Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 16, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
UNITED KINGDOM
SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL
UNITED KINGDOM
IRAQ
SYRIA/RUSSIA
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN
SAUDI ARABIA
YEMEN
NICARAGUA
INDIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
CHINA/JAPAN
BAHRAIN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:16 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Just a couple things at the top here. First, just a comment about the very disturbing murder in the UK. We are shocked and appalled that a member of the UK parliament, Ms. Jo Cox, was murdered today in Birstall near Leeds in Northern England while doing her public duty. Of course, we offer our sincere condolences to Ms. Cox's family and friends and all the British people. Obviously, we're going to refer to UK authorities for this, who we understand are already investigating this heartbreaking incident. But again, we felt it was important right at the top here to express our condolences for this terrible crime.
An update on the Secretary's travel today. As you may know, the Secretary travelled to Svalbard, Norway, where he and Foreign Minister Brende visited Blomstrand Glacier and other areas impacted by climate change in Norway's extreme north. The Secretary also had the opportunity to talk to scientists and to experts about the impact of climate change on the polar regions and how it impacts all of us as well.
He's now in Copenhagen, Denmark, where he will hold a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Rasmussen and attend a dinner hosted by Foreign Minister Jensen. He's expected, of course, in both these meetings to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues with both.
Then tomorrow, the Secretary will visit a Danish NGO that works with less advantaged youth. He'll also have an audience with Queen Margrethe. And on Friday afternoon, the Secretary will travel to Greenland, where he will witness firsthand the effects of climate change during his visit to the Ilulissat Icefjord. I worked hard to get that last one right.
Brad?
QUESTION: I wanted to start on the UK, where you started. Does the – not only the subject of the referendum, but now the increasingly tense atmosphere with the referendum give you increasing worry?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't call it worry, Brad. I mean, these are obviously – this is an internal matter for the British people. And British police and law enforcement officials are obviously extraordinarily capable and competent at their jobs. So I don't know that I would characterize it as worry. We're obviously concerned by the – by this turning – by turning to violence today. But we're confident in our special relationship with the UK, and with the knowledge – and we're also confident in the knowledge that that special relationship is not going to be diminished one way or the other.
QUESTION: Do you feel, given that the unsure polling and the possibility that Britain could vote to leave the European Union, plus now the violence that we've seen, that it was a mistake to hold this referendum at all?
MR KIRBY: That's really a decision for – or a – it's a decision for British leaders to speak to, not us. It wouldn't be appropriate for us to weigh in on that. This is – again, this is an internal British matter.
QUESTION: I think just given that the vote is only days away now, can you tell us what message you're conveying in your various discussions with British officials?
MR KIRBY: We're not conveying a specific message in recent days here to British officials. As you know, the President went to London. He made clear our view that a strong UK and a strong EU is to the benefit of all. But there's been know exchange of additional messages or anything in the last several days.
QUESTION: You're not saying to anyone at any level that, "Hey, it would be great if you stayed inside the European Union"?
MR KIRBY: I think the President spoke very clearly when he was over there for our views here. But again, we also want to respect that this is an internal British matter. So we're not involving ourselves in messaging here near the endgame.
QUESTION: But following on that, what would be the implication for the U.S. policy? Will – would the U.S. keep its special relationship with the UK, or as the President said, would the U.S. have a better relationship with the EU and leave the UK aside?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said just a few minutes ago, we don't anticipate anything changing the special relationship that we have with the UK. So I think we can put that off the table immediately. But I'm obviously not going to speculate or hypothesize about what way this referendum's going to go and what that's going to mean going forward. Again, these are – this is a decision that the British people have to make.
QUESTION: I'd like to change topics if we're done.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Masrour Barzani, the head of the KRG's national security council, and the son of KRG President Masoud Barzani, has said that he believes Iraq should be divided into three separate entities once Islamic State is defeated. And he speaks partly about confederation, where there would be three capitals: one for the Shias, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Kurds, equal to one another, or just outright separation. Do you have any – think I know your views on this, but do you have any comment on this idea?
MR KIRBY: I would just restate our views on this, in that – that have not changed. We continue to support an Iraq that's federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified. Been no change.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on that?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Because a year ago, I asked Mr. Barzani this very question. And he basically gave a very logical explanation as to why. I mean, the population does not speak Arabic; they basically function as an entity. I am certainly familiar with Kurdistan; I spent a lot of time there and so on. So why not support that kind of effort? It is likely to mitigate conflict rather than exacerbate it.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, Said, nothing's changed about our position and what we support going forward – as I said, a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified Iraq. And that's been our policy; it's going to remain our policy. And I don't really – since I don't see that policy changing, I find little value in sort of arguing the opposite case in terms of why wouldn't we change the policy. We believe that this – that our view here of a unified Iraq going forward, the policy that we've espoused, is the best policy for the region, quite frankly.
QUESTION: But is it true that since 1991 at least, Kurdistan has really functioned as almost an independent country, with your help and with your aid? So why this – I guess I don't – incoherent policy in this very regard? I mean, on the one hand, you are supporting; you helped the Kurds form their almost semi-independence and autonomy, and on the other deny them that right.
MR KIRBY: It started by helping them survive the atrocities put upon them by Saddam Hussein in the late '80s and early '90s. And as we – you fast forward to where we are now in the fight against Daesh, even the assistance that flows to the Peshmerga in the north goes through Baghdad. So we don't just say these words; we live by them and we work with these words as a foundation in terms of even the fight against Daesh.
It's not about denying anybody anything. It's about trying to help Iraq – especially right now – defeat this very deadly threat and continue to make the kinds of political, economic, even military reforms that they are in the effort of doing right now and helping them do that successfully. Because that's what we believe will make for a strong, unified Iraq going forward, and we believe that a strong, pluralistic, unified Iraq is good for the region as well.
QUESTION: Is your concern that maybe this division will also be replicated in the south, where you have this mega Shia region that is independent and closely tied to Iran, with very rich oil revenues and so on?
MR KIRBY: No. We believe that – we believe the approach that we're taking's the right approach, period. And we're not ascribing it as some sort of litmus test to one region of Iraq or the other. We want a whole, unified Iraq. Okay?
Pam.
QUESTION: John, what's your assessment of the new localized ceasefire for Aleppo that was announced by Russia earlier today? There were some reports of airstrikes shortly after it took effect. At this point do you consider it to still be in place?
MR KIRBY: Well, it's difficult to know so soon. I mean, we've certainly seen the reports of these new days of silence. This is not something that we haven't seen before. The only thing I would say is what – we would like to get beyond a point where we're looking at days of silence in localized areas and get to where the cessation can be actually enforced and enacted nationwide. But it's just too soon to know the degree to which strikes we've seen are violations of this or of – or violations in other parts of the country. We just don't know right now.
QUESTION: Is there a point in which the United States and Russia, as co-chairs of the ceasefire task force, will formally agree to move beyond these localized ceasefires and, as you say, look at getting a broader agreement that would impact the whole country? Or at what point do these localized mechanisms sort of lose their effectiveness?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, that's hard – it's difficult to say at what point do they lose their effectiveness, because they haven't necessarily been all that effective to date. I mean, look, anytime you get a reduction in the violence, that's a good thing, and I don't want to minimize that. So even if it is just a 48 hours here or a 72 hours there, it's at least 48 or 72 hours where the reduction is – the violence has been reduced. And so obviously, that's welcome. But we are continuing to work, with the Russians in particular, to try to develop mechanisms going forward that can get us to a cessation of hostilities that is better enforced and better sustained over periods of time over the entire country in terms of geography rather than localized areas.
So look, nobody is happy about where we are right now. And that's why we're going to continue to work closely with the Russians going forward to try to get some of these – some new mechanisms in place to do this better.
QUESTION: And one more. Have you seen these comments from Foreign Minister Lavrov, who seems to suggest that the U.S. wants to keep al-Nusrah in place in Syria for some kind of battle against Assad? And if so, what's your reaction?
MR KIRBY: Well, yeah, we've seen the comments. And look, we've been clear from the very beginning: al-Nusrah is a designated terrorist organization, it's not a party to the cessation of hostilities, and it's certainly not a party to the political future of Syria. Coalition airstrikes against this group will continue.
QUESTION: Huh?
MR KIRBY: Against --
QUESTION: Okay. Sorry.
MR KIRBY: -- al-Nusrah.
QUESTION: Nusrah.
QUESTION: Coalition airstrikes against al-Nusrah?
MR KIRBY: There have been coalition strikes against --
QUESTION: When was the last coalition strike against al-Nusrah?
MR KIRBY: I don't know, but they have – I don't know, but there have been.
QUESTION: I thought it was a coalition for fighting ISIS.
MR KIRBY: It is, but al-Nusrah is a terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Can you check the last time the coalition --
MR KIRBY: I'll check the last time.
QUESTION: -- struck al-Nusrah?
MR KIRBY: If Russia and the regime truly wish to focus efforts on defeating Nusrah, we would urge them to seriously consider, as I said, our proposals to reinforce the cessation of hostilities in northwest Aleppo – that is, to get the regime to cease its offensive against the moderate opposition in that area. An effective cessation in northwestern Aleppo would allow the regime to realign its forces against Nusrah in regions where Nusrah actually controls territory. And I do correct myself – U.S. airstrikes – I said coalition – U.S. airstrikes have been conducted --
QUESTION: There's never been any --
MR KIRBY: You're right. U.S. But we're part of the coalition. And that was my mistake, so I appreciate the correction there. But U.S. airstrikes will continue against al-Nusrah.
QUESTION: John, also Mr. Lavrov said that he was struck by what the Secretary said about losing patience and so on, or that his patience was running out and so on, that you guys should have a lot more patience, and that's how you get to the goal of a smooth transition or a political change in Syria. Would you agree with him, that this – there has be sort of – in a way, he's suggesting limitless patience.
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the Secretary spoke very clearly to his view of, as you put it, limitless patience.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And he made very clear – I can't say it better than he did – that his patience is wearing thin. He was very clear about that. Look, the cessation of hostilities continues to be too fragile, and there's really two main reasons for that – one, first and foremost of course, are regime violations, and secondly are the threats continued being – to be posed to the Syrian people and to the opposition by al-Nusrah, which in the way it operates and it resources itself places the Syrian people and opposition groups increasingly at risk.
We've discussed this many times with the Russians. There's nothing new there. And as we've also said many times privately and publicly, we need Russia to use the influence that we know it has with the regime to ensure that the cessation of hostilities is adhered to, to ensure that full and unimpeded humanitarian access can be had to the millions of Syrians that are in need throughout the country, and to ensure that we can get the political process back on track.
QUESTION: So on the issue of aid, some opposition group are claiming that 95 percent – I mean, something staggering, a staggering figure – that most of the aid that is going – UN aid that is going to the besieged area has gone into territory controlled by the Assad regime. They are complaining about that. Do you have any comment on this?
MR KIRBY: I've seen – look, we've seen all kinds of reports like this, where they either restrict, pull out medicine at the last minute, or pilfer away aid that they can, which is just reprehensible, when these are their own citizens who are dying and suffering.
QUESTION: So do you agree that the Syrian Government has taken advantage of this UN humanitarian aid to sort of --
MR KIRBY: What I think they're doing – and I didn't – that didn't include – I didn't do a good enough job yesterday, I don't think, talking about this, but I mean the regime here is really who's responsible for the bulk of the cessation violations and certainly for the privation suffered by the Syrian people and for not allowing the aid, which is within their power to let in, to let that aid go. And we have seen reports not only of them blocking access but of stealing from aid shipments and particularly, most reprehensibly, taking out medicine.
Yeah, in the back. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV. Sir, you spoke about the situation at Pak-Afghan border yesterday and day before yesterday. We have seen your comments.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: But sir, after this episode and the clashes between the security forces of two countries, what is the future of recon process, the Afghan peace process now?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, as I said yesterday, we're obviously very concerned by the border clashes, particularly there around the Torkham crossing. And we – as I said yesterday, we want both sides to ratchet down the violence and begin a dialogue to try to reduce the tensions, keep the crossing open, and have it done peaceably. Separate and distinct from that, we still believe that the right approach is an Afghan-led reconciliation process. And we continue to support President Ghani as he continues to try to get that process back on track.
Now what effect the border clashes are having on reconciliation, I don't know. I haven't seen any practical effect of it to date. These clashes have only just popped up in recent days. But that aside, we still want to see the reconciliation process move forward.
QUESTION: Sir, but the parties who are trying to get Taliban on the table for the dialogue process are now fighting with each other. I mean, don't you think that these clashes at the border expose the real sincerity or whatever of the both countries?
MR KIRBY: Look, I'm not going to speak to the motivations of each and every border clash. Obviously, we don't want to see this kind of violence between those two sides. There are plenty of shared threats and common challenges between Afghanistan and Pakistan and plenty of reasons for them to look for ways to work together, and quite frankly, they have. They have made some progress in terms of cooperation across that border and communication and in counterterrorism efforts.
So nobody likes to see the clashes and the violence that we've seen to date, but it's too soon to say, well, just because there's been some of this, that the whole reconciliation process should be just thrown out the window, or that the differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan are irreconcilable and therefore not worth continuing to pursue dialogue and cooperation. We're just not there yet.
QUESTION: So what efforts are being done by the United States to calm down the situation? Is there any kind of mediation U.S. is doing towards – between the two countries?
MR KIRBY: We've not taken a mediation role, and we've talked about this before. I mean, this is an Afghan-led process. We obviously support it and we want to see it succeed. We've expressed that support privately and publicly. But this is President Ghani's initiative; he's taking it on. We know he wants to get it back on track and we fully support him in that effort, but this is not about mediation between – for the United States taking – mediating between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We want them – as I said yesterday, we want them to work through these differences bilaterally, which we know that they can do because they've done it in the past. And this isn't the first time that we've seen clashes even at that crossing, and they have been able to work through it in the past and we're absolutely confident that, with moral courage on both sides, they can continue to work through it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: But have you reached out to them directly, and what level have you reached out to Afghanistan and Pakistan? Who is talking to them?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into the details of private diplomatic discussions. You know I won't do that. But I can say that we've discussed it at high levels with both governments.
QUESTION: But SRAP was there over the weekend, talking to the officials in both the countries. Did this issue came up? What did he talk to them?
MR KIRBY: He talked to them about a range of the issues that continue to present challenges to both countries, and quite frankly, to our interests, the United States. And I'm not going to detail every item on his – on the agenda or every item that was discussed. But clearly, broadly speaking, they talked about ways in which the cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan can improve and the situation can get better and the reconciliation process can get restarted.
QUESTION: Has this border clashes impacted the supply of U.S. routes, U.S. things through the Torkham border?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware, but you really should ask DOD that. I am not aware of any impact to supplies to U.S. forces, if that's what you're asking about, in Afghanistan. You really should go to DOD. I'm not aware of any impact. And I would remind you that the Defense Department has many, many ways in which – logistical avenues in which to resupply U.S. troops, wherever they are in the world. Not everything goes through the Torkham Gate.
QUESTION: Just to clarify on this question, on your answer about – you are not doing mediation between Afghanistan and Pakistan on their tensions, or not doing mediation on the Taliban talks?
MR KIRBY: Either.
QUESTION: Both?
MR KIRBY: Both.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Either, both – yes. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You do – you have no role to play at all? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: You have no role to play at all in this?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that. I mean, come on now. I mean, but we're not going to – we're not putting ourselves in a mediation role here. We want Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they have proven capable of doing in the past, we want to work – have them work it out bilaterally. Okay?
And the reconciliation process is Afghan-led, by President Ghani, and now he obviously needs and will continue to need Pakistan's support for that. And he knows that, and he has already – he's reached out to Islamabad and he'll continue to do that for that kind of support. That's important. But this is – the best chance of success, both in terms of the tensions on the border right now and the reconciliation process, the best chance of success lies between Kabul and Islamabad, and the United States is not going to inject itself in the middle of that. We think that there's enough capacity – certainly there's been enough experience – for them to work this out bilaterally. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I ask one more question on UN, United Nations, if you'll allow me?
MR KIRBY: On what?
QUESTION: On United Nations, the Saudi Arabia and United Nations. So the question is that so the – as you know, the UN Secretary General has admitted that he temporarily removed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen from a UN blacklist for violating the child rights because its supporters threatened to stop the fund of many UN programs. So we have seen Mr. Toner's statements in this regard, but don't you think that it seriously undermines the credibility of United Nations?
MR KIRBY: Well, you've already seen Mark's statement, right?
QUESTION: I have seen that.
MR KIRBY: So what else do you need from me?
QUESTION: But I'm talking about what do you think about – I mean, is it seriously undermines the credibility of the United Nations?
MR KIRBY: Look, we've seen reports of the Saudi-led coalition's request to the UN to reveal its sources of information used in the drafting of the Child and Armed Conflict report. We reiterate our support for the joint review and have encouraged the Saudis to participate in it. We note the anonymity of the UN sources is paramount if the UN is to carry out its responsibilities pertaining to human rights and the protection of children without fear of reprisal. We also understand that the secretary-general has invited the coalition to send a team to New York as soon as possible for detailed discussions on the report, and we encourage the parties to engage in that discussion in an expeditious manner.
As a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States is resolute in its commitment to strengthen the protection of children through the framework created by the council. As we've said before, we remain concerned by the effects of the conflict on children in particular in Yemen and continue to urge all sides of the conflict to protect civilians and comply with their obligations under international law.
QUESTION: Sir, you said the United States has concerns, but do you condemn that bombing of the children? Like 1,953 youngsters were killed and injured in Yemen in 2015.
MR KIRBY: We – look, we don't – we have talked repeatedly about our concerns about civilian casualties in this particular conflict, and we have – and I've stood up here time and time again and said that we urge all sides, all parties to do what they can to limit, to minimize, to stop damage to civilian infrastructure and, certainly, to cease any killing or injuring of innocent people. We have been very clear about our concerns on this. But if you're asking me to re-litigate a particular strike, I'm not going to do that, okay?
QUESTION: Can I just follow up? You don't doubt the sources – the veracity of the information that the UN presented, do you?
MR KIRBY: We're not in a position to doubt the veracity of the report.
QUESTION: You don't see the need for them to make their sources public?
MR KIRBY: As I said, we note that the anonymity of the sources is paramount if the UN is going to be able to carry out its responsibilities.
QUESTION: So why – yeah.
MR KIRBY: So we support the fact – we support the protection of the anonymity of the sources.
QUESTION: So under what basis do you see the request to review the sources as legitimate?
MR KIRBY: Well, this was a – the secretary-general made this offer. He invited the coalition to send a team to – you're not asking about that, though, are you?
QUESTION: No, no, I think you're getting to --
MR KIRBY: I don't know if you're – as I started to answer, I thought maybe I wasn't answering your question.
QUESTION: No, that makes sense.
MR KIRBY: He invited them to New York for detailed discussions on the report, and we encourage them to go. Now, how those discussions are going to go and what information's going to be revealed is really between the parties, not the – and the United States isn't taking a position on that.
QUESTION: But he made this offer under pressure, according to himself. So, I mean, is this something that – you're not questioning the veracity of what they say or their need to protect anonymity, but you're noting this is somehow legitimate that he should have to review it because a powerful state exerted pressure on him.
MR KIRBY: Again, that's his call, not ours – his call to invite them. We note the invitation and we encourage everybody to participate in it, but this was something the secretary-general generated himself, and so we're not – again, we're not taking a position on whether the invitation was – in what manner it was extended, but we note that it was extended and we encourage everybody to participate.
Samir.
QUESTION: The United Arab Emirates announced today they are stopping – ending their military operations in Yemen. Is this something good or bad?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to ask the officials in the UAE. We're going to let them speak to their military decisions one way or the other.
QUESTION: But they did fight al-Qaida in Yemen previously.
MR KIRBY: No, I'm aware that they have had a practical effect against al-Qaida, and there's no question about that. But decisions about the use of military force and the use of military forces, those are sovereign decisions to make and we're going to let the UAE speak for itself on that.
QUESTION: Could this be a prelude to sort of winding down this Yemen war, and wouldn't that be a good thing? It would be a good thing, right?
MR KIRBY: Would the winding down of a war be a good thing?
QUESTION: Of the war, yeah. I mean, that's --
MR KIRBY: Oh, absolutely.
QUESTION: They're pulling out and so on. It seems that --
MR KIRBY: We would – as we've said many times, we'd like to see peace restored in Yemen and a political process move forward. There's no question about that, not to mention humanitarian aid and assistance getting to so many Yemenis that are still in need. But I can't speak to the veracity of the reports coming out of the UAE. I don't know what the leaders in the UAE have in mind for their military or for their military operations in support of the coalition. That is for them to speak to. What we continue to want to see, now that you've introduced the question, is that political talks continue to move forward and a political process move forward so that real peace and stability can come to the people of Yemen.
QUESTION: Did the Secretary speak to the crown – he spoke to the crown prince, I think, last week in Abu Dhabi. Did they discuss winding down this operation?
MR KIRBY: They – what I can tell you is that they absolutely discussed the situation in Yemen and both shared the desire for a political process to come together here so that the war can end.
QUESTION: Today's reports didn't come as a surprise to you?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to comment further on the conversation in Abu Dhabi, but they did talk about Yemen and a shared desire for peace and stability there.
Pam.
QUESTION: Can you confirm reports that several U.S. Government officials were expelled from Nicaragua yesterday? And if so, what is your understanding on what took place?
MR KIRBY: Give me a second. So, yes, the expulsion of three U.S. Government officials from Nicaragua on the 14th of June did occur. We believe it was unwarranted and inconsistent with the positive and constructive agenda that we seek with the Government of Nicaragua. All three officials were on temporary duty status in Nicaragua and recently arrived in the country. Such treatment has the potential to negatively impact U.S. and Nicaraguan bilateral relations, particularly trade, and we've conveyed our strong displeasure to Ambassador Francisco Campbell here, the Nicaraguan ambassador to the United States.
QUESTION: Has there been any response from Nicaragua to the concerns raised?
MR KIRBY: I'll let the Nicaraguan Government speak for itself there. We've made clear our concerns about this expulsion.
QUESTION: Did you call the ambassador here in --
MR KIRBY: I don't have the specific details of how it was conveyed to him.
QUESTION: Was there any reciprocal action being considered?
MR KIRBY: By Nicaragua?
QUESTION: By the United States.
MR KIRBY: Oh, I'm sorry, by – I guess --
QUESTION: A lot of times, it happens in history when our diplomats are – U.S. diplomats get kicked out, you kick out other people's diplomats.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I don't have anything in particular to speak to in terms of further actions right now. Again, we've made our concerns known.
Yeah.
QUESTION: The official Chinese media today saying that India is inching closer to become a member of Nuclear Suppliers Group. I know there was a meeting this month last week in Vienna, where this application – there were some objections from other countries, including China, and later this month, there is a meeting – they are meeting, I guess, in Seoul. How confident you are that your move – or India's move to become a member of NSG would get through this – in this meeting?
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, when the prime minister was here, the President welcomed their application to the NSG, and the United States calls on NSG participating governments to support India's application when it comes up at the NSG plenary, which I think is next week. I'm not going to get ahead of how that's going to go or hypothesize and speculate about where it's going to go, but we've made clear that we support the application.
QUESTION: But do you think India will – India will get the nod, that its application will be approved in this meeting?
MR KIRBY: I just said I'm not going to speculate.
Said.
QUESTION: Can I move to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR KIRBY: Yep.
QUESTION: Okay. First of all, a follow-up on yesterday: You took a couple of questions, if you have a response.
MR KIRBY: Which ones did I take?
QUESTION: You took the question on the building of the settlement in Silwan in particular and on the detention, the --
MR KIRBY: Well, on the settlements, I think I answered that. I mean, the settle --
QUESTION: Right. But also on the detention --
MR KIRBY: The detention --
QUESTION: -- the administrative detention, extending the administrative detention. And one on Facebook and – one on Facebook and --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, that's right. So, look, I'd refer you to our annual Human Rights Reports on our views on administrative detention. We've been very clear about that. For specific information on these cases, I refer you to the Israelis.
On the social media sites, we're aware that the – we're aware that some social media sites have been removing content that they deemed hateful, are clearly encouraging violence based on their terms of use. These are private companies so I'm not going to comment further on their decisions. As I said yesterday and as you know, we support freedom of expression and the free flow of information regardless of the medium, but we also strongly condemn incitement to violence.
QUESTION: Okay. But the Israelis have really broadened the definition of incitement of – inciting terrorism and so on to encompass many things, where it has become really restricted. Would that worry you? I mean, is – anything could be deemed --
MR KIRBY: As I said, we're always concerned about incitement of violence, but these are --
QUESTION: I understand, but --
MR KIRBY: -- these are decisions made by these private companies and we're going to respect those decisions.
QUESTION: Okay. I also have a couple questions on the water supply – the Israelis cut off water supplies to the inhabitants --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- of the West Bank. Now, the Israelis, including settlers, they get about 300 liters per day, Palestinians get 70 liters per day, and this is basically Palestinian water. They siphon it from Palestinian areas. I wonder if you have any comment on that.
MR KIRBY: I do, actually. As we looked into this, we understand that it was a mechanical failure, not a deliberate act. It was a – for lack of a better phrase, a plumbing problem.
QUESTION: But if you look at the history of this thing, every summer the Israelis cut off water by 50 percent to the Palestinians. I mean, I understand they want to keep the lawns of the settlements green and so on, and the pools filled up. But this is not just one incident. Would you call on the Israelis not to do this as a practice and to ensure that they do have a functioning system that takes the water to the Palestinians?
MR KIRBY: Well, without getting into specifics or speculative – speculate about decisions that haven't been made yet, obviously we would – we think it's in everyone's interest there to have fresh water to cook, to clean, to subsist on. So that's – I mean, I think that's a universal, obvious idea here: food and water and the ability to live your life – to live your lives, and water's a key part of that. So we want to see that access to water is there. But I won't get ahead of decisions that haven't been made yet. As I understand it with respect to this, it was truly a mechanical malfunction of some kind.
QUESTION: And another question on Israel. Have you heard anything about possible military exercises with – between Israel and Russia?
MR KIRBY: I have not.
QUESTION: You have not? Okay, thanks.
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: A follow-up --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes, follow-up on a question from yesterday about China and its incursion into Japanese territorial waters. Has there been any communication between the State Department and Japanese counterparts about --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any communication to read out to you today about it. And as I said yesterday, I'd refer to Japanese authorities for this incident.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: John – sorry --
QUESTION: Bahrain?
QUESTION: -- follow-up one more. Sorry, Brad. So today, a Chinese intelligence vessel entered Japan's contiguous zone, and I wanted to – as you have noted, or as my colleague have talked about, there have been spurts of activities like this in the last few days or so. So I wanted to know how do you assess these activities, and how concerned are you?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm going to refer you to the – to Japanese authorities to speak to this – to this particular incident.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I don't have any specific communication to read out to you about it. We have been in touch with Japanese authorities about it. But really they should speak to it.
QUESTION: Okay. So you can't tell us whether you're concerned about it or not? I mean, I guess the question is, do you see this solely as a Japanese maritime enforcement issue, or do you think that this is something that has strategic significance to our alliance and to the region?
MR KIRBY: I don't know that we're in a position right now to characterize it one way or the other.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And this is – this is something that the Japanese are looking into. And I think – I just don't want to get ahead of what they'll find or what posture they may take about it. So I know that's not a great, satisfying answer to you, but it's really where we are right now.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: We're aware of it. We've monitored it best we can. We're in touch with Japanese authorities. But really, this is for them to speak to.
QUESTION: All right, thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay?
QUESTION: Bahrain?
MR KIRBY: Bahrain.
QUESTION: There's increasing reports about various Shia preachers and individuals – public individuals coming under pressure, including arrests. Are you worried that this crackdown is becoming even more pervasive?
MR KIRBY: We do continue to have concerns about the human rights situation in Bahrain. And we continue to raise our concerns with Bahrain publicly and privately about continuing limitations on peaceful assembly and political activism, the criminalization of free expression, and of course we talked to them about the importance of reconciliation. All of these things are documented, of course, in the Human Rights Report. But if you're asking me, do we continue to be concerned, yes we do. And obviously we are relaying those concerns directly to Bahraini officials.
QUESTION: Are you – do you see the situation as returning to where it was in 2011?
MR KIRBY: Nobody wants to see it go back there, Brad. And I don't know that we're at a position now or a point where we can characterize the – we see the slide. Certainly, there's a worrisome trend here. But I just don't know that we're at a point where we think it's reaching that level.
QUESTION: Let me put it this way. Do you see Bahrain reversing the progress that you've spoken of in the past days? Do you see them erasing that with this latest pressure campaign?
MR KIRBY: I would say that recent events certainly don't contribute to the progress that they have been making.
QUESTION: And then the last one: When we spoke about Mr. Rajab earlier this week, the head of the Bahrain human rights center, you said at the time you didn't know his charges. I think his charges have since been made public, and they include things like spreading falsehoods about the state, which – I mean, I'm not familiar with in terms of the U.S. legal code as being a particular crime, but I guess in Bahrain it is. Do you see this as a legitimate criminal charge that – saying something the government doesn't agree with?
MR KIRBY: We're deeply concerned about the fact that he's been detained on charges that we read as spreading false news, but you may have a more accurate reading of it.
QUESTION: Something like that, sorry.
MR KIRBY: We're going to continue to follow his case very closely. We believe that no one should be prosecuted or imprisoned for engaging in peaceful expression or assembly, even if it's controversial. We believe that societies are strengthened, not threatened, by peaceful expressions of opinion and dissent.
QUESTION: But to follow up on Brad's, today a Bahraini court sentenced eight people to 15 years in prison and stripped them of their citizenship under these allegations – just today. Can you comment on that?
MR KIRBY: I wasn't aware of that particular case, Said, but it does point to what I said in – to my answer to Brad. I mean, we're certainly seeing a worrisome trend here, and we have – we're going to continue to express our concerns to the kingdom about this.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
