UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 10, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
GEORGIA
SYRIA/REGION
AFGHANISTAN/REGION
DEPARTMENT
MOLDOVA
PERU
BAHRAIN
INDIA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:09 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everyone. Happy Friday. I got the day of the week right, David. That's accomplishment, I think, of the week for me.

QUESTION: Boy, that's setting a pretty low bar to --

MR TONER: It is, but I was wrong, I think, two out of three days this week, so that says – tells you something.

Anyway. Welcome to the State Department, everyone. Just to start off, I wanted to announce that the Secretary of State will travel to the Dominican Republic, to Norway, Denmark and Greenland next week. He'll travel to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Oslo and Svalbard, Norway; and Copenhagen, Denmark and also Ilulissat, Greenland – excuse me – Ilulissat, Greenland. And that's from June 13th through 17th.

While in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic on June 13th and 14th, the Secretary will participate in the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, the Western Hemisphere's premiere multilateral organization. The Secretary will also meet with Dominican President Danilo Medina and will engage in bilateral discussions and consultations with regional counterparts on issues of shared interest.

Secretary Kerry will then travel to Oslo, Norway, on June 14th through 16th, and will join Norwegian Foreign Minister Brende at the Oslo Forum, a gathering of world leaders involving conflict mediation, and will meet separately with Prime Minister Erna Solberg for bilateral discussions. Secretary Kerry will also deliver remarks at a conference on deforestation and visit Svalbard, Norway, to engage with Arctic researchers.

The Secretary will then travel to Copenhagen, Denmark, June 16th through 17th, where he will have bilateral discussions with Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen and Foreign Minister Kristian Jensen. Secretary Kerry will also travel to Ilulissat, Greenland, on June 17th to meet with Greenlandic and Danish officials and discussed shared – and discuss shared challenges in the Arctic.

That's it. Matt.

QUESTION: Can I just ask one thing about this trip?

MR TONER: Sure. Why I can't pronounce all the names? (Laughter.) That's --

QUESTION: No, it's just like – I mean, he's going from the tropics to Iceland. Who packs with him? (Laughter.) I mean, from Hispaniola to the Arctic Circle in the space of one day.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: I mean --

QUESTION: Matt, who packs for you? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That's really the question. No, I --

MR TONER: I'd say bring a fleece.

QUESTION: No, I have a serious question.

MR TONER: Okay, yeah.

QUESTION: Can you give us a general idea of the issues to be discussed at the OAS meeting?

MR TONER: Well, there was a backgrounder, I think, on that earlier today. Obviously, it'll be issues of hemispheric importance, including, certainly, the situation in Venezuela, but elsewhere in Latin America. I'm sure Cuba will be on the agenda as well. But beyond that I don't have a list in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I have lots of stuff.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Any – the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that Israel's cancellation of entry permits for Palestinians following the attack in Tel Aviv may amount to collective punishment. Do you regard it that way?

MR TONER: We've seen those remarks, certainly. Look, I'm not going to get into characterizing what the suspension is. All I'll say is basically what I said yesterday, which is that while we strongly support Israel's right to ensure the security of its citizens, in general we hope that any measures that it does take will be designed to minimize the impact on the lives of Palestinian civilians who are going about their daily lives.

QUESTION: Isn't – I mean, can't you make an argument, though, that it's not collective punishment, that it's rather – it's a security measure rather than a punitive measure? Or do you regard it as a punitive measure? And if that's the case --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- then why is it not collective punishment since those people presumably were not the gunmen here?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don't want to get into calling it this or that. What I – what we said yesterday and what we'll say again today is that we understand in the aftermath of Wednesday's attack in Tel Aviv that Israeli authorities are putting in place security measures. They have said that this is one of those measures that they're planning to take, but this certainly will have a broader impact on the lives of many Palestinian civilians, as I said, who are simply going about their daily lives. And we would ask in any of these situations, while understanding the precautions and the understandable security measures that Israel is taking in the wake of these kinds of attacks, that we don't see an escalation in tension, that we don't see measures taken that will add to tensions.

QUESTION: Could I --

MR TONER: Yeah, please, sir. Go ahead, sir.

QUESTION: Could I just follow up on that real quick?

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Because, I mean, these are really draconian measures. I mean, aside from the checkpoints, whole towns are closed off, the whole West Bank; people are not allowed to go to Jerusalem, definitely not to Israel, and so on; Gaza is completely besieged. Even – they plugged all the holes in the wall, so to speak. So, I mean, that is a whole population that is being punished or restricted under security measures. I mean, this is not something that happened today. It has happened day after day, year after year for a very long time. So why is it difficult for you to say that this is actually collective punishment?

MR TONER: So, Said, what I'd say is a couple of things. One is that we strongly condemn the terrorist acts, the violence, and there's no justification for it. We were very clear about that the other day. I said this – I said as much again yesterday. What we'd like to see, certainly, are affirmative steps, affirmative actions to restore calm, to de-escalate tensions, and to bring about an end to the violence. And that's incumbent on both sides, and certainly we want to see, as we talked a little bit about yesterday, statements that help relieve that pressure, relieve those tensions, that condemn the violence and de-escalate tensions.

But we also understand in the immediate aftermath that Israel – Israeli authorities are trying to put in place security measures --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- to protect their citizens. I've said this. But they need to do so with the understanding that this will impact, as you note, the lives of tens of thousands of people. And we hope that they do so in a temporary fashion and acknowledge that this will have an impact beyond the – providing security for Israeli citizens.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, there has been nothing temporary about this occupation, but let me just take you to what the French foreign minister said. I don't know if you saw his comments.

MR TONER: I've seen his remarks.

QUESTION: He – his remarks. They were a bit stronger, and he's saying that this could have some dire consequences and so on. He's, in fact, called on Israel to undo this and allow Palestinians to go about their lives, as you said – allow them to go about their daily lives.

MR TONER: Again, anytime you take sweeping actions like this, there are the possibility of – that these actions will only inflame tensions and escalate tensions, and I'm guessing that that's what Foreign Minister Ayrault was referring to in his comments. Again, I'm not going to characterize these actions in any way. All I'm saying – all we are saying – is that we want to see any actions to be temporary in nature and to not impact the lives of normal Palestinian citizens.

QUESTION: Well, my last question on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I mean, have you ever – or do you recall at any time that Israel closed off a settlement when there was a settlement-borne attack or settler-borne attack from these settlements and so on, and disallowed people – or, in fact, the Palestinian Security Forces, which Israel coordinates all actions with, going after the settlers and so on? Have you ever seen anything like this?

MR TONER: No, I'm not aware of such a circumstance.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: So, let me just pick this up a little bit. Does the Administration believe that Israel has the right or does not have the right to control who gets into its – who crosses the border, who crosses the line between the West Bank and --

MR TONER: Well, in general, any sovereign state should be able to control its own borders if that's what you're referring to.

QUESTION: So regardless of whether or not you won't take a position on whether this is collective punishment or not, you do acknowledge that they have a right to regulate --

MR TONER: And I've – yes, and I've said as much, yes.

QUESTION: -- the flows of people in and out of the country.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: So – and I think that you said in response to one of Arshad's questions that it was understandable, is that right? Maybe I misheard you.

MR TONER: No, I said that. They – it's understandable in the wake of a terrorist attack that they are going to take measures to protect their civilian population --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: -- of which this is one, I believe, is how they've characterized it.

QUESTION: Right. And yesterday, you talked about restraint.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you recall this building or the Administration – any administration, more broadly, urging restraint on other governments after their countries have been the victims of attack, notably, I would say, France, Belgium in the most recent?

MR TONER: I think --

QUESTION: Or is – no, go ahead.

MR TONER: No, no, that's okay. It's a legitimate question. I think very often, as I said – and I believe I've been clear in this case as well – in the wake of terrorist attacks such as we've seen in Israel, such as we've seen in Europe, such as we've seen sadly throughout the world, that government, local authorities often take immediate security measures, again, with the goal of protecting their citizens. All we would ever say about those measures is that they not violate basic human rights and that they're done in a way that doesn't serve to escalate tensions on the ground and exacerbate a sensitive situation. But again, I think we understand the motivation behind these actions.

QUESTION: Right. But when you say --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- all you ask is that they don't violate basic human rights, so do you believe that what the – what – the measures that Israel has taken violate basic human rights?

MR TONER: I think – I'm not going to characterize it that way, and all I'm going to say is that they – obviously, as I said already – they do inconvenience a large number of people. But I don't think they're – I don't know that I'd characterize them as a violation of human rights, no.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean, because inconvenience is not – I mean --

MR TONER: I understand. I understand the difference.

QUESTION: I'm not exactly sure that convenience is --

MR TONER: I understand the --

QUESTION: -- a basic human right.

MR TONER: But they do impact the lives of Palestinian citizens --

QUESTION: So – so --

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MR TONER: -- or civilians, rather.

QUESTION: All right. So can I just --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: So why is it you won't either say that this is, as Arshad pointed out the human rights people say, may – this may be a collective punishment, or say it's okay --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- we are – as you said, it's understandable, but you don't want it to affect – to violate basic human rights, I mean, and if it doesn't, then is there an issue? Is there a problem?

MR TONER: I guess, Matt, in answer to your question or in response to your question, it's – I don't want to – I don't want to put a moniker on it or attempt to characterize it because it's not a black-and-white issue in that sense. It does impact the lives. Without any doubt, it will impact the lives of normal, regular Palestinian civilians going about their daily business. That's without doubt.

But that has to be balanced with Israelis' – sorry, let me just finish – Israeli authorities' desire to put in place security measures – enhanced security measures to protect their citizens in the wake of a terrorist attack. They do so with the knowledge, I guess, that that will – may have an impact exacerbating tensions. We are only acknowledging that that is a possible side effect. That's all I'm saying.

QUESTION: But – well, I guess I'd just – if you think that the impact it's going to have on innocent – on innocent --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Palestinian civilians is too much, why won't you say it?

MR TONER: I believe I am by raising it.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. So --

MR TONER: By saying that --

QUESTION: So you disapprove, then --

MR TONER: I'm saying – no, Matt, but let me – no, no. No, no, no --

QUESTION: -- of the measures that – okay.

MR TONER: No, no, but what I'm saying is – sorry, just to clarify, what I'm saying is they need to – we would hope that any measures would be temporary in nature and would refrain from escalating tensions. That's all we're saying here. That's the only caveat we're putting out.

QUESTION: Yeah, but at the same time you're saying that it is escalating tensions.

MR TONER: I'm saying it could.

QUESTION: So your position is the same as the French position or the French foreign ministry's.

MR TONER: I don't have his comments in front of me.

QUESTION: I --

MR TONER: All I'm saying – I don't know. I'm not trying to – no, you're trying to box me in. I --

QUESTION: I'm trying to – well, I'm just trying to get a straight answer. I don't --

MR TONER: But my answer is we understand why they're taking these measures. We understand in the wake of this terrorist attack the rationale behind it, but when you do take these, they – we've – and we've said this before, Matt, in the wake of terrorist attacks when they have taken measures to – that have impacted innocent Palestinians, that they do so on a temporary basis and they do so with the understanding that nobody wants to see a further escalation of tensions.

QUESTION: Right. Okay, the last one.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Can you – do you recall, and this is going back to the first --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- my earlier question, which I don't think you answered, which is: Do you recall ever feeling the need to advise, to warn, to urge governments in Europe to use restraint as they respond – when they respond to terrorist attacks?

MR TONER: I can't come up with an instance, no.

QUESTION: Okay. So why is it – can I --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the situation with the Israelis and the Palestinians just so unique that you think that it is required? I mean --

MR TONER: Well, you – again, I – so a couple of thoughts on that actually. First of all, these are – this is an ongoing conflict --

QUESTION: Clearly, yeah. And I mean --

MR TONER: -- and that involves two parties.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: We don't want to see tensions exacerbated on either side, and we realize that when these senseless acts of violence and terrorism take place, that they only escalate tensions, understandably. We want to see a diminution of – we want to see an end to violence. We want to see a diminution of tensions. It's with that understanding and that awareness that we do comment on the actions that Israel's taken. And frankly, and I'm not pointing the finger at anyone else, but if another country we felt were taking severe or draconian measures in the wake of some kind of an attack, we might also comment. I'm not saying that this is that case, but I'm saying we might.

QUESTION: Okay. So you --

MR TONER: But you've actually done well because you forced me to answer a hypothetical, which is always a bad idea.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, but – so but – so you do not believe – you do or you do not believe that the measures that they have taken, that the Israelis have taken, are severe and draconian?

MR TONER: Again, I'm not going to characterize them.

QUESTION: All right, I give up.

QUESTION: I just – on this very point, you're not correlating the dynamics, let's say, between France and terror groups like al-Qaida or ISIS and so on with that – with the dynamics of Israel, with an occupied population, are you? You're not correlating that? I mean, there is a military occupation ongoing, correct? You do acknowledge that.

MR TONER: Look, I'm not going to correlate between what's happening in one part of the globe to another part of the globe, one issue to another issue. All I'm speaking to is the situation in Israel in the wake of a terrorist attack that took place two days ago in Tel Aviv and the measures that the Israeli Government has taken as a result of that attack. I don't want – I said from the get-go I don't want to characterize it in any way. I tried to give – or offer what I thought was our assessment of the stakes here and what might happen as a result, but in no way do I want to characterize this. In no way do I want to draw comparisons despite your efforts to make me do so. Okay?

Please.

QUESTION: Change topic?

MR TONER: Are we done with --

QUESTION: On Syria?

QUESTION: Georgia?

MR TONER: Yeah. Let me do Georgia and then I'll get to Syria.

QUESTION: Thank you. European and U.S. officials – among them, American ambassador in Tbilisi – made a lot of statements about largest television station, Rustavi 2. Shareholders of this television company lost appeal today in court of appeals in Tbilisi. Opposition and some NGOs say that this is a takeover of television station just four months before elections. I was wondering if you have any reaction on that, please.

MR TONER: Sure. You're talking about the Tbilisi appeals court, right – the decision they took on Rustavi 2 ownership. Well, again, my understanding of this is that the Tbilisi appeals court decided to uphold the ruling of a lower court that, in fact, transferred ownership of Rustavi 2 to the claimant. And our understanding is also that Rustavi 2 management will stay in place until the appeals process has been exhausted.

I guess we would just say that it's important to bear in mind that freedom of media, political pluralism, independence of the judiciary, are essential foundations in any democracy and remain critical to Georgia's successful Euro-Atlantic decision. So we would just call on all sides in this particular case to exercise restraint and to work to resolve the case through judicial process in a way that supports Georgia's democratic development.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry, you said Syria.

MR TONER: (Off-mike).

QUESTION: Yeah. So yesterday you said that --

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: -- there had been reports that food convoys would be allowed through. We understand that some have been allowed through, others not. And also, there are now reports that after the aid was distributed in Daraya, which obviously hadn't had food a number of years, that dozens of barrel bombs were dropped on the town --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- by Syrian --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- military helicopters.

MR TONER: So you've given a pretty accurate assessment. Frankly, it's --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) your response (inaudible).

MR TONER: No, it's – look, as you said, yesterday we did confirm that Daraya received its first food delivery since 2012. But while this step was positive, it was only a partial delivery, and we would call on the rest of the supplies to be delivered as soon as possible. Excuse me.

And then I talked about this yesterday; we want to see and expect to see all the food, all the supplies, all the assistance, as determined by the UN and as requested by the UN, reach all the besieged areas that are defined by the UN. This should be – this should be a UN-designated and UN-led process here. It shouldn't be a situation where the Syrian government, for example, decides which areas receive humanitarian assistance.

We do understand that another aid convoy, I think, has begun to arrive or has arrived in the besieged area of Douma today. So again, another small measure of progress. But you, of course, noted the very tragic incident that the Syrian regime conducted multiple barrel bombing attacks in Daraya this morning, and that was – came just hours after the UN convoy arrived. Obviously, such attacks are unacceptable in any circumstance; but in this case, they also hamper the delivery and distribution of badly needed assistance.

QUESTION: And these were – you're certain they were barrel bombs --

MR TONER: Our understanding is that they were.

QUESTION: -- conducted by the regime?

MR TONER: Yeah, they were barrel bombing by the --

QUESTION: Because somebody --

MR TONER: That's our understanding.

QUESTION: Reports were saying that they're – some crude bomb, perhaps suggesting that there may be a different group behind it.

MR TONER: Yeah. Our understanding is that they were the regime barrel bombs.

QUESTION: Mark, can I ask a couple questions about Raj Fernando?

MR TONER: Sure. Let me do – she asked Afghanistan. I'll get to her first --

QUESTION: Okay, that's fine.

MR TONER: -- if we're switching sort of topics. Yeah, sure. Go.

QUESTION: As I understand, under a new authority that President Obama approved, U.S. forces will assist Afghan forces not only in defensive instances but also in their offensive campaign against the Taliban. Is that correct – about this --

MR TONER: Sure. And I believe the Department of Defense is actually either spoken to or is speaking to this as I brief you guys right now. But yes, President Obama has decided to authorize additional authorities – so those are modifications to existing authorities, I guess is how I'd put it – for the Department of Defense to be exercised within the realm of our two ongoing missions in Afghanistan. And those missions, just to remind folks, is – are first, the United States along with NATO has the non-combat mission of advising and assisting the Afghan Defense Forces. And then the second component to this mission is a counterterrorism capability to go after remnants of al-Qaida, ISIL as well, and other terrorist groups in the region. So those are the two components. And this, again, is just an additional modification to those existing authorities.

QUESTION: Well, now that --

QUESTION: It doesn't reflect a change in strategy in that you're no longer attempting to talk to the Taliban; you want to shoot them now?

MR TONER: No. I mean, I think it's – I think fundamentally this is about better support for Afghan Security Forces.

QUESTION: But specifically attacking the Taliban.

MR TONER: Indeed. Well, again, what I talked about is the ISIL-K, I think is what the designated group are, but also al-Qaida and then those elements of the Taliban who are intent on carrying out terrorist attacks.

QUESTION: But where does it leave the Administration's position that there has to be a reconciliation process involving the Taliban? Are you still committed to that?

MR TONER: Yes, we are.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to be attacking the Taliban until they too commit to a reconciliation process?

MR TONER: No. I mean, look, I mean – and I don't want to necessarily lump all the Taliban together. What we've been clear about is that we hope there's a point when the Taliban come to realize that what's needed in Afghanistan is reconciliation, and we've long supported Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation – peace and reconciliation talks. It's frankly the best and surest way to end the conflict in Afghanistan,

But let me just finish. But it's always been a component of our ongoing mission in Afghanistan is, one, to ensure that the Afghan Security Forces are able to carry out their mission effectively, and this will help that; and then secondly, that we go after the remnants of al-Qaida, that we go after these ISIL-affiliated groups, that we continue our counterterrorism operations. Because let's remember what brought us to Afghanistan many years ago, which in the wake of 9/11, which was an effort to go after al-Qaida, which had positioned itself, had set up shop in Afghanistan with the intent of carrying out terrorist attacks in the West, including in the United States.

QUESTION: The U.S. does not recognize --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) authority to take on ISIL and al-Qaida. The change today is a broadening of its authorities to attack the Taliban.

QUESTION: Which the U.S. does not recognize as a terrorist organization; is that correct?

MR TONER: Yeah, I think --

QUESTION: Nothing has changed in your authority to attack al-Qaida. That's been a core part of the mission forever. And you actually exercise that authority all over the world, not just in Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Right. But this offers us – again, no, but I mean, I guess I'm maybe presenting it a different way. But I mean, what this allows us to is it offers greater opportunities for U.S. forces who are accompanying – to accompany and enable Afghan conventional forces both on the ground – because we had already been providing this support for Special Forces.

QUESTION: Right. But the Afghan conventional forces are fighting the Taliban.

MR TONER: They are fighting the Taliban. And again, as – but we've been very clear about this as well. While Afghan – sorry. While the Taliban are not a designated terrorist organization, foreign terrorist organization, we have taken out their leadership, we have carried out strikes against them. When we understand – and we do understand – that they are intent on carrying out attacks aimed at killing Afghan Security Forces and U.S. security forces --

QUESTION: I'm not arguing that that's a bad thing. Just that the thing that's news today is that. You just keep mentioning al-Qaida, which is irrelevant to the news today, no?

MR TONER: Right. What I'm trying to say is it's an expansion of our authorities, yes. So I mean – yeah. Sorry.

QUESTION: Does this change affect – does this change have any impact on what the State Department does?

MR TONER: No. I mean, it – I mean, it enhances --

QUESTION: So why are you standing up here? Why are you talking about it?

MR TONER: Well, granted – and I did mention that --

QUESTION: Well, you went on – you went on and on. I can understand why the question was asked, but I just want to know: Does it have any relevance to what the State Department's mission is in Afghanistan? Does it change any of the State Department's or U.S. diplomats' authorities --

MR TONER: Direct mission? No, but it does affect our overall mission in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Okay. And that which remains trying to promote Afghan reconciliation.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Right? Despite this change; is that what you're saying?

MR TONER: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: Does the – does the Afghan Government --

QUESTION: But does this change help or hinder that reconciliation –

QUESTION: -- want a reconciliation?

MR TONER: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the Afghan Government want a reconciliation with the Taliban?

MR TONER: Yes, as long as they're willing to come to the table and discuss it in a peaceful way. Again, but this is not – I mean, we want to see both sides – as I said, Afghan-led, Afghan-owned. That's --

QUESTION: What is the – what is the endgame? Where does the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan end, as you see it?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, first of all, that we do have an Afghan Government and Afghan Security Forces that are able to provide security for the Afghan people. Second, that we continue our counterterrorism mission, which is, again, aimed at remnants of al-Qaida, ISIL, and other terrorist groups that operate in that sphere. And that we have stability and peace and security in the area and that we are able to solidify the gains that the Afghan Government has made over the past decade-plus since we initially went into Afghanistan.

Sure.

QUESTION: Continuing --

MR TONER: I'm so sorry. Nicole, why don't you go first and then I'll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: Okay, I've got a series about this. The first is that it seems that even State Department officials were a little puzzled by Mr. Fernando's appointment to the ISAB.

MR TONER: I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you. I apologize, Nicole.

QUESTION: Sorry, I'm just --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) hear you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Not feeling particularly well. I'm just here to get the job done.

MR TONER: I apologize.

QUESTION: So Mr. Fernando, he was appointed to the board. This seems to have puzzled even some State Department employees. If he was at all qualified, why – why did he resign so suddenly after ABC News started asking questions?

MR TONER: I mean, you'd have to ask him. I mean, look, all I know and can say about this story – and I've read the story, obviously – is in looking at – he served on the International Security Advisory Board, and that was established to provide State Department with independent insight and advice on different international security matters. The board should reflect, according to its charter, a balance of background, points of view, so he was chosen as part of that process of trying to choose members that represent a broad range of views, I assume.

I don't have any more details into his selection process, and I certainly don't have any details into why he resigned so briefly – or so quickly after he was appointed.

QUESTION: Does State have any concerns that the decision to appoint him was purely political, was without any national security considerations?

MR TONER: Do we have concerns that it was purely politically motivated?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: No, I don't think so. It's not unusual for, as I said, a broad range of individuals to be vetted and chosen for these kinds of positions.

QUESTION: Okay. Has he – had he had any other engagements or encounters with the State Department prior to the ISAB appointment?

MR TONER: Good question. I'm not sure what his – I apologize, I don't think I know. You're talking about whether he had worked for the State Department --

QUESTION: In any capacity.

MR TONER: -- or had any kind of capacity.

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: I'll see if I can get you any information about that. I don't have it in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are there any other appointments made by Secretary Clinton's chief of staff or Secretary Clinton herself that the State Department had any concerns about or that --

MR TONER: No, not that I'm aware of. No.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

MR TONER: Thank you. Goyal.

QUESTION: I have one --

QUESTION: When you say --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- the board's supposed to represent a broad range of people, does that mean that --

MR TONER: Balance in background and points of view, as --

QUESTION: Does that mean that it's open to anybody?

MR TONER: No, certainly not. I mean – and again, anybody who's going to be chosen would be vetted.

QUESTION: I mean, could I be --

MR TONER: I mean, it's not – look, I mean, if you're looking at a board that is supposed to provide independent insight and analysis of security matters, it's not unthinkable to imagine that a journalist who works in-depth on issues of security would be considered.

QUESTION: Right. All right. But – okay.

QUESTION: How about (inaudible) --

QUESTION: Here's a question --

QUESTION: How about Arshad?

QUESTION: How about – how about --

QUESTION: Yeah, I --

MR TONER: Arshad, you're (inaudible). (Laughter.)

QUESTION: No, no. How about high-frequency traders? I mean, that's what this guy did. He was like a trader.

MR TONER: He came from a business background, yes, and I don't have --

QUESTION: Not just a business, a markets background.

MR TONER: A markets background.

QUESTION: He didn't come from a security background, did he?

MR TONER: I don't believe so.

QUESTION: Does he know anything about security matters, to your knowledge?

MR TONER: Again, I just don't have his – I apologize. I don't have his CV in front of me. I don't have a – all I know is that the charter does lay out, stipulate that looking for a broad range of experiences. It's not, again, unimaginable that a businessman, international businessman might bring a certain level of expertise or knowledge or experience to such a job. My understanding is that he was fully vetted. He did, as you noted, Nicole, resign shortly after. I can't speak to that.

QUESTION: I have one more on that.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, go ahead, and then I really – I have to take one more question, which – Goyal.

QUESTION: I don't know if this is something you're going to have the answer to, but --

QUESTION: Can you talk about Iraq?

MR TONER: I don't have time, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: -- on the State Department website for the board itself, it lists former members.

MR TONER: Yes, yep.

QUESTION: But he's not listed there. Is that – is it a comprehensive list or is it just highlighting --

MR TONER: Apparently not. (Laughter.) Sorry, I couldn't resist. You know what, I – yeah, I can check on that, actually. I don't know why it wasn't included – he is not listed on the website. I don't have an answer.

QUESTION: Can you find out who it was who called the person who cut it off the website and who called them to tell them to do that?

MR TONER: Okay. (Laughter.) We'll do so immediately.

QUESTION: Speaking of which, is there anything new on that?

MR TONER: Thanks, David. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Want me to answer that one?

MR TONER: I really don't have anything – no. I mean, we're – as we talked about the other day, they're still continuing to carry out additional fact-finding.

QUESTION: All right, but no --

MR TONER: No updates.

QUESTION: -- no new information?

MR TONER: Nope.

QUESTION: Can I ask you if you got answers to the two – the TQs on Moldova and – and Ukraine?

MR TONER: Yes, on Moldova, yes. And on Ukraine I thought --

QUESTION: And Ukraine.

MR TONER: I answered that, I thought. Did I not answer that adequately?

So on Moldova – let me start there.

QUESTION: Well --

MR TONER: I don't know if I – I thought I answered your question on Ukraine, but --

QUESTION: I'll go back and check.

MR TONER: -- let's do Moldova first. So we have seen reports that parliament is considering a draft anti-propaganda law which could negatively impact LGBTI persons in Moldova and undercut protections in the 2012 anti-discrimination law that did improve equality and tolerance in Moldova. So we urge Moldova to uphold its international commitments and obligations to protect the fundamental freedoms of expression – excuse me – peaceful assembly, and association for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. And we believe that diversity does not pose a threat to Moldovan society, but instead helps it to thrive.

QUESTION: And do you have any reaction to the Peruvian election?

MR TONER: I don't believe I --

QUESTION: Because --

MR TONER: Yes. It's – they're undecided, right?

QUESTION: -- Ms. – no, she – Mrs. Fujimori has conceded.

MR TONER: Oh, that's – okay.

QUESTION: She's conceded now. She hadn't --

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, I – we – okay. I mean, I had not seen that news. We do congratulate Peru on conducting orderly presidential elections, but on that news, I'd have to get back to you to comment.

QUESTION: And I have one last one, which will be very brief --

MR TONER: Please. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- because I know you're going to have to take it. In Bahrain recently – well, one, is it – do you have any timetable from this report that's now 100 and --

MR TONER: This is the report – the --

QUESTION: To Congress --

MR TONER: To Congress, okay.

QUESTION: -- that you guys were supposed to submit to them 120-odd days ago. Do you know – just – I don't expect that you have it right now, but do you have a better timeline, better idea of when it will be sent?

MR TONER: I'll check on that.

QUESTION: All right. And then just – we had talked in here a bit about the – this woman who had been – they had promised that they would release on bail for humanitarian reasons. And there were apparently several other – cases similar to this, although involving less – perhaps less high-profile people. And I'm just wondering if your conversations with the Bahraini authorities are limited to these high-profile cases, or are you continuing to press the Bahrainis on releasing people for – political prisoners or people who you believe to be political prisoners --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- for humanitarian reasons?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, my – our – my understanding is that it's the latter; that we continue to press the Bahraini authorities to make improvements on their human rights record and also to address ongoing human rights concerns, and not just affiliated with high-profile cases but across the board.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MR TONER: Goyal.

QUESTION: Two questions, quick, on India.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: As far as terrorism is concerned, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the Congress and lawmakers and also the think tank people in Washington, meeting hundreds of them, that there should not be a distinction between good and bad terrorism. Terrorists – or terrorism is terrorism whether they are – they are all bad anyway, because if they are good, then they are not terrorists. So – and also he mentioned about cross-border terrorism that – what message he was sending to whom and are they going – are there – anybody getting his message? And also recently, President also celebrating or gave address about five years of killing of Usama bin Ladin, and he was also talking about terrorism that after five years. Anything change or what message you think Prime Minister Modi was sending to who?

MR TONER: Look, I'm certainly not going to speculate on what his intended audience was or what his intended message was, beyond saying that there's no zero-sum game here. We need to pursue closer relations with India, with Pakistan, and they need to also pursue closer relations on the security front, certainly, with each other. And that's to the benefit of all of us, to be frank, and that includes Afghanistan as well, because there continue to be serious terrorist threats. And I do agree with him; there's no justification for terrorism, and we all need to work in a concerted and coordinated fashion to address it, and we're trying to do so.

QUESTION: And second --

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- just quickly. As far as his visit is concern, is it debate in think tank and around the globe and the U.S. also, and when he entered the U.S. Congress for the first time, he made history by saying that this is a temple – this is a temple of democracy, and he was telling the U.S. Congress hall. And this is similar what he did in 2014 two years ago when he entered the Indian parliament for the first time and he bowed down on the steps of the Indian parliament, and same thing he did here. So debate is going on.

Also yesterday at the Heritage Foundation, including Indian ambassador, Mr. Arun Singh, and U.S. ambassador to India, Mr. Verma, and among others – and so what kind of debate do you think going on in the Administration about his visit, because talk of the town?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, in terms of his words or recognition of Congress as a – I don't know – temple of democracy is what you said? Those are kind words about an institution that reflects --

QUESTION: Are they deserved? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: -- U.S. democracy. We are only one form of democracy; there are many forms in the world. India is obviously the world's largest democracy. We believe it's the best political system out there, but we're not saying that our brand, so to speak, is the one for everyone. We're all working to create the – I guess the perfect democracy.

QUESTION: And finally, also, he was saying the meetings of the minds – the largest and oldest democracies.

MR TONER: Yes. Thank you for the last word there, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, sir.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:50 p.m.)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list