• 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 23, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

SOUTH ASIA REGION
SOMALIA
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA/REGION
VIETNAM/CHINA
SOUTH SUDAN
PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
SYRIA
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
IRAN
BAHRAIN
JAPAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:49 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hello, sorry to be a little late. Happy Monday to everyone. That's an oxymoron.

QUESTION: That was a long --

MR TONER: What's that?

QUESTION: Long two minutes.

MR TONER: I said – I came out and owned it.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But good to see you, Arshad. Some new faces here from Bloomberg; is that correct? Welcome.

Well, welcome to the State Department, everybody. And also we have some interns. Is that what we have in the back? Great, welcome to the State Department. Just a couple of things briefly at the top.

First of all, the United States extends its deepest condolences to the people of South Asia, who are still recovering from the significant flooding and landslides caused by Cyclone Roanu. Our hearts go out to the victims and families of this natural disaster, and we applaud those assisting recovery and relief for the victims.

The United States Government is in touch with local and regional disaster relief services, local militaries, and international aid partners to coordinate the donation of most urgently needed items, and we're going to continue to work with our partners in the region to help strengthen local disaster preparedness and mitigation capacities.

Switching to Somalia, the United States fully supports Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's May 21st presidential decree on the 2016 Somali electoral process. This decree implements the April 12th electoral model that was unanimously endorsed by the speaker of parliament, the president, the prime minister, and the participants of the national leadership forum after months of consultations. This decree does set in motion technical preparations that will enable a timely political transition this year in line with the constitutional mandates and timeframes for the legislator – the legislature and the executive.

The United States urges all Somalis to unite and work together to implement the presidential decree. We stand ready to help facilitate implementation of a transparent electoral process without further delay.

And lastly, I wanted to just mention something we call the Consular Fellows Program. And this being May, college graduation season is upon us, and new graduates may want to check out a special public service opportunity at the Department of State. It's called our Consular Fellows Program. The Consular Fellows Program offers candidates a unique opportunity to serve their country for up to five years, utilize their foreign language skills, and develop valuable skills and experience. They will gain exposure to the world of diplomacy, serve U.S. citizens abroad, and foster U.S. border security and international travel and exchanges. Foreign Service Consular Fellows serve at our U.S. embassies and consulates overseas and work side by side with career diplomats and other members of our missions. Benefits include salary, housing, educational allowances for eligible family members, and also they also qualify for recruitment incentive and may qualify for a student loan program – repayment program.

That's it. I'll take your questions.

QUESTION: Can we go to one thing you didn't discuss, which is Syria?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And the statement that you've just put out?

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: What makes you – you say that the Secretary urged Foreign Minister Lavrov in a phone call today to put pressure on the Syrian Government to cease its offensive attacks on civilians. What makes you think they're – that the Russians are (a) actually going to do that today, and (b) that it would actually have any effect on the Syrians if they did?

MR TONER: Well, it's a fair question, Arshad. Also, as you noted, we've seen a deterioration over this weekend, and as we mentioned in our statement, given the Assad regime's attempt to seize territory in the besieged Damascus suburb of Darayya. As we came out of the ISSG last week, Russia was there, obviously, and signed onto what was among all the members of the ISSG a reaffirmation and agreement to strengthen and put in place the cessation of hostilities.

And by doing that – and we've talked about this a lot – and all of this, what happens in – happened in Vienna last week was only words on paper, but where the rubber hits the road is their ability to influence the parties on the ground. It's incumbent on us and others, parts of the ISSG, to put that pressure on the opposition forces. But it's incumbent on Russia and to a certain extent Iran to put that pressure on the regime, and we haven't seen it. And we're very concerned that we've, frankly, if anything, seen an uptick in violence over the weekend, and we're fully aware of the fragility of the cessation of hostilities. And frankly, we're working and engaging with Russia to try to reinforce it and try to put it back in place.

QUESTION: But what makes you think – since you said that we haven't seen it, and clearly, when you say we haven't seen "it," you're referring to Russian pressure on the Syrian Government, correct?

MR TONER: Or, rather – or –I mean, there's two parts to that. There's (a) whether Russia is applying the kind of pressure necessary and (b) whether the regime is even listening.

QUESTION: Are they applying pressure, to your knowledge?

MR TONER: They have conveyed that they are. And again, I don't want to speak for – on behalf of the Russian Government. That's for them to speak to. But again, they were in Vienna last week. They took part in the ISSG. They even took part – Foreign Minister Lavrov – in a joint press avail with Secretary Kerry. In all of that they expressed their commitment to implementing this.

QUESTION: Well, I saw that, and I read the transcripts and so on. But what I don't understand is you can't say yes they're applying pressure. You say they say that they have. Why do you think that they are likely to apply pressure now in response to your call and the Secretary's literal phone call? What makes you think they're going to do that?

MR TONER: I'm sorry, what makes us think today's any different is what you're saying?

QUESTION: Yes, right.

MR TONER: Or why they'll change their pattern? Look, I think what we're seeing on the ground – and I am hesitant to wade too much into operational details, but clearly what we're seeing is an attempt by the Assad regime to gain tactical advantage. That they're doing it with airstrikes, that they're attacking civilians in the process is, frankly, barbaric, but we believe that that's what they're doing.

And so what we're looking to is to see whether Russia is able to, again, provide the necessary pressure, influence, whatever you want to say or however you want to call it, in order to get them to reconsider the fact that, if this keeps up, we may be looking at a complete breakdown of the cessation. And I think all sides will agree that the cessation of hostilities did bring about a credible reduction in the level of violence, allowed humanitarian assistance to get into all besieged areas – or not all besieged areas, some besieged areas; let me rephrase that – and frankly, as we've said many times, sets the kind of environment we need in order for negotiations to begin again in Geneva.

QUESTION: Just one last one from me on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: You said, "If this keeps up, we may be looking at a complete breakdown of the cessation" of hostilities. When you say "this," you're referring specifically to --

MR TONER: Continued attacks and violations by the Assad regime of the ceasefire, or the cessation.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: The Russian readout said that you guys discussed joint operations. Is that true?

MR TONER: Kirby spoke to this. There are no – we're not talking about --

QUESTION: This happened today, so Kirby did not speak to it.

MR TONER: No, no, I understand that. But he spoke about – what he spoke about was joint operations and the fact we're not looking at joint operations. What we're looking at – I mean there's no agreement, and that's what the Russians had said previously and what they – what their readout also stressed today, to conduct joint airstrikes with the Russians.

QUESTION: Did you – so did you discuss joint operation – did the Secretary discuss --

MR TONER: What we're discussing them is – are proposals for sustainable mechanisms to better monitor, enforce the cessation of hostilities. We're not talking about joint operations.

QUESTION: The Russian statement also said you spoke about the ways that the United States would exert pressure on rebel groups to separate themselves from Nusrah. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, I don't – honestly, I'm fairly aware that that came up in the call today – I'm fairly certain, rather, not aware. But that's been an ongoing commitment of ours. I mean, we've talked about that a lot, is that it's incumbent on us to exert that kind of influence on the opposition groups on the ground to – not to affiliate themselves with – and we've talked a lot about the intermingling or however you want to talk about it on the ground.

QUESTION: Why haven't you been able to stop that?

MR TONER: It's a challenge. And that's one of the reasons, coming out of the ISSG, the language in the communique talked about the facts that – the fact that if certain opposition groups continue to take part in repeated violations or affiliate themselves with groups that continually violate the cessation of hostilities, then they run the risk of being excluded from the protection provided by that.

QUESTION: Would you say that Nusrah is more embedded with other opposition groups at this point than at any other point in the civil war?

MR TONER: Boy, I just don't want to make that – I can't --

QUESTION: Can you name any time at all where you thought, ooh, it's even worse than it is now?

MR TONER: I'll just say that certainly in and around Aleppo especially – and we've talked about this – is that there is a certain amount of overlap, commingling, whatever the heck you want to call it, among these groups; and it's incumbent on them and absolutely vital that they separate themselves so that we can clearly delineate where Nusrah is and where the credible opposition is.

QUESTION: Do you think as long as they're commingled Russia should not and Syria as well should not strike at Nusrah because they should get a free pass or something because they're mixed in with others?

MR TONER: Well, this is part of the ongoing debate. They continue to carry out these strikes and we continue to say you're hitting opposition forces.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I would say it's a --

QUESTION: But it sounds like you're admitting as well that you're failing. That's partly your problem because you haven't been able to separate them.

MR TONER: I would say it's our challenge, and we recognize it's a challenge that – and we're working to meet and address that challenge.

QUESTION: But how do you --

QUESTION: Mark.

QUESTION: How do you effectively combat Nusrah, which is a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- if you're saying not to strike them when they mingle with other groups that are involved in the violence?

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts on that. One of the things or one point is to – what we've seen over the weekend is deliberate attacks in and around Damascus and elsewhere that were targeting, we believe, the opposition as well as civilian populations. And that's another thing: we recognize that as vile as Nusrah is and as much as they should be targeted legitimately by Russia, by everyone, and they do represent a terrorist organization, we do have to be mindful of civilian populations, we do have to be mindful of – frankly, of overlap. But again, it is our challenge and I accept that.

QUESTION: I'm not asking about the hospital strikes, I'm asking about when --

MR TONER: Yeah, you're talking about the comingling, yes, or whatever.

QUESTION: Yes. I'm talking about various militant groups.

MR TONER: I mean, again, ultimately it's going to be incumbent on these groups to separate themselves from Nusrah. All we can do is deliver that message.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I just want to – I haven't heard you mention anything about the attack in Tartus and Latakia today. I mean, like, maybe 200 people were killed during --

MR TONER: I apologize. I apologize. That was in the statement. So we released – I released a statement just before coming here and I'm happy to --

QUESTION: If you could from the podium.

MR TONER: I'm happy to condemn it from the podium as well. We do strongly --

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think, in your opinion, that ought to give the regime forces and the Syrian army sort of the leverage to strike back at these – at the sources of this terrorism?

MR TONER: Well, again, the --

QUESTION: Shouldn't that be the case in any – like, in any other country in the world?

MR TONER: Well, again, Said, so we did obviously strongly condemn Daesh's horrific attacks today in the towns of Tartus, as you noted, and Jabla, which are in the northwest province of Latakia, and I think some 60 civilians were killed in these attacks, multiple bombings that have targeted bus stations and included a hospital. We're obviously going to continue efforts to destroy Daesh in the region. We understand that Daesh represents a threat that is palpable to all in Syria and in Iraq. And it – I think what it highlights, frankly, Said, is the need – urgent need to get a political process moving forward that can resolve the civil war in Syria so that all parties can turn their attention to Daesh and destroying Daesh.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that is related to the point that Brad was raising. I mean, this sort of intermingling and giving a pause, so to speak, and being targeted and being struck by forces, be it Syrian or Russian and so on, gives them a great deal of latitude to commit to that kind of – I mean, to move around and be able to have access to towns and villages and so on under regime control and to strike such as this. So why not, in this case, should not let's say be – should not the Syrian regime have that ability to strike and continue striking these groups --

MR TONER: So a couple of thoughts on that --

QUESTION: -- with intermingling notwithstanding?

MR TONER: Sure, couple of thoughts on that. One is, we have been working hard, and we've talked about the fact that we beefed up our operation in Geneva in order to provide around-the-clock monitoring of the cessation of hostilities and really look at working with Russia, working with other members of the ISSG but primarily Russia, in trying to delineate who is where. That process continues. We get that it's a hard process to do. It's hard to map these out – which group is where in Aleppo. Again, that's primarily our challenge and other members of the ISSG's challenge to address that. It's also incumbent on the – for the groups on the ground to also disassociate themselves with Nusrah. We get that. But again, what we've seen repeatedly by the regime are attacks on supply lines, on other tactical pieces or parts of the opposition, tactical strikes to gain the advantage, strategic advantage on the ground not necessarily aimed at Nusrah.

QUESTION: And my last question on this issue.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Should there be, like, a deadline for these groups to separate themselves from Nusrah or ISIS?

MR TONER: Well, we've talked about that and that was one of the things in the ISSG's communique is that – well, there was no deadline, but what we talked about was if groups are repeatedly violating the cessation of hostilities, then basically they are selecting themselves to no longer be a part of that.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: On that subject.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: On that very subject.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: McClatchy wrote that the group's – Ahrar al-Sham group's foreign affairs director, Labib al Nahhas, was allowed into the United States for a brief visit six months ago. The outlet cites four people with direct knowledge of his visit to Washington, D.C. Were U.S. officials aware of this visit?

MR TONER: I'm not sure that we were aware of it. I don't believe he had any meetings here, certainly, but – and I can't speak to visa records. It's a privacy consideration, so I don't have much detail I can share with you regarding whether he received a visa to come here. But I can look into it. I just don't have any more detail to --

QUESTION: But one of the leaders of a group with known ties to al-Qaida comes to the United States and you can't say anything about it?

MR TONER: Again, I don't have the details in front of me. I just don't have – if I get more information, I'll share it with you.

QUESTION: Just a few more about this group. Does the U.S. apply pressure on Ahrar al-Sham to adhere to cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Do we what? I'm sorry, I --

QUESTION: Apply pressure to this group, Ahrar al-Sham, to adhere to the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: We apply pressure on all members of the credible, vetted opposition, and that's part of the HNC group that was --

QUESTION: Do you consider Ahrar al-Sham a vetted opposition group?

MR TONER: Again, we consider – well, we apply pressure on all members of the HNC to adhere to the cessation of hostilities that exists right now. Whether they do or not, that's self-selecting.

QUESTION: But what do you think about this particular group?

MR TONER: I – I don't have any information to share with you about – what are you looking for exactly?

QUESTION: Well, to what extent they care about the cessation of hostilities? Two weeks ago, when they attacked an Alawite village of al-Zahraa, a photo emerged in social media that showed militants from this group standing above – actually stepping on – corpses of several women. The group later said that the women were killed in combat, but they were attacked in their homes. And I wonder, to – do you think this group cares much about the cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: I don't know about that particular incident. I can look into it. What I would say, again, is we support those members of the HNC who have been vetted by the Saudis in large part, who are part of the negotiating a political process, and we've also said very clearly who we believe to be part of or be terrorist organizations, which is Daesh and al-Nusrah and a couple of others that have been identified by the UN.

QUESTION: Mark?

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: Just on a slightly different topic --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- in Syria. After the CENTCOM commander's visit to Syria, there are – there's a lot of reporting and commentary that Raqqa could be the priority of the United States, not Mosul, for now. So my question is: On principle, does the United States believe that Kurdish forces are a credible partner to retake Raqqa?

MR TONER: Again, I just would say, first of all, I don't have a priority list in front of me. I mean, this is in part – you saw that there's – they've begun an offensive today, the Iraqi Government announced, to retake Fallujah. Obviously, Mosul is also a priority as well. I think we have every confidence in the Kurdish forces' ability to be an effective partner in the battlefield and to be able to defeat ISIL forces. They've been – they've proven that time and again as a part of the Iraqi military and under Iraqi Government command and control.

QUESTION: In Syria, the Kurdish force in Syria – do you depend on them – to what degree, would you depend on them to retake the predominantly Arab city of Raqqa?

MR TONER: Well, with regard to the Kurdish forces in northern Syria, we've worked with a variety of groups and we've talked a lot about the YPG and the other – and the Kurdish forces on the ground, and they've been effective partners in going after and, frankly, dislodging Daesh from many parts of northern Syria. That cooperation continues. It's also – we provide the same assistance to other groups, Syrian Turkmen and Syrian Arabs who are also on the ground fighting Daesh in parts of northern Syria.

QUESTION: Even if that alienates Turkey, your major ally in the region? Because all assessment says or points to these groups --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- to be able to attack Raqqa rather than go ahead and start the process all over again, which would take years to --

MR TONER: So – yeah. So we've talked about this a lot. We obviously are in close dialogue with Turkey. We understand their concerns regarding Kurdish forces in northern Syria. And we've also made it clear to these Kurdish forces as well that they should not seek to create autonomous, semi-autonomous zones, that they should not seek to retain the territory that they liberate, rather that they should make sure it's returned to whatever civilian authorities there are and able to – so that all displaced people can return there. This is – but we also recognize the fact that these are effective fighting forces and that they are willing to take on and dislodge Daesh.

QUESTION: But while you're saying that you don't recognize their autonomy, one could say in practice you kind of have recognized it. For example, Brett McGurk has visited Kobani and met with the leaders of those autonomous government – that autonomous government for the Kurds. And now we have the CENTCOM commander also visiting Kobani and other Kurdish cities meeting with the leaders of that autonomous government. Isn't that in practice a recognition of that government?

MR TONER: I don't believe so. I mean, it's a recognition that we want to cooperate with these forces and see, obviously, through close contact that we can get an assessment – their assessment for a first hand of what their needs are and what their challenges are on the ground. I think it's part of our ongoing cooperation, but it's not to imply any kind of recognition of their sovereignty or whatever.

Please, Pam.

QUESTION: I have a couple on different issues.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: First, Vietnam.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Concerning the U.S. arms agreement with Vietnam, is there State Department concern that this new agreement could essentially end up straining U.S. relations with China, especially considering the tensions surrounding the South China Sea.

MR TONER: No, I – look, the President addressed this today in Vietnam. It was not based on any kind of effort to apply pressure on China or to send a message to China. It was simply based on our desire to normalize relations with Vietnam and, frankly, a reflection of our changing and evolving relationship with Vietnam.

QUESTION: I know it wasn't directed at China, but is there concern that as a consequence of this there could be strained relations with China?

MR TONER: I think so. And look, we support close relations between China and Vietnam and all of its neighbors, frankly. I mean, this isn't about trying to apply, as I said – or send a message – apply pressure on China. This is about deepening our overall relationship with Vietnam and certainly our security relationship with Vietnam.

QUESTION: You said "I think so," or "I don't think so?"

MR TONER: I can't remember what I – (laughter) – sorry.

QUESTION: You said "I think so."

QUESTION: I think you said "I think so," but then your answer seemed to say the opposite, so --

MR TONER: I apologize if I – I'm not sure what I said. I – what I was – I think I said what – "I don't think so." (Laughter.) I'll have to go back and look at the transcript.

QUESTION: But bottom line is to just clarify --

MR TONER: Anyway, my bottom line is --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: -- that it's not meant to send any kind of message to China. It's not meant to do anything towards China at all. It's simply to deepen our relationship bilaterally with Vietnam.

Thanks.

QUESTION: Can I ask you --

MR TONER: One more – yeah, and then we'll --

QUESTION: Yes. On a different topic, on South Sudan.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: President Bashir, of course, has applied for a U.S. visa to attend the UN General Assembly. Where is State on his visa request? Are you considering it? Is it something that has a possibility of being granted, first of all?

MR TONER: Well, this is something we – this is kind of an annual rite of passage where he puts out this announcement that he's going to apply or is about to apply for a visa to attend the UN General Assembly in September. The United Nations, as we all know, does extend an invitation to heads of state and government annually. I'd refer you to them for more details about who they send to.

Obviously, there's a number of considerations at play when we look at these kinds of requests, and we're going to act consistently with our relevant legal obligations. We can't talk about the details of any individual visa cases, as you know. But we strongly support – even though we're not members of – party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, we do strongly support its efforts to hold those accountable – excuse me, hold accountable those responsible for war crimes, especially crimes against humanity in – and genocide in Darfur.

So we've seen this happen before, this threat or this gesture, that he's going to apply for a visa. We'll look at it, obviously, and address it within our legal obligations.

QUESTION: Is there – you can't talk about individual requests, but is there any reason to believe that the outcome will be any different this time around?

MR TONER: Well, again, we've never – he's never actually attempted to arrive in – as far as I know, in New York. I think we're just going to – we're going to take it one step at a time. We do believe he should be held accountable for his crimes, though.

QUESTION: If he did --

QUESTION: Can I ask you one more on a related --

MR TONER: Sure, and then I'll get to you.

QUESTION: No, please. No, go ahead.

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: A related issue and --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: If the – if --

QUESTION: Well, if he --

QUESTION: If he did – if he did actually go through with it, would you grant him --

QUESTION: No. Well, my question was different. My question was --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: If he arrived in New York, would you feel obliged to arrest him --

QUESTION: Arrest him --

QUESTION: -- even though you are not signatories to the Rome Statute?

QUESTION: I was getting there.

MR TONER: So there are – (laughter). So there are --

QUESTION: You started the line of questioning.

MR TONER: There are also – how do I put it? There's also legal obligations that we take on as host country to --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- the United Nations. I'll just say we'll look at a variety of considerations and act consistently with our obligations – our legal obligations. I don't want to --

QUESTION: They really tied you – they really didn't give you much on this one, did they? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I don't want to – well, Arshad, look, I mean, this is – look, I mean, this is what it is. I mean, it's like every year we face this and we face this with a variety of bad actors around the world, not just Bashir. Again, we'll do what we have to do if he actually follows through.

QUESTION: But this case is slightly – you've had other state sponsors, the heads of government, State Sponsors of Terrorism.

MR TONER: Right. This – I understand that.

QUESTION: Isn't the United States --

MR TONER: I understand the distinction.

QUESTION: In this, you have a difference because of the charges of crimes against humanity --

MR TONER: I understand the distinction. No, I understand the distinction. Look, we take our – this is – this is a complex legal situation because we do, as I said, have certain obligations, responsibilities, as a host country to United Nations. So watch this space.

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- one more on the same topic? There are also reports that Bashir has been deliberately starving people in the Nuba Mountains region, possibly as a tactic to suppress the insurgency in that region against him. First of all, is the U.S. aware of this, and then if so, what is the U.S. response?

MR TONER: Pam, we may very well be aware of it. I'm not aware of it, so let me try to get more information about that and get back to you, okay?

Lalit.

QUESTION: On the attack – airstrike on the Taliban leader --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- has Pakistan officially responded or protested to the U.S. on the strike?

MR TONER: Has – I'm sorry, I missed your last part of your question.

QUESTION: Has Pakistan officially responded or protested against this strike – against this strike on the Taliban leader inside Pakistan?

MR TONER: Right. Well, again, I'd refer you to the Pakistani Government to tell – to say whether they responded or not. I don't have any readout to provide or anything like that.

QUESTION: Pakistan says that by doing so, U.S. has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and also has violated the respected UN Charter.

MR TONER: So a couple things about that. First of all, this was a strike directed against this individual, Mansour, in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do respect Pakistan's territorial integrity, but as we've said before, we will carry out strikes to remove terrorists who are actively pursuing and planning and directing attacks against U.S. forces.

QUESTION: One question that falls from that, if I may.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Sure.

QUESTION: Was that the motive of this attack or did it perhaps also have a political motive to try to influence the lack of peace talks?

MR TONER: Well, I think – I mean, that's – it can be – there can be multiple reasons for it, but I think the primary, and the President spoke to this earlier today when he confirmed the success of this strike, that this is about removing someone who was actively pursuing, planning, carrying out attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces in the region.

QUESTION: And then one other one.

MR TONER: But also – I'm sorry, just to finish – it also sends a clear message that those who target our people and the Afghan people are not going to be given a safe haven, and then also that it – that there's only one option for the Taliban, and that is a – to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So, sorry.

QUESTION: No, no. There are reports that – that – and they're not definitive as far as I can see, but that a passport was found near his body but in someone else's name, and that that passport had been used to travel into Iran. Do you know if Mullah Mansour traveled to Iran, and if so, do you have any idea why?

MR TONER: I don't. I've seen those reports, but no further clarification, no further information, about that.

QUESTION: Mark, can --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: One more. You said that – when he mentioned Pakistan's complaints about violation of sovereignty, you said it happened in the Af-Pak border region.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you denying that it happened on Pakistani territory?

MR TONER: I don't have any more clarity of where the actual strike took place. What I can say was in that border region. I just can't say on which side of the border it was.

QUESTION: So you don't know if – so are you doubting the claim from Pakistan that it was in their territory?

MR TONER: I'm not going to speak – I mean, the Pakistani Government is able to speak on behalf of itself. I'm not going to doubt its claim. I'm just saying the information that we have right – are able to share.

QUESTION: But this was a – this is a --

QUESTION: So you don't know where you targeted him? You just guessed? I mean, how could you fire something out of the sky and blow something up and kill people and not know what country it's in? Come on.

MR TONER: I understand what – your question, Brad. All I'm saying is what we're able – I said what we're willing to share is that it was in --

QUESTION: You check these things before you fire, usually, right?

MR TONER: -- the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do.

QUESTION: On that, what impact this has on the Taliban itself? Can you say it's defeated now?

MR TONER: No, by any means I wouldn't say that, and I don't mean to imply that if I said that. What I think it does send is a clear message, as I said, that if you're going to carry out attacks, if you're going to lead attacks against our forces and against Afghan's forces – Afghanistan's forces – then you're going to be targeted and you're not going to have safe haven. And I also think that it sends the message that the Taliban must decide what its future is going to be and whether it's going to be part of a peaceful political future for Afghanistan. And there is a path towards that. They can sit down with the Afghan Government and begin negotiations and talks. We've encouraged that; we support an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led process.

QUESTION: But how can you expect someone to come to peace talks when you have just killed their supreme leader?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think it presents them with a clear choice. And Lalit, you know that there's ways to engage and identify the fact that you're willing to engage in a peaceful way. And, frankly, Mansour showed no – absolutely no predilection towards engaging in any kind of peaceful political process.

QUESTION: From the public statements that's coming from Pakistan, it's very much evident that they are very upset with your action. Do you see any kind of retaliatory measures coming out of Pakistan?

MR TONER: No, we – look, Lalit – I mean, I'm – again, I'm not going to speak on behalf of the Pakistani Government, what they may or may not do. We have been in touch with them, obviously. We've talked about this airstrike. We continue to talk to them about how we can collaborate and cooperate on rooting out these terrorist organizations and these organizations or these groups that continue to use Pakistanis – Pakistan's territory to carry out attacks.

QUESTION: Can we move on to --

QUESTION: One more quickly. Was --

MR TONER: One more and then – okay.

QUESTION: Was Mullah Mansour on the terrorist designated list, the --

MR TONER: I don't believe he was, no.

QUESTION: He was not.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Yeah, and then I'll get to you. Please.

QUESTION: Okay. Very quickly to the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Oh, sure, yeah. Please.

QUESTION: I have a couple of quick questions. First of all, on – last week Secretary of State Kerry said that he is going to go to the meeting in Paris on June 3rd. Well, the prime minister of Israel in his meeting with the prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, said that – rejected the idea. Did that cast any doubt on the Secretary's plans to attend this meeting?

MR TONER: I've seen his comments – Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments. I don't have any more details about what he may be proposing. I know he talked about --

QUESTION: I understand. I'm saying --

MR TONER: No, we're – look, we've committed, and the Secretary spoke about it last week in Brussels. He plans to attend the French conference – the French ministerial, rather – on June 3rd. And I think, as he expressed very clearly in the press conference at NATO when he got the question, he wants to work with the French, he wants to work with other partners in the coming days to ensure that this is as productive and constructive a process as possible.

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. So would this – from the Secretary's point of view, would this be like an alternative to past efforts on the sort of bilateral talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Is there something – an alternative to that in his mind?

MR TONER: I think what we're trying to do is – and what the Secretary is certainly engaged on – is setting the right conditions. Look, we've all said we – and we haven't changed our position, which is that ultimately we want to see direct negotiations that results in a two-state solution. That has not changed. We don't want to see negotiations for the sake of negotiations. We want a clear path forward, and we need the – set the right climate or right environment for those negotiations to proceed. And we want – if direct talks were to proceed, we'd want to see both sides come to the table – and again, Secretary Kerry spoke to this – ready to really talk about the tough issues and address those issues and reach consensus. And so if they're willing to do that, then certainly we're not going to stand in the way, but we believe that there's got to be more groundwork laid before that process can go forward.

QUESTION: Let me ask you just one more question on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, Israeli settler bulldozer and bulldozed an agricultural area. They have been doing it for the past week. They leveled agricultural area in the village of Jaloud and the villagers or the – in the surrounding villages as well the farmers have received notices from the Israeli Government over the past – since April that roughly about 1,500 acres have been taken away or designated as government land.

MR TONER: You're talking in the West Bank?

QUESTION: Right. In the northern West Bank.

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, Said, our position on settlements hasn't changed. We strongly oppose all settlement activity. We think it's corrosive to the cause of peace. We continue to look to both sides, frankly, to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution, and actions like this, frankly, just do the opposite.

QUESTION: I have a couple on various --

MR TONER: Sure. I'm so sorry, I did say you were next. Can I get back to you, Brad? And then I – Brad is the last question because I've got to run. Please (inaudible), I apologize.

QUESTION: Well, sir, I know you said that you don't know much about Ahrar al-Sham and what they did in al-Zahraa. I have the photograph that I mentioned. I was reluctant to show it because of how graphic it was, but now I think I will do so and maybe this will prompt you to look into this group. And I want to ask you why should this group have protection under the cessation of hostilities when they clearly don't care about cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Look, I'm just not aware of this incident. I'm not – I was not casting doubt or not trying to – I just am not aware of it. That said, we hold all parties, whether they're parties to the cessation of hostilities or not, accountable for actions that target civilian populations, and frankly, are barbaric acts against civilians. I just don't have the specifics in this particular incident. I'm not trying to say in any way that it's not true or it didn't happen. I just don't have on my end the information.

QUESTION: I have a couple. They're really quick.

MR TONER: Please. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I have one really quick one.

MR TONER: Okay, let's go.

QUESTION: The case of Kamal and Mohamed Eldarat in the United Arab Emirates – both of them are U.S. citizens. I think a final decision expected on the 30th. Has there been any high-level contact between American and Emirati officials?

MR TONER: I think we – that remains – I don't know if there's been any recent contact, but I think certainly that we've been following this case quite closely, as you know. We're concerned about several aspects of it – their health, their prior lack of access to legal representation, the absence of formal charges against them in their first hearing, and frankly, the lack of consular access. So we continue to raise all these issues with the UAE Government.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MR TONER: I don't have any – I don't have anything – any update to provide.

QUESTION: Well, we'll have a couple days to readdress this one.

MR TONER: Exactly, exactly.

QUESTION: U.S. permanent resident Nizar Zakka in Iran – apparently, a judicial official said something about speeding up the proceedings. Do you see that as good or bad in that case?

MR TONER: Well, again, we're very concerned about reports of – that Nizar Zakka is being unjustly held in Iran since 2015. We don't provide, as I think we've made clear, consular assistance to non-U.S. citizens; however, we would ask for any effort to speed up and provide him with a free and fair trial, if that's the case.

QUESTION: And then Zainab al-Khawaja in Bahrain – if you remember, she's imprisoned with her, I think, one-year-old daughter.

MR TONER: Yeah, I'm aware of the case. I don't --

QUESTION: And it was about, I don't know, five weeks ago the Secretary stood on the stage with the Bahraini foreign minister and he promised that he would release her. She is not released and, apparently, she's sick and her family can't get the one-year-old out of prison. Is this an issue, or is that okay with you guys?

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: It's been a lot of weeks.

MR TONER: I understand that. I understand that, Brad.

QUESTION: You got this promise and you hailed him, I think, at the time for this.

MR TONER: I understand that. And of course it's --

QUESTION: So it's a little silly at some point.

MR TONER: Of course it's an issue, and let me see if I can get an update for you on that.

QUESTION: That was – that was my question, Zainab al-Khawaja.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) On Okinawa, according to the U.S. Embassy, Ambassador Kennedy is considering going to Okinawa. We were wondering if she will go, when, as well as if the purpose will be to address the recent incident and if she'll meet with the governor of Okinawa.

MR TONER: I don't have any information on Ambassador Kennedy's travel plans, so I'll have to take that question. As we – I think John mentioned this last week, our heartfelt sympathy and condolences go out to the family and friends of this victim of this terrible attack on Okinawa.

Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:31 p.m.)