• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
May 5, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
SYRIA/REGION
NORTH KOREA/REGION
IRAQ/REGION
PAKISTAN/REGION
SYRIA/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TURKEY/REGION
ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN/REGION
TUNISIA/LIBYA/REGION
DEPARTMENT/MIDDLE EAST PEACE
IRAN/DEPARTMENT

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:13 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. What a crowd of Cougars back there that we have with us today. Is that a – yeah, that's right, the Cougars, BYU Cougars. So in that vein, I'd like --

QUESTION: Okay. Are you --

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Matt, don't even go there. (Laughter.) First I would like to welcome --

QUESTION: Go where?

MR TONER: -- Ambassador Cho, who I met yesterday. Where are you, Ambassador Cho?

AMBASSADOR CHO: Right here.

MR TONER: Hey, good to see you, sir. He is the spokesperson for the ministry of foreign affairs of the Republic of Korea, and I had the pleasure of sitting down with him and meeting with him yesterday, as well as other colleagues from the ministry of foreign affairs. I don't know if there's anybody else there. Thank you. Welcome. Also, as I said, I want to welcome the group from – of students from Brigham Young University, hence the --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- go Cougars. Welcome to the State Department today.

A few things at the top. So first of all, we're pleased to announce two leadership updates for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs in the State Department. First, the President has designated former Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte as acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. She will assume her responsibilities effective today. Mari Carmen Aponte is an experienced and distinguished attorney and diplomat, recently serving as our ambassador to El Salvador. In 2014, she was nominated by President Obama to be the U.S. permanent representative to the Organization of American States. She's an entrepreneur, cofounding one of the first minority-owned law firms in Washington, D.C.

And then additionally this morning, we're very pleased that the Secretary was able to swear in Roberta Jacobson as our new ambassador to Mexico, and we congratulate Ambassador Jacobson and we welcome acting Assistant Secretary Aponte in her new role.

Also, just an update on the Secretary's travel to France and the United Kingdom. The U.S. Secretary of State will travel to Paris, France and the United Kingdom on May 8th through 12th. While in Paris, on May 9th and 10th, Secretary Kerry will meet with French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault for bilateral discussions on a range of issues, including Syria and Ukraine. Secretary Kerry will then travel to the United Kingdom, May 10th through 12th, where he will head the U.S. delegation to the Anti-Corruption Summit in London and visit Oxford University. He'll also hold bilateral talks with Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond.

That's all I have. Matt, over to you.

QUESTION: Great. Where did I want to start? Oh, right. Syria. First, just a couple logistical things.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: When you guys announced the ceasefire yesterday --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- shortly thereafter the Syrian military announced that they would be doing the ceasefire, but they said that it began only at midnight last night – or today – and it was only going to last 48 hours. You guys had it beginning Wednesday midnight and being open-ended – i.e., not 48 hours. What's going on here?

MR TONER: Well, you are right to note a little bit of a discrepancy there as – in terms of the start time. Look, we stand by that – our statement, that it went into effect May 4th at 12:01 local time in Syria. As to why the regime said otherwise, you'd have to ask them. There may have been coordination issues on the ground. I don't have any other clearer explanation than that.

QUESTION: Well, that's really the lesser of the --

MR TONER: But the most important – right, the most important issue, obviously, Matt, is that – is whether they comply. And it appears that, today at least, there's a decrease in the level of violence. There have been, obviously, some incidents of violence or of attacks, but – and as to your thing about the deadline or the --

QUESTION: End.

MR TONER: -- the end, rather, yes – it is our hope – and we've expressed this, beginning with the reaffirmations last week in Latakia and East Ghouta – we want these to be open-ended.

QUESTION: Well, I know you want them to be open-ended, but did you try to get them to be open-ended and they said, "No, we're only going to do it for 48 hours?"

MR TONER: Again, they have given it a 48-hour time limit. We'll let that time limit proceed, but what we would like to see is, obviously, this continue and be as open-ended as possible.

QUESTION: So whoever was negotiating this for your – with you and the Russians were pushing for longer, for open-ended, not – you didn't take 48 hours and say – they didn't say 48 hours only, and you didn't say, "Okay," did you? You pushed for longer?

MR TONER: No, we want this to be longer.

QUESTION: All right. And then I realize that this is not covered by the Aleppo COH, as it were, but have you seen the reports of this refugee camp further north being bombed?

MR TONER: Yeah. We've seen the reports, Matt, including accusations that these were regime strikes. We're looking into them and try to get more details on what happened. But there's absolutely no justification for attacks on civilians in Syria – we've said this many times, unfortunately, over the last week or so – but especially on a – what appears to have been a refugee camp, so really targeting the most vulnerable citizens in Syria.

QUESTION: Doesn't this kind of an attack bolster the case that the Turks have been making for a long time, calls for – and even people here – for – if not a no – if not no-fly zones, but real safe zones beyond just what you were talking about in terms of Aleppo, neighborhood by neighborhood safe zones?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, again, before I get all the – I don't want to speak before we have all the details on what exactly happened.

QUESTION: Why?

MR TONER: But let me just finish. Look, we don't want to set up specific no-fly zones. What we're working towards and what we're trying to get in place here is a nationwide cessation of hostilities that we believe can endure and be strengthened over the long haul. That's been our aim here. It continues to be our focus, versus a no-fly zone, which we have talked about before the reasons logistically why we feel that that's a nonstarter.

QUESTION: So I don't want to say that you're okay with these kind of attacks, because I know you're not.

MR TONER: No, we're not okay.

QUESTION: But why don't you act – why aren't you doing something to – why don't you support taking measures that would presumably prevent or at least minimize the chances of this kind of thing happening?

MR TONER: Well, I think we're always looking at what measures we can be – we can take to prevent these kind of attacks in the future. As of today, I don't have any updates for you in terms of a no-fly zone. That remains, as I said, something we've said before is a challenge logistically and for many reasons are deciding not to pursue it. But we are pursuing, as I said, the cessation of hostilities throughout the country. We're going to focus on that right now.

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: But again, also --

QUESTION: -- does it not bolster the case for – of those who say that something like this would be good and an effective way of preventing dozens of civilians, refugees, from – I mean, you're trying to halt – you and the Europeans are trying to halt refugee flows out of Syria and into Europe. If the people are getting bombed like this in camps, they're going to be more likely to go. So why – I don't – I just don't understand why this – how you can still have a good argument that it's out of the question and logistically impossible. It doesn't seem to be logistically impossible for the regime or for whoever to bomb these places.

MR TONER: Sure. Well, Matt, I mean, look, we've talked about this before. And frankly, the Department of Defense has addressed a lot of the challenges in terms of instituting and maintaining a no-fly zone. Look, I mean, nobody is tacitly condoning – in fact, we've been condemning these kinds of attacks on civilians, including --

QUESTION: Yeah. But you're not --

MR TONER: -- as I said today's most vulnerable. What we need to have happen is for the regime, if indeed it did carry out these airstrikes, to stop these attacks. And it's incumbent on Russia, who has influence over the regime, to make that – or convey that message.

QUESTION: Okay. But that just seems like very weak beer, as it were. I mean, calling for them to stop when they're not stopping and they're continuing to do this kind of thing – and you do have the ability – regardless of how difficult it might be to save or to at least mitigate these kind of attacks, it just – you seem to be doing virtually nothing, except for trying to --

MR TONER: That's not true, Matt. You know what we've given in terms of humanitarian assistance we've – we're the leading provider to refugees.

QUESTION: Well, that's --

MR TONER: And we're working to establish --

QUESTION: And that's great, Mark. And the government is to be – the Administration is to be commended for its support. But these – this isn't a question of people not getting food. This is a question of people being --

MR TONER: I understand that. I understand that.

QUESTION: -- being killed --

MR TONER: Being targeted.

QUESTION: -- by bombs from the sky, which there is a technical ability for the United States and its allies to do. So I don't understand why there isn't new thoughts since this or any new support for the idea.

MR TONER: I don't have anything --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- obviously to announce. But we look at all of the options in front of us, and especially when we're confronted with this kind of information. But we're going to continue to condemn these attacks and push to have them stopped.

QUESTION: Mark, can I follow up, please? I also don't understand this 48 hours. I mean, is it in effect a 48 hours one? Has there been – what is the message that Russia has given the commanders on the ground? Is it 48 hours or isn't it?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, Lesley, you'll have to certainly ask the Russians to --

QUESTION: But Mark, you guys signed the agreement.

MR TONER: -- explain why they convey – or what they've conveyed to the regime. I mean, you heard – you saw the announcement. We all saw it, where they said the 48 hours. Our focus is obviously on extending that past that 48-hour window. But it's also – we want to see a cessation – a reaffirmation of the cessation take hold. And then from there, we can prolong it.

QUESTION: So have you --

MR TONER: That's their own unilateral interpretation.

QUESTION: Have you asked them --

QUESTION: But you know what the Russians said to the regime. The ministry of defense in Moscow says it's a 48-hour truce as well. They said exactly the same thing as the Syrians. You say that maybe the difference between the – what you've announced and what they've announced is a lack of coordination. But is that a lack of coordination between Washington and Moscow or between Moscow and Damascus?

MR TONER: To be clear, I said a lack of coordination in terms of the start time. That was what I was addressing there. In terms of the 48-hour window --

QUESTION: But yet, is that lack of coordination between you and the Russians?

MR TONER: In terms of the – no, in terms of getting that down to the – filtering down to the combatants on the field.

QUESTION: But you accept that it was 48 hours, yeah? Even though you don't like it, you accept it?

MR TONER: We do – we – precisely.

QUESTION: Okay. So going by your timeline, that 48 hours expires in about four hours. Is that really good enough? I mean, if you go by the Syrians, if you go – if it started just today at midnight --

QUESTION: You got another 28.

QUESTION: -- then there's another 28 hours. But if you go by your start time, it's over soon.

MR TONER: Matt, so, one, you have to start somewhere.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: So if we get 48 hours and we can extend it past 48 hours, that's what we're going to do.

QUESTION: So you're right now trying to – to get it – because your – if you accept 48 hours and it started at your time, when you say it did, it's over in four hours. So are you trying now to get it extended beyond that four – beyond the four hours?

MR TONER: We're always trying to get it extended.

QUESTION: But is that being --

MR TONER: I was very clear: We hope it's – we hope and it is our goal to make it as open-ended as possible.

QUESTION: But is that being clarified? When we look at a cessation of hostilities, are we looking at an open-ended one or are we looking at the next 48 hours? Because certainly, probably the airstrikes and the --

MR TONER: So – sorry, I didn't want to talk over you.

QUESTION: Yeah, I'm just trying to think what --

MR TONER: That's okay. So what we've seen – last week we saw the same thing with Latakia and East Ghouta, where they started out with a specific timeframe or a specific time – yeah, timeframe – but then were extended. This doesn't speak to the overall cessation of hostilities that went into effect a couple months ago. That had no – that was open-ended. But what we tried to do with these reaffirmations of the cessation in these problem areas – Latakia, East Ghouta, Aleppo – is we've tried to reassert the cessation of hostilities, and clearly, there have been put a timeframe on that. Again, our intent is to work towards extending that to make it as open-ended as possible, but we have to start somewhere. That's what I was explaining to Matt. So we want to see it take hold first and then we'll look at extending it going forward.

QUESTION: And then the – Bashar Assad's comments today that in a telegram that he sent Vladimir Putin that was discussed on state media, he says that he would accept nothing less than an outright victory against rebels in Aleppo and northern Syria. Does this sound like somebody who wants to adhere to a ceasefire – a truce?

MR TONER: No, to put it frankly, it does not. But it's also not surprising that Assad would put it that way and would express his intent to keep pushing forward to, quote-unquote, "crush the aggression." Again, this is someone who carried out airstrikes on a hospital last week, a pediatric hospital, and has carried out unspeakable brutalities against the Syrian people. We call on Russia to urgently address this totally unacceptable statement. And this is clearly an effort by Assad to push his agenda, but it's incumbent on Russia to exert influence on that regime, or on the regime, rather, to maintain the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I go back to --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Michelle.

QUESTION: -- the incident on the IDP camp?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: You said you were looking into it. Do you have doubts that it was the Syrian Government that was involved? Who – when you say you're looking into it, who actually decides we think it was them and what are the consequences?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, first off, it's – I mean, it just – it was reported a short time ago. We don't have eyes on the ground – we've talked about this before – within Syria, many places in Syria. So we're still trying to garner initial – or additional details as to who's responsible. We've seen early claims that this was a regime strike, but we just want to be absolutely sure before we level blame at somebody. But it's totally in keeping with the types of strikes, airstrikes that the regime has carried out, unfortunately, against innocent civilians.

But this would be our own effort to establish who's behind this attack.

QUESTION: Well, who else --

MR TONER: I mean, we're also going to vet this, obviously, through the task force that's been up and running in Geneva.

QUESTION: Who else would it have been?

MR TONER: I – Matt, we're just trying to figure that out. I just don't want to speak --

QUESTION: Do you think the Russians --

QUESTION: I mean, do you think the --

MR TONER: I'm not trying to lead --

QUESTION: Do you think the Russians might have --

QUESTION: It's either the Russians or the regime.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: Well, or a horrible – an accident.

MR TONER: I understand that. I said – look, Matt, I said early accusations or allegations that these were regime strikes. I just don't definitively have all of the information in front of me yet, so it would irresponsible for me to say that definitively.

QUESTION: Right. But while you condemn it and express your outrage, you also say that it's not a surprise. So I don't understand why it is that you still – you think that anything that the Russians say to Assad or any promises that the regime might make to the Russians about this hold any water or are credible at all. I mean, if you're not surprised by attacks on civilians, then why should you expect them to --

MR TONER: Adhere to the ceasefire?

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly.

MR TONER: I mean, we've talked about this a lot over the past weeks. Look, I mean, it's – ultimately this is a test of whether the combatants or the parties on the ground will adhere to the ceasefire or this cessation of hostilities that we have in place. If they don't, then it's worth nothing.

QUESTION: Well, right.

MR TONER: So clearly this is a test. And if that happens --

QUESTION: That test has not – has anyone --

MR TONER: But Matt, if --

QUESTION: Have they passed the test at all, anybody?

MR TONER: Well, there was – initially, yes. In the initial weeks following the establishment of a cessation of hostilities, let's be very clear: We saw a general, significant decrease in the level of violence. It was never clean, it was never 100 percent, and we also – that allowed us to get desperately needed humanitarian assistance to those who were – who had been besieged.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: It's not been perfect, Matt, and I will never argue that from here.

QUESTION: Are there any --

QUESTION: May I? I mean --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: -- you said – okay, so what happens if they fail the test? You said we're going to vet this through this task force, but, like, what is this monitoring of this task – this sophisticated monitoring that you have, what good is it if there are absolutely no consequences for either side, particularly the regime, given that it's backed by the Russians, if they violate it? I just don't understand what the point of this sophisticated monitoring center and task force is when they're unable to put forth any consequences for a violation.

MR TONER: It's – I understand your question. It's about enforcement. And --

QUESTION: Or consequences --

MR TONER: Or consequences. I --

QUESTION: – or accountability.

MR TONER: And accountability – all very good points. And we have talked about this as well. Look, I mean, if the regime is under the delusion that it can somehow force a military solution to what is happening in Syria today, then it's going to pursue that. And if the Russians can't influence the regime to stop that kind of behavior, to stop these attacks, then we'll see the situation devolve into what we had before – before the cessation, before the political process, before the political negotiations. That's a fact. So it's incumbent, as I said, on both sides – on the opposition as well as the regime – to commit themselves to a political transition.

And we've also talked about it's incumbent on the U.S. on one side and Russia on the other side to exert what influence we can on the combatants on the field.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, just let's play --

MR TONER: That's just predicated on that.

QUESTION: Let's just play this out. So your task force vets this and finds that there's a violation by one or both parties. Then what?

MR TONER: Again, then it --

QUESTION: Then you shame them? You say, "Bad you"? I mean, I just --

MR TONER: Well, it's more than that, Elise. I mean, let's look at – I mean, Russia yields influence on the Assad regime. They basically came in since October, September with increased military support that really bolstered the regime. And so they do have leverage here.

QUESTION: And they've been continuing to do it for the last two months since your ceasefire has been (inaudible)--

MR TONER: Well, again, we've talked about how – we've talked about that this is a test. And I understand we use that a lot. This is a test. We have --

QUESTION: I understand it's a test, but what are the consequences if they fail the test? And what are the consequences for Russia if they don't – if they are unwilling or unable to put the pressure on the regime?

MR TONER: Well, two thoughts on that. For the regime, they could lose Russian support, which, frankly, would be a serious blow to their ability to carry out an ill-conceived military campaign. For the Russians, if this backslides into an all-out conflict, then they're going to pay a price because they're already – they've got, quote-unquote, "skin in this game." So it's in – again, it's in their interest to see a cessation of hostilities, and they have expressed this to us. This is something that they have told us. The Secretary, when he spoke to Lavrov – they have discussed all of this. It is in their interests, as well as our interests, as well as the other members of the ISSG, to see this play out with a cessation of hostilities that endures and is durable and also a political process that leads to a transition. There's no military solution here, and I think all members of the ISSG have committed to that.

QUESTION: So basically you're saying that the consequences of any violation are that it won't be in that party's best interests.

MR TONER: Yeah, strategically. And – yeah. I mean, that's – but that's not --

QUESTION: And their kind of willingness or determination to enforce the – to enforce the ceasefire – really the only incentive that they have is that it'll be for their best interests.

MR TONER: Well, again, it's not only for their best interests, but it's – as I said, strategically it's in their long-term interests. And again, it's --

QUESTION: So why even bother to have a kind of ceasefire monitoring task force? I just don't understand what it does.

MR TONER: Elise, because it allows us to quickly exert that influence on the parties who we believe are behind the latest violations. Otherwise, if we just said, eh, let's let it roll out and play it like it – as it happens, there's – if there's no, as you put it, shaming but also identifying who's responsible for what violation, and then to go to that party – mostly it's been the regime, let's be honest here – and to say you cannot do this and to – again, to exert the influence that Russia has over the regime.

QUESTION: And have you seen any examples in the last seven days of six – targeting of --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, we – yeah.

QUESTION: -- medical facilities, of the task force has been able to put pressure on one of the parties and for that to have actually been effective?

MR TONER: I can't speak to the specific example about medical facilities, because we have seen incidents that are just horrific and we've condemned those, obviously. What we have seen though is we have seen a reduction in the level of violence. And this does take time. We saw it last time with the cessation, with the full cessation of hostilities. But going forward – we have seen a decrease. And again, this isn't perfect. I understand that and I'm not going to argue that it's perfect. But if it can bring out a significant reduction in violence, if it can bring about a de-escalation in the violence that then ultimately can get the opposition back to Geneva and the regime back to Geneva, then that's very much worth it.

QUESTION: Mark, what about the flip side of that? Now that you've enhanced this U.S.-Russia task force and you're bringing in higher level officials, is there going to be an effort to enhance the types of penalties that may be imposed when either side violates these agreements?

MR TONER: Look, I think, Pam, that's always something that's – that we're looking at. I don't, again, have anything to announce or to specify, specifically point to, but I think we're looking at all of these. We're aware that we don't have an effective stick in this operation other than, as I said, to exert what influence we do have over both sides of this conflict. So we're looking at ways to do that. We don't – as I said, we don't have anything concrete to point to.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: The goal of the regime is to remain in power and the purpose of the political talks is to proceed to a transition. So why are they delusional to think that military force is the only way they achieve their strategic goal?

MR TONER: Well, because, again, we've said – sorry. Because there's no military solution to this. I understand that it might be about survival and preservation --

QUESTION: If Bashar al-Assad wants to stay in power, that's his only – if he goes to Geneva, it's to discuss how he leaves. So he's going either way. Why is it delusional to think that military strength is the only option he has?

MR TONER: Well, again, that's really for Assad to speak to and for Russia to speak to. What we want to see is a political transition. We've talked about how that could look in a way that preserves certain institutions of the Syrian Government to provide that continuity. We have always said that Assad cannot be a part of that future. That's to be worked out between the negotiating parties. I really can't speak to what that will look like at this point in time. But there's a certain amount of self-preservation that goes into Assad to looking at a possible exit.

QUESTION: So your explanation of the --

MR TONER: But no, what I'm saying, like --

QUESTION: -- consequences mechanism of the ceasefire --

MR TONER: What I'm also saying is if I'm Assad, I'm weighing my options. There's no way out of this militarily; then you look at other options.

QUESTION: Well, no, there's no option that preserves him in office.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: In light of the ceasefire, what do you do with al-Nusrah, and who is expected to go after them?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, I mean, we continue to go after al-Nusrah.

QUESTION: In Aleppo.

MR TONER: I understand that. Look, we're aware that al-Nusrah is not part of the cessation of the hostilities, but we also are fully aware that the regime uses al-Nusrah as an excuse to target opposition groups. And again, we've talked about this at length, that they continue to hit civilian targets, opposition groups on the ground, who are party to the cessation, under the guise or veil of attacking Nusrah. If they wanted to solely go after Nusrah and Daesh, that's another story altogether. But I talked about this yesterday. Around Aleppo, which is frankly such a hot zone in terms of conflict right now, what we want to see overall is a de-escalation.

QUESTION: About 10 days ago Steve Warren of the U.S. Military, he said that it is primarily al-Nusrah that holds Aleppo. As I understand, the U.S. has leverage with the rebels. Did you get them to separate themselves from al-Nusrah in Aleppo?

MR TONER: So what we have said is that – and I said this just yesterday – is Aleppo – there are areas controlled by the opposition and there are areas controlled by Nusrah. And we've --

QUESTION: And those lines are fluid, as you say.

MR TONER: And the lines are fluid and that's our challenge, in part, to make sure that those lines are more clearly delineated and that we have – we have conveyed that to the opposition.

QUESTION: Now, what is the – what are the results of that?

MR TONER: Well, we're working on it. It's a work in progress.

QUESTION: I guess that's what I was going to ask.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So that was not a part of the agreement between U.S. and Russia, was a clear delineation of the lines of where --

MR TONER: Well, I think it is, and it's part of this enhanced monitoring mechanism that we set up in Geneva, and it's not going to be an overnight success.

QUESTION: A – I'm sorry.

MR TONER: Or an overnight – the idea of – we talked about this before I came --

QUESTION: In Aleppo?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Not the no-fly thing?

MR TONER: No, no.

QUESTION: Okay. The enhanced monitoring gives you the ability to say – an enhanced ability to point out where strikes are, but, I mean, the – is there a list someplace?

MR TONER: A list of what? Areas and --

QUESTION: Violations.

MR TONER: I'm sure there is.

QUESTION: Well, okay. If you're going to try and publicly --

MR TONER: It's not publicly --

QUESTION: Well, why not? If you're not – if you're going to --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: If you – if the only weapon that you have to enforce this is to publicly shame those who have violated it and you're not doing that, then what is the point?

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts. One is – actually, I won't even say "With all due respect." I was going to preface my remarks. The Syrian – the--

QUESTION: Well, we all know that when you start something, "With all due respect," that you rarely do.

MR TONER: The – now, but I – and it's certainly not a laughing matter. The regime, I don't think, can be shamed into doing anything. I think that they must act out of their own self-interests and own – and their own self-preservation. And so what I think is incumbent on Russia to do is to make that very clear --

QUESTION: But don't --

MR TONER: -- and – sorry, yeah.

QUESTION: But don't you see that that just doesn't – it doesn't work. You can't – the regime – you're saying the regime must act in its own self-preservation, but it is. That's what it's doing.

QUESTION: That's – that was quite a --

QUESTION: I mean, that --

MR TONER: I know it was. But look, Matt, I mean --

QUESTION: I mean, its --

MR TONER: I'll get credit for it in the final exam.

QUESTION: Its response to the threat of transition --

MR TONER: I understand, Matt, but --

QUESTION: -- from its point of view --

MR TONER: -- but – and if I've been unable to make the case here, then it's my own failure, but what I'm trying to say here is that it is incumbent on Russia to make clear to the Assad regime that its pursuit of a military victory or whatever Assad said today, complete – anyway, I don't have it in front of me – victory is an illusion, that it's not --

QUESTION: All right. Well --

MR TONER: -- it's not a legitimate way out of this. And they have leverage here. They have considerable leverage. I'll leave it there. Let's go – you've already --

QUESTION: One more on Syria, please.

MR TONER: Okay, sure. That's okay.

QUESTION: I don't know if you saw this. Russia's Mariinsky Orchestra just held a concert in Palmyra. Do you think it is – do you see it as good news?

MR TONER: We were – and we talked about this before – the city of Palmyra has suffered enormously. We're happy to see Daesh driven from there. What we said before is that for it to be replaced by the regime – the Assad regime is not the best outcome, but we're just happy that there's some measure of relief, at least to the citizens of Palmyra. As to the orchestra playing there, I don't have any comment.

QUESTION: Why not? Do you think it's a good --

MR TONER: I don't --

QUESTION: Do you think it's a propaganda tool for the Russians and for the Syrians, or do you think it, as some people would argue, other people have argued that it's good to show that with everything going on with ISIS and everything that Palmyra is – people are trying to rebuild Palmyra and appreciate its cultural heritage.

MR TONER: I will never denounce an orchestra playing to the citizens of a beleaguered city. I just – it's fine. It's good.

Please.

QUESTION: I have a couple on North Korea.

MR TONER: Okay, yeah. Okay. So we'll see – you go first and then we'll see if you have any follow-ups. Great.

QUESTION: Tomorrow, of course, is the Workers' Party Congress and it's coming at a time when James Clapper is in the region. He's in Seoul this week. First, is the U.S. anticipating any provocations from Pyongyang?

MR TONER: Well, I've talked about this before. I don't have anything, obviously, that I can point to, but we have seen a consistent trend of provocations from North Korea over the past months. So let's just say that our – it wouldn't be surprising.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. working closely with its allies in Asia on any possible additional steps that will be taken if there are provocations?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, that's always something when we – every time we have a provocation, certainly we did take significant – excuse me – steps with the new sanctions that were passed by the UN Security Council last month. And now we're in the implementation phase and we've already seen signs that these sanctions are having an effect, that the regime in North Korea is feeling the effects of these sanctions. But obviously, they have not done enough or taken enough concrete steps, really, to fulfill their commitments and their international obligations to denuclearize.

So we're going to continue to look at ways that we can apply increased pressure on them at the same time as we ensure that the security of the peninsula is kept ironclad.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please. Oh, I'm sorry. Can I – Samir, I'll go to you. He has an additional question. I think we – unless you're going to stay on North Korea.

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR TONER: Let's finish with North Korea.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, are you --

MR TONER: I apologize.

QUESTION: Have you put out any – is the U.S. at all on any heightened alert, in the face of the upcoming congress?

MR TONER: Again, it's hard to say what – I mean, look, we're always – and we're always on heightened alert with regard to North Korea, given its actions over the past weeks and months. It's a highly unpredictable regime. We're looking at ways, as I said, that we can continue to apply the kind of pressure that convinces the regime to refrain from actions and rhetoric that only escalate tensions and destabilize the region. And we're going to continue to do that.

QUESTION: Sorry, one more.

MR TONER: Yeah. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Is there any particular – are there any expectations or is there anything that you're focusing on that might come out of the congress in --

MR TONER: No. I mean, look, it's a pretty opaque regime in that regard. I don't know if we're looking for any great outcomes from the congress. We certainly would welcome some kind of sign that they are willing to, as I said, de-escalate, refrain from, as I said, actions that destabilize the region, and really pursue steps that fulfill its obligations, international obligations to denuclearize.

Please, Samir.

QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to the closing of the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad by the Iraqi Government?

MR TONER: Yes. Well, as you can expect, we made clear our view that freedom of the press and freedom of expression are obviously critical components of any free society, an open and democratic society at that. And closing down any media outlets is a serious matter. And we believe this kind of – these kinds of actions will not serve the fight against Daesh as Iraq moves forward and begins to attempt to reconcile its diverse communities.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV. Sir, Mr. Kirby the other day said that United States gives very much importance to its relations with the Pakistan. And when Pakistan is in the need of foreign military aid, it is blocked by the Congress. So how much do you think this affects the counterterrorism efforts and the relation between the two countries?

MR TONER: Well, look, we've – as you've heard us before, look, we've made the case that we continue to support the proposed sale of these eight F-16s to Pakistan to assist in Pakistan's counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations. We believe that these F-16s have supported these kinds of operations to date. We think that they reduce the ability of certain militant groups to use Pakistani territory as a safe haven for terrorism and a base of support for the insurgency in Afghanistan. And so preventing those kinds of groups from establishing that foothold in Pakistan is clearly in not only Pakistan's interest but also in the national interest of Afghanistan as well as in the interest of the regime – or the region, rather – excuse me.

But as you note, key members of Congress have made it clear that they object to using FMF funds – foreign military financing funds – to support this sale. And as I think John mentioned the other day or made clear, that given these objections, we've told the Pakistanis that they should put forward national funds for the purchase.

QUESTION: Sir, this is not the first time that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan is halted. I mean, we have seen it in the past too. Sir, is there any kind of executive actions Secretary Kerry or President Obama can take? I mean, can they veto Congress actions for the release of funds?

MR TONER: Well, in this case – look, we – I mean, in the balance of power, if you will, in the United States, in checks and balances, Congress does control the purse strings. We have argued or made the case to Congress why we believe that the purchase of these F-16s is in our national interest. We'll continue to make that case. In the meantime, we've offered Pakistan an opportunity to purchase these out of their own funds.

QUESTION: Sir --

QUESTION: Well, wait a minute. So in other words, you do not agree with the concerns expressed on the Hill about this. And if you had your druthers, FMF would be used, could be used to pay for it. Is that correct?

MR TONER: I think we believe it's important to maintain the flexibility to provide assistance to Pakistan that advances our U.S. interest.

QUESTION: So – yeah. So is that a yes or a no? Or are you just using Congress as an excuse?

MR TONER: No, that's not true.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, so you agree?

MR TONER: I mean, we – yes. We --

QUESTION: So you --

MR TONER: We have made the case for FMF funds to be used.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Sir, when we talk about the counterterrorism efforts in that region, Pakistan alleged that Indian intelligence agency RAW is involved in few terror attacks in Pakistan while they are keep sponsoring some militant groups there. Sir, Pakistan also rescued an Indian spy who confessed sponsoring terrorist networks in Pakistan. Sir, how are you distressed watching these reports of sponsored terrorism by the state actors in that region?

MR TONER: You're referring to India?

QUESTION: India, sir, Indian intelligence agency.

MR TONER: Well, look, we've said many times that there is – and there is a level of counterterrorism cooperation between India and Pakistan. There is some dialogue there. We want to see that, obviously, that kind of discussion or dialogue augmented or increased. And again, this is something that's in both Pakistan and India's interest to pursue a closer counterterrorism cooperation for the region. It's good for the region.

Please.

QUESTION: On Turkey?

QUESTION: The --

MR TONER: It's okay. Samir had his – and then I'll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: Go for it.

QUESTION: The Secretary will be in Paris on May 9, the same day when the French Government is hosting this meeting about Syria. Is he going to participate in that meeting?

MR TONER: So the details of the Secretary's schedule are still being worked out. I do know that he spoke to Foreign Minister Ayrault earlier today. I don't have a readout for that. But we don't have anything to announce at this point. He's still – we're still finalizing the schedule.

QUESTION: It's the same day.

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: It's the same day.

MR TONER: I understand that, but we're looking at --

QUESTION: Is it possible (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Again, looking at his schedule, he's obviously in close touch with the French.

QUESTION: Well, what's your opinion of this meeting that they're holding? I mean, do you think that there are too many kind of disparate groups and the ISSG should be the primary vehicle, or do you support the French efforts and regardless of whether Secretary Kerry attends, you'll be participating?

MR TONER: Well, I – look, we would support any effort to look at – especially with our partners and allies – to look at the situation in Syria and additional measures or steps that could be taken to try to move the political process and the cessation of hostilities along. We welcome those kind of efforts. I can't say that right now – as I said, that the Secretary himself will be participating. I can imagine we'll have some level of participation. But we do believe that the ISSG still plays a primary role, but we certainly don't – we're certainly supportive of these kinds of efforts as well.

QUESTION: Mark, on the Paris agenda, you mentioned I think Syria and Ukraine?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: What about the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian situation, and in light of the fact that the French have proposed a conference?

MR TONER: Aware of their – yeah. I can imagine – again, without predicting what is going to come up in their bilateral meeting, I can certainly imagine it'll be a topic of discussion.

QUESTION: Well, can you --

MR TONER: I know I did say that; I know. So --

QUESTION: That is actually predicting what's going to be in the meeting.

MR TONER: I know. That's why I'm saying – which I'm hesitant to do.

QUESTION: So – all right. And so – and your view of the French proposal is what?

MR TONER: Well, I think I said this just yesterday to – in response to a question from Said. Look, we're still talking about it, discussing it, looking at it.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I'm sure that they probably will discuss it in Paris next week. We've said before that we're looking at steps that both sides can take to, obviously, de-escalate from where they're at now in terms of violence and then get to a position where we can talk about some kind of peace process beginning again.

QUESTION: Okay, and then – to wrap that up --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- that part, the escalation – I think you were asked yesterday about the escalation of violence in Gaza, or along the Gaza-Israel border. Do you have anything to say about that, the discovery of the – of a new tunnel, apparently? And then the fighting that's been going on --

MR TONER: So we have seen – you mentioned the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. We've seen those reports. We understand it's still a developing situation, so at this point we can't confirm anything. We've seen additional reports of some skirmishes along the border, but we condemn any violence, especially condemn mortars and other attacks from Gaza into Israel, and support Israel's right to defend itself, including against Hamas's use of tunnels for attacks in Israel.

QUESTION: I'm going on to Turkey now. When --

MR TONER: Okay. And then I'll get to you, sir, I promise.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: I'll get to you.

QUESTION: -- you've seen the resignation of Davutoglu, the Turkish prime minister. Does this in any way affect – have an impact on relations, given the mess in Syria?

MR TONER: We have seen reports that he is stepping down. I don't think anything's been finalized, at least that I've seen before coming out here – stepping down as AKP party chairman. We've also seen that there'll be an extraordinary congress held on May 22nd to select new party leadership. This is, of course, an internal political matter for Turkey. In answer to – or response to your second question, we obviously had a strong relationship with Prime Minister Davutoglu, but we also have a very strong and enduring relationship with Turkey as a NATO ally and a partner in our efforts to destroy and degrade ISIL in the region. And that work's going to continue.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that this will only – now that he's – now that Prime Minister Davutoglu, who is very popular in his own right, although didn't necessarily have his own base, but that this will further allow President Erdogan to consolidate his own power? Because the prime minister was against him kind of amending the constitution and working towards an executive presidency. Are you concerned that this will --

MR TONER: I'm going to repeat what I said to Lesley. We view this as an internal political matter for Turkey. I'm not going to weigh into or attempt to analyze what this means for the political environment in Turkey.

QUESTION: More on Turkey?

MR TONER: Let's stay on Turkey. I promise I will get to you, sir.

QUESTION: The Armenian National Committee of America – it's a lobby group in Washington, D.C. – has called upon U.S. Ambassador to Turkey John Bass to publicly voice official U.S. concern regarding the safety of Garo Paylan, an ethnic Armenian elected to the Turkish parliament. So what we have is Garo Paylan, who is representing Turkish Armenian community and a member of HDP Kurdish party, has been both physically and verbally attacked by members of AKP ruling party in the parliament. Do you follow the situation, have any comment, or any concerns regarding his safety?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don't have the details of this particular individual or his case. I'd have to look into it, to be frank. I mean, obviously, the member of any political party who is being harassed or beaten or detained in any way would be of concern to us. But I don't have the particulars here, so I'm going to refrain from further comment.

QUESTION: A member of any political party being beaten or harassed anywhere?

MR TONER: No, in Turkey.

QUESTION: Oh, just in Turkey?

MR TONER: Well, no, Matt.

QUESTION: Can I ask a related question?

MR TONER: I'm just saying – I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about this particular case.

QUESTION: No, you said --

MR TONER: Let me just – to clarify, to clarify, we are concerned with any form of political harassment that involves, obviously, violence against an individual, but I just need to know what the particulars are of this case.

QUESTION: Somewhat related to this --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- do you have anything – apparently there are some plans or some talk in Armenia about --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you have anything about that – have anything to say about that? Or is that also an internal Armenian matter that you will not get your – stick your nose into?

MR TONER: No, actually, I think I can speak to that, if I can find the darned thing here.

QUESTION: So Brexit and --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: So Brexit and Nagorno-Karabakh --

MR TONER: Well, wait a second.

QUESTION: -- are off limits for you guys – are not off limits for you guys, but Turkey is?

MR TONER: Yeah, but you know what?

QUESTION: It's okay, if you can get it written later.

MR TONER: I've got it. You're talking about this Armenian parliament's vote to – yeah, okay. I'm on it. The United States, along with the rest of the international community, does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh's final status will only be resolved in the context of a comprehensive settlement, so we urge the sides to come to the negotiating table in good faith in order to reach a settlement that achieves those goals.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, Mark, but relative to that last question --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- the main principles that the United States supports for the final status of Karabakh, one of those principles is the self-determination. It remains in place – no use of force and then self-determination and territorial integrity. You have always been supportive of these main principles, right?

MR TONER: Right, but we've also very much said that all of this needs to be worked out within the context of the Minsk group. There is a process here, and that process needs to be returned to by all sides.

QUESTION: Israel-Palestine?

MR TONER: Let me get to this gentleman and then I'll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from Tunisia.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: $2 billion is the cost of counterterrorism for our country since four years. What are the U.S. – what can the U.S. do for that? And also, what are the major new economic assistance program to Tunisia? And I'm certain that you know tomorrow is the starting of the Joint Economic Commission. I think probably Tunisia is the first country having a JEC with the United States. So what are the perspectives?

MR TONER: So you're right, and you mention that – you mentioned that tomorrow is the start of this U.S.-Tunisia Joint Economic Commission, which the Secretary announced last November. This is the inaugural meeting of the commission, and we actually put out a media note earlier today about it. During – or rather – and we'll also put out a joint statement, I think, at the end of the meeting tomorrow with some more on what was accomplished.

But broadly speaking, I can say that tomorrow's discussions are going to focus on ways to support initiatives that – Tunisia's economic reform agenda, competitiveness and overall growth through both policy discussion as well as looking at assistance and assistance programming. We already have an important economic relationship with Tunisia and the Joint Economic Commission will, we believe, facilitate further growth.

So what we're hoping to accomplish is to finalize joint efforts to bring opportunities to Tunisia's agriculture sector, strengthen its small and medium enterprise – small and medium businesses and enterprises, and help expand its information and its communications technology sector. As I said, we're going to release a joint statement that lays out the progress we make after the meeting tomorrow.

In terms of what you asked about security assistance, the United States has provided more than $750 million to Tunisia since the revolution, including $300 million in economic growth-related support; $250 million in, as you asked about, security assistance; as well as 90 million in democracy, governance and related activities. And we plan to do more in the future. And also through U.S.-backed loan guarantees in 2012 and 2014, the Government of Tunisia has been able to borrow nearly 1 billion at a very low interest rate to help stabilize government finances. So that's also helped the economic situation as it stabilizes in Tunisia.

QUESTION: A new guarantee coming in?

MR TONER: You said that – oh, the new guarantee? Well – so during President Essebsi's visit to Washington last year, we did say that we would consider a loan guarantee of up to 500 million to advance the Government of Tunisia's ongoing reforms program. And last November, Secretary Kerry signed a declaration of intent to initiate steps to enter negotiations. So we started the technical discussions on that earlier this month. So we're not there yet, but those discussions continue.

QUESTION: What do you have to say on the impact of what's going on in Libya on Tunisia – the impact?

MR TONER: Well, obviously we're concerned about the fighting and – or the instability – let's put it that way – in Libya. The United States and other international partners have answered Libya's call for – or rather to prevent – or let me put it this way: Our goal right now is to support the Libyan Government of National Accord, which has just begun its work in Tripoli. We're going to continue to work with Libyan civil society, but we're also going to work at bolstering Libya's own security forces, in order that they develop the capabilities to address some of the instability that exists in Libya.

We're well aware that this has a spillover effect into places like – countries that neighbor Libya like Tunisia, and we're going to continue our work also with Tunisia's security forces to try to bolster their efforts as well.

QUESTION: There going to be strikes?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, where are you talking about, in Libya? I mean, we have said this before and we'll say it – I'll say it again: Where we have an opportunity to strike at senior al-Qaida or ISIL leadership, we're going to take those opportunities.

You, sir.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) from JTA. Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: The – over the weekend, I think it was, the Security Council met, or perhaps just after the weekend, and they were discussing the stabbing intifada. And Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN, appeared to liken Israel – Israeli forces to Nazis. He said, "All colonizers, all occupiers, including those who suppressed the Warsaw uprising, labeled those who were resisting them as terrorists," in response to the Israel ambassador. Do you have anything on that?

MR TONER: You know what, I've not seen those remarks. Obviously we would condemn anti – any, rather, anti-Semitic remarks very forcefully. And again, until I actually see the remarks, I'm hesitant to pronounce on them. But if what you say is true, it's deeply concerning.

QUESTION: It's not just anti-Semitism, it's also likening Israel to --

MR TONER: I understand that, and that's also deeply concerning.

Is that it, guys?

QUESTION: No, no.

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Sorry. Have you seen these latest comments by the supreme leader --

MR TONER: So close. What's that? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: The latest comments by the supreme leader --

MR TONER: I have not. Well, go ahead. Try me out.

QUESTION: -- accusing – well, saying that the – that the one constant or defining quality of American foreign policy is anti-Islam, anti-Iran, and anti-Shia.

MR TONER: I have not, but I reject it.

QUESTION: You reject it.

QUESTION: Why are you willing to reject these comments without having seen them, and then so many other times we read comments to you verbatim and you say, "I'm not going to say anything about comments that I haven't seen"? I'm just noting that you're setting a precedent. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: What do you think of Elise's comment? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I support Elise's right to exercise her journalistic freedom and to criticize our posture up here at the podium.

QUESTION: I have one more.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Have you – did you guys take note of the interview with the – or several interviews, actually, with the hacker who claimed to have or got into Sid Blumenthal's email account and says that he also managed to get into former Secretary Clinton's account?

MR TONER: I'm aware of the reports. I mean, I can't – and we've done this before – we can't comment on the security of the server. There's various investigations underway. We've talked about those before, and so it would be inappropriate for us to comment at this point in time.

QUESTION: Well, would you even know? I mean, it – you weren't aware --

MR TONER: Whether he – whether --

QUESTION: Well, this building says that it wasn't even aware of the private server arrangement until it came out in – what? – in last – early last year.

MR TONER: You're saying would we have been aware that he was able to hack onto the server?

QUESTION: Well, if it – yeah. Do you have any reason to believe that his claim of being able to get in --

MR TONER: No, we don't, but as – again --

QUESTION: He might not have ever gotten in.

MR TONER: -- all of that – all of those issues are being looked at. So, I mean, I don't want to interject myself or say something on the record and commenting on one way or the other, except to say that we're not aware of – that that's true. I mean, we weren't – and we've said that before.

QUESTION: And would you be in a position to know if it was true?

MR TONER: Again, I'm going to refrain from comment on – specifically on an issue that is being looked at and investigated by other entities, as we've talked about before.

QUESTION: So this claim is being actively investigated?

MR TONER: No, the security of the server is being looked at in general.

QUESTION: Not – you're not saying that this guy's claim to have successfully hacked into it is being investigated; you're saying that in general the whole security of it is being investigated.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Okay. But do you have any reason to believe that it might be true, or do you have any reason to believe that it is – it's just some fantasy of this guy?

MR TONER: We don't have any reason to believe that it might be true.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 p.m.)

DPB # 77