mean, that it certainly would be. It would be everybody's hope, the Secretary first and foremost, that we can get the cessation into a better position now, immediately, such that any discussion by the ISSG in coming days or weeks is looking back at a much more successful story than what we've seen in just the last week or so.
So again, I don't have anything specific to announce in terms of a place or a date. I just think that, as I said in my readout of the call, they certainly talked about the potential and the potential good that can come from another gathering of the ISSG.
Are we still on Syria? No?
QUESTION: No, Iraq.
MR KIRBY: Okay, we're going to go to – he's on Iraq, and then to you, okay? Go ahead.
QUESTION: So do you have anything to say about the recent protests in Iraq? They broke – they stormed the parliament building and there was some violence reported inside the parliament building as well.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, so let me go through this because there's a lot, obviously, that went on in Iraq. I want to state right up front that we continue to strongly support Iraq and the Iraqi people in their fight against Daesh. Attacks over the weekend on Shia religious pilgrims, for instance, in Baghdad, in Samawa, underscore that Daesh remains a very determined enemy intent on using violence to stoke sectarian tensions, even as Iraqi Security Forces continue to make progress defeating them on the battlefield.
Importantly, the events in Baghdad over the weekend have not impacted our own counter-Daesh operations. The U.S. and our coalition partners conducted another 59 airstrikes and six artillery strikes against Daesh targets in northern Iraq and Anbar province just over this weekend, and we continue to support Iraq Security Forces in our train, advise, and assist mission there.
I would say also that we welcome the ongoing efforts of the Iraqi Government and political leaders to come together to quickly restore security in Baghdad so that Iraq can move forward on critical priorities which include the urgent need for sustained progress in the fight, obviously, also further efforts to mobilize international economic support for Iraq both as it seeks to stabilize Anbar and other territory liberated from Daesh and to control and promote economic reforms there.
These are long-term challenges for Iraq. We've talked about that before. And they must be worked, as we've said before, within the context of the Iraqi political system and in accordance with the Iraqi constitution. So we're going to – we join with the UN and the EU in urging all sides to exercise restraint and to work within the political process to advance the interests and the aspirations of all Iraqi people. And as we've said before and as Secretary Kerry said when we were in Baghdad not long ago, we continue to strongly support Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi people as they work to advance these very objectives in line with our longstanding commitment to the strategic partnership between our two countries.
QUESTION: On the protest itself, do you see it as a genuine reform movement? Because a lot of people, especially among the Kurds and the Sunnis, they see it as a demonstration driven by Muqtada al-Sadr personally himself and nobody else, probably by Haider Abadi as well, to push through a specific political agenda which is not inclusive, which doesn't include the Kurds necessarily or the Sunnis.
MR KIRBY: I'm going to refrain from trying to characterize the nature of this. I mean, again, we watched this very closely over the weekend, and I think I'll let my statement speak for itself in terms of where we are as a government with respect to those protests.
QUESTION: And especially just – sorry, just I want to stay on this for one more question.
MR KIRBY: I'm surprised. Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So because if you saw what happened inside the parliament, there was some degree of violence. All the violence was directed at Kurdish and Sunni politicians. The deputy speaker of the parliament, who was Kurdish, was assaulted by the protesters. The Shia parliamentarians who are especially allies with al-Sadr, they were cheering with the protesters. So don't you see that message making sense that --
MR KIRBY: Look, again, I think I'm going to leave my statement – I'm going to leave things where I stated it before in the answer to your first question. Obviously, we don't want to see protests turn violent against anybody. And you've heard me say many times up here that we support the right of peaceful protest and freedom of expression around the world. Nobody wants to see anything turn violent regardless of who the victims are. But again, I think it's important to pull back a little bit and remember that what's – what the long-term answer in Iraq is is good governance. We've said that many, many times. That's the way to sustain a defeat of Daesh. They are being defeated on the battlefield. They will continue to be defeated on the battlefield. But when you – but to sustain that defeat, you've got to have good governance. And Prime Minister Abadi is working hard on political reforms to do just that. And we're going to continue to support him in that efforts. And obviously, violence against anybody in Iraq as a result of protest activity is something that we're concerned about.
QUESTION: How do you respond to criticisms by some analysts that the Administration is focused too much on the battle against ISIS and not enough on diplomatic efforts, specifically helping Abadi shore up this broken and corrupt government?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those criticisms, but let's just assume that I have. I think we would obviously reject that, that argument. We have obviously been a major contributor militarily to the fight against Daesh, but we have very much been working closely – and our ambassador, Stu Jones, in Baghdad in particular, working very, very closely with the Abadi government as they – and it's important that it has to be "they" – they continue to work these political reforms and to try to get at a government that is more inclusive and more focused on good governance and good policy rather than sectarian differences. And Prime Minister Abadi is to be commended for his efforts to do just that.
Nobody – and look, the Vice President was there recently, Secretary Kerry was there recently. I don't think that anybody can reasonably look at the level of engagement, both in terms of frequency and how high up it goes in our government – to look at that and to argue that we've turned a blind eye to supporting Prime Minister Abadi. But we also need to remember that this is a sovereign country. Sometimes when we talk about Iraq, a lot of us, we get drawn into talking about it through the prism of 2003, 2004 when the United States was much more heavily engaged militarily and had invaded the country and, obviously, toppled the government there. This is a sovereign government, Iraq is a sovereign country, and Prime Minister Abadi is the head of that government. And these are decisions that he has to make, that he has to pursue, and that he has to advocate more strongly and more vociferously than anybody, and he is. He is working through that. Obviously, we're supporting them in that effort, and again, our ambassador is engaged on a daily basis.
QUESTION: I mean, if the U.S. effort against ISIS depends on a reliable partner in Iraq, it's a huge problem for the United States, even if Iraq is a sovereign country.
MR KIRBY: Is the tenor of your question suggesting that he's not a reliable partner? Because I think that's kind of the way I thought it went, and if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, correct me. But if that is the tenor of the question, that he is somehow an unreliable partner, we would obviously reject that implication as well. There are political struggles in Iraq, there's no question about that, and there are tensions. That's the way democracy works. And look, I mean, even here in the United States there's political tensions, right? There's not universality of opinion on everything that the United States Government itself is doing. So we shouldn't expect that there would be unanimity of opinion and purpose there either. These are difficult times for Iraq economically, certainly from a security perspective, and obviously there are political challenges. But Prime Minister Abadi is working very hard to surmount those difficulties. And it's not just the political challenges he's facing. He has – as we've talked about, he has challenges in other sectors. He's working very hard to do that; we're going to continue to support him in that.
If you're asking, do we find him to be a reliable partner, the short answer is yes. And because we believe he's a reliable partner, we're going to continue to support the work that he's doing. And it's work that he's doing inside the context of the Iraqi constitution and inside the political process in that country. Okay?
Yeah, Abbie.
QUESTION: One more on that. Being that you're saying you support – continue to support Abadi and his ability to create a new cabinet that is inclusive of all these different groups, do you dispute the reports, then, that there was an agreement between him and others that allowed this – or – and the security forces actually let the protesters into the parliament?
MR KIRBY: I would let the prime minister and his office speak to those kinds of tactical-level issues. I don't have information one way or the other to corroborate that.
Yeah.
QUESTION: New York Times called Abadi a weak prime minister, and do you think all these change he's actually claiming for would be possible to gain in Iraq of today?
MR KIRBY: Say the last part again.
QUESTION: The New York Times article calls --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, no, I got that part. The last part.
QUESTION: Do you think those changes that Abadi is actually hoping to accomplish in Iraq – is it even possible given the facts, what happened during the weekend in Iraqi parliament?
MR KIRBY: Yes, we do. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy. As I said at the outset, we continue to support Prime Minister Abadi and his efforts at political reforms, and we believe that he's – that these reforms are headed in the right direction, that they are good for the country, and that's why we're going to continue to support him in his efforts.
QUESTION: But --
MR KIRBY: But what?
QUESTION: -- from a journalist perspective, I don't think it would be even possible that – because nobody is actually supporting them for a few around him. Even including the Kurds, they don't want to go back to Baghdad. That's what some reports say, and --
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: -- some people even ask – raise the question of his survival in the cabinet himself, Abadi. What do you think about that?
MR KIRBY: Those – look, now you're getting into internal politics inside Iraq, and I'm simply not going to get into a discussion of that. Again, nobody thought here that the kinds of reforms he's trying to seek were going to be easy. Nobody just cast off the notion that there would be contrary views. That's the way democracy works. But he is trying to enact political reforms that are in keeping with Iraq's constitution, and that's not unimportant that he's working inside the system to try to enact these reforms. And as I said at the outset, we're going to continue to support him.
Now, you're saying some people don't think it's possible, some journalists think it's impossible – they're entitled to that opinion. Again, that's what democracy is all about. But the important thing to remember is that he recognizes reform is necessary, that he recognizes a more inclusive government that is more representative of all Iraqis is the best path forward to securing the country against an enemy like Daesh. And let's not forget what the real enemy here of the Iraqi people is – it's Daesh. It's not any other party, it's Daesh, and that he recognizes he needs these political reforms to better create a government that can defeat a group like that, and just as importantly – more importantly, in fact – sustain a defeat against a group like Daesh.
QUESTION: John, one security question: When the protesters went into the Green Zone, were there any concerns here that given the fact Muqtada al-Sadr has been a self-described anti-American figure, there was some concern that the protesters might switch to attack the embassy? Did you increase security around the embassy?
MR KIRBY: I never talk about security specifics around our posts. I'm not going to start now. I mean, obviously the safety and security of our posts and our personnel remain a high priority for the Secretary. It's something we're always looking at and always monitoring, but I won't talk about the specifics here. There was no – over the weekend there was no specific danger posed to our post, but that doesn't mean that we aren't watching these things with an eye towards security. We always do.
QUESTION: John, Egypt? Do you have any comment on the arrest of two journalists from the security forces? And there is a sit-in now organized by the syndicate.
MR KIRBY: I – so I'm aware of reports concerning the arrest of two journalists at the journalists syndicate on Sunday by the Egyptian police. As before, we continue to urge Egypt's leadership to uphold the people's basic rights to freedom of expression, which we believe, again, is the basis of a democratic society.
QUESTION: Have you discussed this issue with the Egyptian authorities? Anyone from this building called?
MR KIRBY: What I would tell you is we continue to have very frank discussions with the Government of Egypt over these very issues. That hasn't stopped and I don't anticipate it stopping going forward. I don't have any specific diplomatic conversations to read out to you, but it doesn't mean that we don't routinely have discussions about our concerns there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Bangladesh. Last – on Friday afternoon, there was a readout that said the Secretary urged Bangladeshi Prime Minister Hasina to ensure, quote, "thorough investigation of all these incidents," the hackings of the LGBT advocates and other folks, and to, quote, "redouble law enforcement efforts to prevent future attacks and protect those who are at risk." This comes just before another report of another hacking over the weekend. Are you confident the Bangladeshi Government is doing enough to protect those folks, LGBT advocates and others who are facing these sorts of attacks in the country?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would say that our focus remains on urging the Government of Bangladesh to provide a more secure environment for all of its citizens, one that nurtures the spirit of the people of Bangladesh and the pride with which they guard their own traditions of tolerance, peace, and diversity. And you're right; we have raised our concerns over recent problems there. We're going to continue to do that, and I don't have more specific initiatives to lay before you, but I can tell you we're watching this very closely and we are in touch.
Abbie.
QUESTION: Portugal.
MR KIRBY: Portugal.
QUESTION: Well, sort of. Can I – (laughter).
MR KIRBY: "Portugal," "Well, sort of."
QUESTION: Yeah. Can I ask you about the case of ex-CIA officer Sabrina de Sousa, who may be extradited from Portugal to Italy this week? She's claiming that she asked the U.S. to invoke diplomatic immunity and they refused despite her holding a job at the time at the Milan consulate.
MR KIRBY: Well, as a general matter, you know we don't talk about extradition cases. I don't have anything specific on this for you for right now. Sorry.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: On India. There's a news report about India and U.S. planning to track submarine activities in the Indian Ocean.
MR KIRBY: To – I'm sorry, to?
QUESTION: To track submarine activities in the Indian Ocean.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Are you planning to do that?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) I think you need to talk to our colleagues at the Defense Department.
QUESTION: No, but in policy – it also involves foreign policy, right? Also --
MR KIRBY: No, it involves submarine warfare. That's a Navy equity and I'm not going to speak for the United States Navy. I'll just say, look, again, we have a very close relationship with India which covers a lot of sectors. Security is one of them, and there is a very mature military-to-military relationship. But for the specifics of that, you really need to talk to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: But do you see any unusual Chinese submarine activities in the Indian Ocean that would disturb the economic activities of – free flow of navigations in that area?
MR KIRBY: You're right, there's a very robust economic relationship between the United States and India. But for specific impacts on that under the waves, I would refer you again to the Navy. I'm not qualified to speak to that.
QUESTION: My question was Indian Ocean has a very robust economic flow of economic trade through ships and marines in that part. Are you concerned that the more Chinese activity in that part of the world would affect that economic trade?
MR KIRBY: Again, you're --
QUESTION: It's a huge flow of economic trade in that part of the world.
MR KIRBY: No, I recognize that, and again, I think your questions are better placed to the Defense Department about Chinese naval activity in those or any other waters. I'm simply not prepared to speak with any great specificity to that. We value our trade relationship with India. We very much want to see it continue to grow and improve and mature. We also value our military-to-military relationship with India and we want to see that grow and mature and improve as well. But I don't have anything specific to say with respect to Chinese naval activity in and around the region. Our U.S. Navy – again, I'm not going to get into specifics, but obviously, the United States Navy takes very seriously its role and its commitment to protecting freedom of the seas so that commerce can flow safely, effectively, and efficiently around the world, and that's a very serious responsibility of our naval forces, and they're very capable of doing that.
As for the specifics in any given part of the world, you really should talk to them.
QUESTION: There's always very strong interagency dialogue in the various (inaudible) of the U.S. Government. Do you think this is being discussed? Has the Navy consulted the State Department on this issue to make sure that this – these – the free flow of maritime activities, economic activities --
MR KIRBY: There are healthy interagency discussions routinely about the value of free trade and freedom of navigation around the world. So if you're asking are we – at the State Department are we in touch with or in communication with the Defense Department about these issues writ large, the answer is obviously yes, routinely. Again, I'm just not going to be able to comment specifically about the nature of the question with respect to Chinese naval activity there. Our Navy exists for many purposes, but one of them is to help ensure freedom of navigation and freedom of the seas. And they do that job masterfully and very competently and the particulars of how they accomplish that mission is really for them to speak to.
QUESTION: I have another question on Pakistan F-16. A few months ago, Senator Bob Corker had written a letter to Secretary Kerry that he would put on hold U.S. government's decision to sell eight F-16 to Pakistan. Has Secretary responded to the letter?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't speak – I won't speak to the specifics of congressional correspondence.
QUESTION: I understand there's no change in your position about selling F-16 to Pakistan. But there's currently – there's a hold for last several months. How do you want to resolve this situation?
MR KIRBY: I would just say – point you back to what Ambassador Olson said in his April 27 testimony that effective engagement with Pakistan, we believe, is critical to promoting the consolidation of democratic institutions and economic stability, and supporting the government's counter-terrorism activities and capabilities. As a matter of longstanding principle, the Department of State opposes conditions to the release of appropriated foreign assistance funds. We believe that such conditions limit the President and the Secretary's ability to conduct foreign policy in the best interest of the United States. So while Congress has approved the sale, key members have made clear that they object to using FMF to support it. Given congressional objections, we have told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for that purpose.
QUESTION: But are you looking for other options? Are there alternatives to give F-16 to Pakistan?
MR KIRBY: I think I've answered the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: In the back there.
QUESTION: Yes. On Taiwan. There was a question last week about Okinotorishima and now Taiwan has dispatched two coastal patrol boats to challenge Japan's claim to the island which now President Ma of Taiwan is saying that they're rocks as opposed to islands. Do you have a comment on this dispute?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those reports, so I think you're just going to have to let me take that and get back to you. I just don't – you've got more information than I do right now on that particular case.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just one on Saudi Arabia. I wondered if you could respond to comments by the Saudi foreign minister after his meeting with Secretary Kerry saying that the proposed 9/11 law, if passed, would erode global investor confidence in the United States.
MR KIRBY: The proposed --
QUESTION: Could erode – would erode global investor confidence in the United States if the law is --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the comments but you have – you've heard what we said about this legislation, and I think I would just point you back to those comments.
Yeah.
QUESTION: TTIP. You have seen probably that Greenpeace has leaked most of the documents of the negotiations between the U.S. and the EU.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So I'd like to have your reaction to this leaking. I know that the Department of Commerce has done – or has reacted already. Do you think that it could undermine the negotiations? Do you still believe that a deal could be closed by the end of this Administration?
MR KIRBY: I won't speak to the specifics regarding leaks, though we just tend – we're just not going to change our position on refraining from speaking to the veracity of leaked documents. What I can say is that the United States and the European Union have a broad and deep economic partnership, the largest trade relationship in the world, and TTIP is an opportunity to fine-tune that relationship in a way that will unlock opportunities that will – and support jobs and fuel growth on both sides of the Atlantic. We also believe it's an opportunity to ensure that the United States and Europe remain jointly competitive in an increasingly competitive world and that we work together to shape change. Indeed, we believe TTIP can be a strategic pillar of the transatlantic community.
Now, obviously there's skepticism out there about TTP – TTIP, and we understand that. But the bottom line is globalization is a reality, and TTIP gives us the opportunity to shape global commerce in ways consistent with our values. So we very much still support it. And the bottom line to your question is yes, we still believe it's possible to get there, and we're going to work very hard to that end.
Goyal.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, freedom of the press --
MR KIRBY: I'm in favor of it.
QUESTION: John, thank you. Thank you, sir. Recently a report came last week by the Freedom House and other freedom press-loving agencies, including Newseum. But press people are at stake or they are in trouble many part of the world, doing their job.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And they are harassed, even killed and stopped, including in – its campaign, during campaign here.
MR KIRBY: You mean here? Like, here here?
QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.) During even in the U.S., during campaign and all that. So when Secretary meets all these world leaders or foreign ministers or prime ministers or even presidents, how does this issue come, sir, in those part of the world that free press will help the civil societies and the people in those countries?
MR KIRBY: That is exactly the message that the Secretary sends when he speaks to foreign leaders about freedom of expression issues and press freedom issues. That's exactly the message that he sends, that a free press makes a nation stronger, that it – rather than detracting from power and authority, it – through the transparency that a free press can provide, it enhances credibility in a government. So that is exactly the message that he sends routinely all around the world. And it's one that we firmly believe in here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Have you ever come up any – across any leaders or any counterparts that they want to learn from the U.S. as far as free press is concerned?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think – I think on a lot of issues, and press freedom is one of them, the United States does stand as an example. And yes, there are some other leaders in other countries who greatly admire how we have enshrined a free press into our system and how much we value that. Obviously, others feel differently. But we're going to continue to make the case and continue to talk to them about that.
QUESTION: Second issue I may – if I may. Mr. Fareed Zakaria of the CNN on GPS, he's working on "Why they hate us." He's talking about Muslims and people who are against the press or freedom or democracy and all that. If – any comments from the Secretary as far as why they hate us? I mean, it's – why they hate the West or the U.S.?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary has spoken to this quite a bit, Goyal. And I don't know that I could be any more eloquent than he's been in terms of how certain groups are – as he says, it's not a clash of civilizations; they're clashing with civilization itself, that in many ways they have an extraordinarily backward view of history and, frankly, of the future. And whether it's driven by fear or hate or an extreme, perverse view of religion, it nevertheless encourages people to self-identify themselves and then look for excuses to identify as a threat others who believe differently, who look differently, who live in different places. And that's what this struggle against violent extremism is really about. It's about this core idea of the way in which some groups are trying to escape modernity through these sorts of brutal tactics.
And ultimately, it – as he says, it will fail. Because you can't stop progress; you can't stop time. You can't stop modernity. And groups like this which attempt to do just that have nowhere to go. And we're already seeing that in a group like Daesh, where they're having trouble recruiting. They're certainly having trouble retaining territory and ground. But their ideology is under attack, and frankly – and it's under attack from the international community. But frankly, it's also under attack from disgruntled people who have now left the group, defectors. And we're seeing more and more of them. And now they're becoming more and more vocal, and they're out there telling their stories about what it was like and about the perversion and the brutality and how the promises made by Daesh leaders were, in fact, empty, hollow, and in fact, contrary to what was – to what were the original ideas that lured them into the group.
So they're going to continue to be put under pressure, and frankly, some of the pressure is self-created because of – because there's nothing behind this ideology, there's no foundation. And more and more people are seeing that.
QUESTION: And finally, Mr. Zakaria in his series or documentary is bringing or brought Mr. Imran Khan, who is now leading a major political party leader in Pakistan. And what they are saying is that what he said that Pakistan is the one of the countries really hate the most – hate the U.S. most. Why is that, even though after billions of dollars in aid to the Pakistanis for their development and also for – but still, that society or part of the society hates the U.S.?
MR KIRBY: I don't think that we certainly don't believe – I mean, I don't think – I know we don't believe that Pakistan hates the United States. Pakistan is a partner here in the effort to go after extremists there in the region. They themselves have said that they're not going to distinguish or discriminate between terrorist groups, and the Pakistani people themselves have fallen victim to this brutal, violent extremist ideology and the terror tactics behind it.
Nobody has ever alleged that we've agreed with Pakistan on every issue, but that we can have candid, frank discussions with Pakistani leaders about these topics speaks, I think, to the maturity of the relationship and to the recognition that it's an important relationship on both sides.
QUESTION: I think he must have been talking about certain groups inside Pakistan. That's what really hates the U.S.
MR KIRBY: Well, there's no question that extremist groups inside Pakistan hate the Pakistani Government, and you're seeing that play out. But they – yes, do they also hate Westerners? Do they also hate what the United States stands for – some of these extremist groups? Of course, they do, which is why the relationship between the United States and Pakistan is important, and it's why we need to continue to look for ways to work together to go after these groups where they are.
I've got time for just one more. Ma'am, you've had your hand up for a while. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkish Government is planning to lift the parliamentary immunity of the opposition deputies, including Kurdish ones, and there is a commission to talk about this – these cases, but the meeting of the commission is canceled for the third time because of the arguments even the fightings. Do you have something on that?
MR KIRBY: And what – where was this? I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question.
QUESTION: Turkish Government is planning to lift the immunities, the parliamentary immunities of the opposition deputies.
MR KIRBY: Okay, I'm sorry. I got you. Well, again, as a parliamentary democracy, Turkey has well-established democratic procedures in place that will determine who has immunity and what circumstances that it can be lifted and how it's going to be – how it's going to be lifted. And we would expect that Turkey will follow its own democratic procedures in that regard. As I understand it, the parliament has taken up this bill and it's an ongoing process, and I don't want to get out ahead of that process right now.
QUESTION: Yeah. But the process is being canceled because of the harsh arguments on the fighting, so even the parliament can't discuss about it right now.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, we would like to see and would expect that Turkey will follow its own democratic procedures in that regard. And again, I'm not going to speak to the specifics of an internal process there inside Turkey.
Gotta go, thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you for your attention.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)
DPB # 74
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
