Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 21, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
JORDAN
IRAQ
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT/VENEZUELA
DEPARTMENT/SYRIA
NORTH KOREA/REGION
IRAN
JAPAN
BAHRAIN
TRANSCRIPT:
1:08 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: What's so funny? You – you guys were laughing. What'd I miss?
QUESTION: We were naming her bicycle.
QUESTION: My (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: You're naming your bicycle? All right, I'm not going to go any further there. (Laughter.)
All right, I have several things to get through. You can see by the stack, so I'll ask your forbearance here as I work my way through these things.
On Jordan, we condemn in the strongest terms this morning's attack in Jordan, which we understand killed six members of the Jordanian security forces and wounded another 14. We express, of course, our deepest condolences to the victims and to their families and ask that everybody remember that those families are in grief today.
We are going to continue our unwavering support to the Jordanian Armed Forces and we are proud of that partnership. We join the Jordanian people in their resilience and their determination in dealing with the threat posed by Daesh. The U.S. is committed to providing security assistance to Jordan and we'll continue to cooperate closely in the wake of this attack. Jordan has already made tremendous sacrifices in hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. And as I've said many times, what's going on in Syria is not a philosophical exercise for the Jordanians. It is very real because of the threat posed, as we saw today, but also represented by the work that they're doing to help so many refugees. We're committing – I'm sorry. We are committed, of course, to working with Jordan to address this crisis and to ensure that humanitarian support continues to be provided to all those displaced by the conflict in Syria.
Speaking of those displaced by conflict, in light of recent events in Iraq and in response to the UN high commissioner for refugees' recent appeals for emergency needs in Fallujah, the United States is today announcing an additional $20 million in humanitarian aid to UNHCR's Iraq response. This will be part of a larger package of humanitarian assistance that will be announced later this year. So there's more aid coming, and I would note that more than 3.3 million Iraqis have been internally displaced since 2014. More are expected to flee in the coming days and weeks. And we've seen this, as I said, in Fallujah specifically.
In fact, the UN estimates that about 85,000 people have already fled Fallujah. Yesterday we talked about upwards of 80,000. The UN estimate now is 85,000. The UNHCR has identified camp coordination and camp management as well as protection as its – as its most urgent priorities in the Fallujah response. Other immediate needs include water and sanitation, shelter, and food. Humanitarian agencies are responding to the crisis, but more funding is urgently needed, and we urge other governments to contribute generously to the UN's Iraq appeals as we have done.
On a travel note for Under Secretary Shannon – the Under Secretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon is traveling to Caracas today. He'll be there today and tomorrow at the request of the Secretary and at the invitation of the Government of Venezuela. Ambassador Shannon will follow up on the June 14th meeting between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Rodriguez at the OAS General Assembly in Santo Domingo. Ambassador Shannon will meet with several senior government officials, members of the opposition, and civil society. I do not have a full readout of every individual that he's meeting with – he just got there – but we'll be able to read out his visit in more detail later.
On other scheduling notes here, Secretary Kerry will join hundreds of entrepreneur – entrepreneurs and investors at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit later this week in Palo Alto. He'll be opening up the summit on Thursday morning as well as meeting with entrepreneurs and experiencing new technology on the sidelines of the summit. The summit will be the seventh installment in a series previously hosted by the United States and governments of Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Morocco, and Kenya. In bringing the summit back to the United States and with it 700 entrepreneurs and 300 investors from around the globe, we hope to highlight our commitment to building bridges that help us tackle global challenges together.
Here at the State Department, as I think you saw, the Secretary this morning spoke at the department's annual Pride at State event. He was joined by Special Envoy for Human Right – for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons Randy Berry and the Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning, the first openly gay head of any service in the U.S. military. Pride at State is jointly organized by the Department of State and Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, also known as GLIFAA. Secretary Kerry used this opportunity to reaffirm his own commitment and, of course, that of this department to supporting diversity and to help further GLIFAA's mission to secure fair treatment of LGBTI colleagues here in the United States and to support people struggling against discrimination and persecution abroad.
Later today, the Secretary will deliver remarks at an event celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation. He'll be joined at that event by former Secretary of State and president of the Truman Foundation Madeleine Albright. I think you all are very familiar with the Truman Foundation.
And then lastly, a bit of trivia. And I think we got this back to you, Matt, but I wanted to publicly talk about how they're --
QUESTION: On '75?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, and why it's 1975.
QUESTION: It's very interesting, actually. Thank you for --
MR KIRBY: So – actually, I was interested to learn it. But Matt's question yesterday was why did we only – why does our count of refugees only go back to 1975, and I had no idea. So the answer is prior to 1975 individuals with protection concerns were admitted to the United States under a variety of immigration categories which generally included various types of parole – not the legal kind of parole that we're used to hearing about – and/or ad hoc legislation that was directed at specific categories of vulnerable groups.
After the fall of Saigon in April of 1975 and the consequent outflow from Vietnam of Vietnamese and other groups of people that lived in the region, new legislation was passed authorizing the adjustment of status of Indo-Chinese originally paroled into the United States to refugees after March of 1975. So the same legislation was followed by the Refugee Act of 1980 which codified the refugee admissions process that had been in place since 1975. It went back five years. So this is why we start to record formal refugee admissions beginning in 1975.
So it was a great question. It forced us all to learn a little something and I wanted to pass that on to everybody.
QUESTION: I already knew that. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: It forced all of us but Justin to learn a little something. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Justin knows everything. He's omniscient.
MR KIRBY: Oh, you knew it too?
QUESTION: No, no, I'm just saying Justin knew it. So --
MR KIRBY: So as long as Justin knew it --
QUESTION: I actually – I actually --
QUESTION: I wish I was here yesterday and I would have shared it.
QUESTION: I was going to actually – (laughter).
MR KIRBY: I think we all would have appreciated that, Justin.
QUESTION: I was actually going to begin this by thanking you guys for getting back to me with that answer because it was interesting.
MR KIRBY: It was. It was a good question. Okay, Matt, what can we do for you?
QUESTION: Yeah, two logistical things. One on the Shannon trip to Venezuela, I realize you can't say 100 percent who he's going to see, but I mean, do you expect him to see President Maduro?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that a potential meeting with President Maduro is not confirmed at this time. So I can't rule it out, but it's not – there's no confirmed meeting with President Maduro right now.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, why would he go if there wasn't a meeting?
MR KIRBY: Well, there's plenty of other government officials and civil society and opposition members that are worth speaking to and talking to. And part of this, as I said, is an outgrowth of the 14 June meeting where the Secretary made clear that we were going to continue to --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- do what we could to foster meaningful, constructive dialogue there. And it doesn't – and so there's plenty of people with whom to do that.
QUESTION: I understand that. But when the invitation was made, did they say, "Hey, come on down and you can see the president as well as" --
MR KIRBY: I don't believe the invitation was --
QUESTION: That specific?
MR KIRBY: -- you'll definitely get a meeting with President Maduro. Obviously, we are hopeful for that, but it hasn't been confirmed.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So it would – if such a meeting did not happen, it would be a bit of a disappointment, yeah?
MR KIRBY: I think it – I think, obviously, we'd like to see a meeting with President Maduro. But that doesn't mean that if it doesn't happen that the trip is a failure.
QUESTION: Well, I'm not saying a failure. But I mean --
MR KIRBY: No, I know. But I mean, but would we like to see that? Yes, of course, but it's not confirmed yet.
QUESTION: When did Caracas extend the invitation? At the --
MR KIRBY: As I understand it, it was at the OAS meeting in Santo Domingo.
QUESTION: At that – at that meeting?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, that's my – to my understanding, that's when the invitation was proffered.
QUESTION: And there – and was there any back and forth on exactly whom Mr. Shannon would meet with during --
MR KIRBY: Not at that time, Ros. I mean, this was an initial invitation to come down and have – to have a dialogue. And obviously, we accepted that invitation. But as – one of the reasons why I'm not at liberty to go into every single person with whom he's meeting is because some of the agenda is still being fleshed out. So again, I fully expect that we'll be able to read out his visit. He's there for two days, today and tomorrow, and we'll have, I'm sure, more to say as time goes on.
QUESTION: What is his goal for this round of meetings?
MR KIRBY: That's --
QUESTION: Given the tensions between these two governments, what is his goal for these two days?
MR KIRBY: The main purpose is to have a series of discussions about the social, economic, and political challenges in Venezuela and to try to help foster constructive, meaningful dialogue towards solutions with a variety of groups in the government and outside the government. And that has been Secretary Kerry's focus for quite some time here is that the – he – the Secretary firmly believes, and he stressed this in Santo Domingo, that the best way forward is a strong, robust, productive dialogue with all the stakeholders. And to the degree the United States can be helpful in helping foster that dialogue, well, we want to be. We also recognize that it can't really be meaningful and productive unless it's happening amongst the parties, and again, that's what Ambassador Shannon is going down there to try to help foster.
QUESTION: Is the ambassador taking any offers of emergency food aid, given that people have been storming supermarkets in Caracas?
MR KIRBY: No, he did not bring with him food aid or material assistance.
QUESTION: Did you say "social, economic, and political challenges"?
MR KIRBY: Social, economic, and political challenges. Yeah.
QUESTION: I just wondered if "political" was in there. Yeah. Great.
QUESTION: So the second thing on the just logistics – I'm wondering, since yesterday and the Secretary said was going to meet with the authors of the Syria dissent channel cable, has that happened yet? Do you expect that it would – if it hasn't, is this something that would wait until after there is a response from policy planning or has it been scheduled? What's the situation with that meeting?
MR KIRBY: He did meet with a small number of them this morning, mid-morning, for about a half an hour. It was approximately 10 of the authors. As you can imagine, the group is sizeable, so it wasn't possible to meet with everybody. But he did have a collegial discussion with them this morning.
QUESTION: And what did he say?
MR KIRBY: I'm – because the dissent channel memo and the contents of it are meant to be privately conveyed, so too I'm afraid are going to have to be the discussions around it. So I'm not going to be able to characterize the content of the Secretary's conversation with them, because we want to respect the confidentiality of the process. It was, however – it was – I believe the Secretary came away feeling that it was a good discussion, it was worth having. He appreciated their views and just as critically their firm belief in their – in the opportunity that they have to express those views. And so they had a good 30-minute or more conversation.
QUESTION: Right. But I'm not asking for the content. I mean, we all know what the content is and we're kind of dancing around this. I mean, it's been published.
MR KIRBY: I understand that, but --
QUESTION: But – and --
MR KIRBY: -- I have to respect the process --
QUESTION: I understand that.
MR KIRBY: -- regardless of --
QUESTION: I get it, but, I mean, it's just this kind of – I don't know – kabuki dance we're doing here, because you know very well what's in it and it's out there in public. It's not a secret, even though it may be – parts of it might be classified by this – but anyway, I'm not trying to get into the content. Did the – with whatever the content was, did the Secretary say that he agreed with it?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to characterize the discussion much more than I did. And I know that that's not going to meet with your approbation, but --
QUESTION: Well let's put it this --
MR KIRBY: Look, let me do this. So I can tell you a couple of things. He thanked them for expressing their views and for using the dissent channel. And he reaffirmed his strong belief in the value of the dissent channel, which we've talked about quite a bit here. So he thanked them for expressing their views, for using the dissent channel to do that. He made clear that he takes the dissent channel seriously and he took their views seriously, and also made clear that he read their message with sincerity. And, again, without talking about the specific detail of it, the Secretary also walked them through his own thought process with respect to this particular issue and the efforts that he's been expending on this particular issue.
QUESTION: Did he give --
MR KIRBY: And why those efforts were still so very important.
QUESTION: Did he give them any indication that he would incorporate their views into his thinking as he goes around and helps the President and the rest of the Administration try to formulate a policy, or provide --
MR KIRBY: Well, there already is a policy.
QUESTION: Oh yeah? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: And it --
QUESTION: What is it exactly?
MR KIRBY: Come on, I've been talking about the policy for months up here.
QUESTION: Look, the entire point – the entire point of the --
MR KIRBY: I can't believe you want me to actually restate it.
QUESTION: The entire point of this cable was to say that the policy, such as it is, these people think is not a good one and is not going in the right direction, and they've recommended changes.
MR KIRBY: Look --
QUESTION: So the question is: Did the Secretary – without getting into the content of what it is, did the Secretary tell them that, when he saw them this morning, that he was willing to take their suggestions, their ideas on board in his broader discussions within the Administration about what to do?
MR KIRBY: You're asking me again to talk about the content of the discussion, and I can't do that, Matt. But let me put that in a box for a second, separate and distinct. When you guys have asked me about the issue of Syria and what's going on in Syria – and I'm not confirming the topic of the message was or the topic of the discussion. But when you have asked me in the past --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) you're not confirming it's about Syria?
MR KIRBY: When you have asked me – when you have asked me about what's going on in Syria, I have said now for many weeks that while we continue to believe the best solution is going to be a political solution, that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria, the civil conflict in Syria, and – but that it would be imprudent and irresponsible for this Administration not to consider other options. And those other options are still and have been and are still being considered.
QUESTION: All right, fine. But surely you're not trying to say that this dissent cable could have been Paraguay, are you?
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: You're not – I mean, why – you're saying --
MR KIRBY: I have acknowledged – I have acknowledged --
QUESTION: -- that it is about Syria. Okay. Last one --
MR KIRBY: -- at the outset that the original – that the main topic area was on Syria --
QUESTION: Last one. Did he --
MR KIRBY: -- but I'm not going to talk about the specifics of what they recommended.
QUESTION: Okay. And I'm not asking that. Did he say – did he ask them to come back with him with more, perhaps more detail?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such request.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Can I ask a process question?
QUESTION: Well --
QUESTION: Does the Secretary --
MR KIRBY: Hang on, everybody. We'll get to you.
QUESTION: Yeah. Does the Secretary's meeting, does whatever happened in that meeting, have to be read out, as it were, to the policy planning folks who are tasked with responding to this dissent message?
MR KIRBY: No, because the policy planning director was in the meeting this morning. So there's no reason to have it read out.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Well, I guess what I'm trying to ask is: Was it proper at this point in the process – someone files a message through this dissent channel, and policy planning is supposed to respond to it. What's an appropriate --
MR KIRBY: Are you asking is it okay to have the meeting before a response is given?
QUESTION: Right. Right.
MR KIRBY: As I understand, the response is, if not done, very near done. So there wasn't really an issue in terms of – in terms of timing, in terms of meeting with these individuals. The Secretary read the memo, decided he wanted to meet with some of them; we scheduled the meeting – even as the policy planning group was working on the official response. Which, as I said, if it's not done – and I can check on this before the end of the day – if it's not done, it will be done very, very soon.
QUESTION: Were all 10 of the people whom he met with who signed the cable, were they all people who work here at Main State, or did any people come back from overseas?
MR KIRBY: It's my understanding that they worked here at Main State. I'm not aware of any travel that was done as a result of that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Without getting into the substance in terms of what was in the memo, was this just a discussion for him to thank them, or was this kind of a substantive discussion of the particular points of their dissent channel and the recommendations that they made and whether – what the Secretary thought of each individual point? Like, was it a discussion about policy, or was it just a kind of "Thank you, I appreciate your views"?
MR KIRBY: It was both. I mean, he – obviously, he thanked them for expressing their views, again expressed confidence in his respect of the dissent channel process. But sure, they talked about the thoughts that were proffered in the dissent channel message, and they had a comprehensive discussion about that. I think the way I would describe --
QUESTION: Was it like a back and – would you call it a back and forth?
MR KIRBY: Yes, of course it was. But the Secretary was largely in listening mode. I mean, the purpose was to hear them out even more.
QUESTION: As a – as a --
MR KIRBY: But yes, there was a give and take to the conversation.
QUESTION: Okay. So was this in a show of respect, or can you honestly say that you think that their views will play into the policy process? Because everything that we hear from the White House and such, it doesn't seem that it will.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, without getting into debating specific policies here from the podium, I'd say it's – it was both, Elise. I mean, certainly, it was a show of respect for the process itself and for their willingness to put down on paper their views. So he was showing respect for that, for their process, and for them.
But he also – you know the Secretary very well – wanted to have a good conversation about the – their views in general, and largely, as I said, he was in a listening mode. He asked a lot of questions, he wanted to get – he wanted to draw out more of their thoughts on these things, and he came away feeling like he had a good opportunity to do that.
QUESTION: So that's much more than, like, him meeting with them to thank them for their views. I mean, you're suggesting that this meeting – that he met with them – maybe the dissent cable was the genesis of these people sharing their views with him, but you're saying that this is just like meeting with other officials that deal with – on this issue that – you think that that might play into his own policy deliberations?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say and I won't speculate as to discussions going forward with respect to what we're doing in Syria or decisions that may or may not get made, either as a result of this message or as a result of ongoing routine discussions that have been had and continue to be had on alternatives. So I'm not going to speculate about the role that this message might play one way or the other.
But if you're asking me, was this just a show for the Secretary, the answer is absolutely not. I mean, it – certainly he wanted to thank them and pay respect to the process because this is an important issue. But he also didn't waste time in terms of hearing them out and asking questions and listening to their views and asking them to expound on them further. I mean, that's the way this Secretary likes to conduct meetings and discussions and to inform himself. And again, I think he found the meeting useful in that regard. But I wouldn't begin to speculate one way or another what this conversation today or that message did last week in terms of altering, changing any of the thinking going forward.
As I said last week, nobody is content with the status quo on the ground and the Administration has been looking at other options with respect to Syria for quite some time. This is not new. And yes, some of those options have included the potential for military initiatives. Again, that's nothing new. So all these things --
QUESTION: Well, some of the things in the memo – and I know you don't want to get into it – are areas where the Secretary himself has advocated on their behalf. So if the Secretary – and the Secretary of State and the top U.S. diplomat of this country – is not able to sway the President on a certain course, do you really expect that 50 midlevel officials are going to be able to do that?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'll let the author speak for their intent, their motivations. That's for them to speak to. I'm also not going to discuss whatever views the Secretary may present in private to other members of the cabinet or to the President. I think in – you can see in his actions and his travel and the meetings that he's having that the Secretary is very committed to trying to work on what you guys have colloquially termed as plan A, which is getting a transitional governing process in place, getting the political talks back on track, getting the cessation of hostilities enforced nationwide in an enduring way, and getting humanitarian assistance to the still millions of Syrians in need.
Those are still the three things that we're working on, that is still the approach we're pursuing, and everything you've seen out of Secretary Kerry supports that.
QUESTION: Were the 10 he met the last people he's going to meet on this or – because there were more than 10 who signed the thing. I assume they're on post somewhere or just not available today.
MR KIRBY: Not all of the authors, as I understand it, are in Washington, D.C. He met with a small group of them, about 10.
QUESTION: But is he going to make secure calls to any of the others?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any other direct communications with the authors.
QUESTION: And the 10 that were picked were just because they're available here, they're not particularly senior or not seen as the driving force behind this?
MR KIRBY: They were a representative group that he could meet with here in Washington.
QUESTION: Can you give us a steer on what kind of seniority they have without identifying them? Can you say it more broadly?
MR KIRBY: No, I'd rather not.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So in this response that the policy planning committee is – or the Policy Planning Office is supposed to respond to, are they supposed to respond that their views – that the views of the cable are taken into account? Is it supposed to be a rebuttal or an acceptance? I mean, what is the kind of process of responding? What is it about? You said it's – a process is – a response is --
MR KIRBY: Well, in general, every time – this isn't the only one --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- that we've gotten this year. You typically get four to five per year, and each response is different because each dissent channel message is different. So there's no template, as I understand it – there's no template for how to respond. And again, I'm not going to speak to the specifics of this response, but I can assure you --
QUESTION: Does it have actionable – I guess my question is: Does it have actionable things, or it's – like, when you respond to Congress and you're, like, have actionable things that they're asking for, or is it, "Thank you for your note. We appreciate it. We take your points"? How substantive is the response?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to characterize the response, Elise, but I can tell you that it will be a serious, sober response to the concerns that were expressed by the authors of the dissent channel message. I'm just not going to go into more detail than that.
QUESTION: From a historical perspective, can you say whether this Secretary or any prior secretary has ever met with people who have filed something through the dissent channel? Do you know?
MR KIRBY: I have no idea, Ros.
QUESTION: Well, you have the dissent awards. Don't you have dissent awards?
QUESTION: AFSA.
QUESTION: AFSA (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: I have no idea, and I don't know if there's – there would be any way to even answer that. I just don't know. I don't know.
QUESTION: Could you just take the question, though, just – I'm just curious of whether this is a real one-off.
MR KIRBY: Ros, I'll try to – I'll try, but I'm not making any promises. I mean, you're asking for historical record that I don't even know we have in terms of how many secretaries have met with dissenters face to face and over what issues. I'll ask the question, but I don't have high confidence that we'll be able to answer it for you.
QUESTION: Well, if you could try.
MR KIRBY: We'll give it a shot.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Elizabeth wrote it down.
All right, this'll be the shortest briefing ever.
QUESTION: Can we move on to --
QUESTION: Can I have one more on dissent channel?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And forgive me if I missed it and you addressed it yesterday, but did you ever get clarity on when it was actually created? You remember we asked that question and you --
MR KIRBY: Best I know is 1971 was the first one. I don't know when – like how soon before that it was stood up, I don't know. I'll --
QUESTION: Yeah, I remember we had asked that. It's kind of water under the bridge because I had to write my story without knowing that, but you said it was 1971, then you said it was Dean Rusk, who was obviously no longer secretary of state then, and I was just --
MR KIRBY: Thank you for reminding me of my historical amnesia, okay.
QUESTION: Well, this is --
MR KIRBY: But I will find out, Arshad, the best I can --
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR KIRBY: -- when it was started.
QUESTION: Did you say when the response was going to happen?
MR KIRBY: I know they're working on the response. I am given to understand it's, if not done, very close to being done. When I get closure on that, I'll let you know.
QUESTION: So it could be today.
MR KIRBY: Could be today.
QUESTION: Amnesia – it's not amnesia unless you actually did know it at one point.
MR KIRBY: But I don't know that – maybe I did – maybe I actually did know and forgot it.
QUESTION: Justin --
QUESTION: Maybe you forgot having known it.
QUESTION: Can I go on to Bahrain, unless – I'm --
MR KIRBY: Justin, do you know the answer?
QUESTION: Of course I do. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Can you enlighten us?
QUESTION: What's the question? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: That is a classic Justin Fishel response.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On North Korea, there are reports that they're – the North Koreans are possibly going to launch a missile later today. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I have nothing to confirm the veracity of those reports. We've seen them just like you have. You know we don't talk about intelligence matters one way or the other. The only thing I'd say is what we say and have said all too often, which is this is the time for the DPRK to stop the provocations, to work toward stability on the peninsula. These kinds of actions, if and when it happens again, do nothing to increase the security on the peninsula and fly in the face of their international obligations.
Samir.
QUESTION: Are you in communication with Japanese counterparts about potential launch?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. Obviously we are – we stay in routine touch with our Japanese allies as well as our South Korean allies with respect to provocations by the North. There's routine on – in many levels, military and diplomatic, many channels through which we stay in direct communication with them. We're obviously monitoring this situation as best we can and as closely as we can, and we do that in concert with both our Japanese and South Korean allies. But I don't have anything more specific than that.
Samir.
QUESTION: Any reaction to the Boeing deal with Iran?
MR KIRBY: I think we talked about this a little bit yesterday. I can tell you that the State Department welcomes Boeing's announcement of this deal with Iran Air, which involves the type of permissible business activity envisioned in the JCPOA. Boeing has been in close contact with the State Department regarding this deal. We committed, as you know, to licensed sales of civil passenger aircraft and will continue to implement this and all of our JCPOA commitments. The JCPOA provides an opening for civil aviation companies, including American companies, to pursue legitimate commerce with Iran, and we note reports of progress in the aviation sector, which is good both – for both the economy and for public safety.
Okay.
QUESTION: John, on this, while it is true that the nuclear deal allows for this, I'm wondering, are – if you're aware of any other case where Boeing or another U.S. aircraft – civilian aircraft manufacturer has been given a license to sell planes to a country that is designated a state sponsor of terrorism. You'll recall that there are – Sudan, I don't know that there are many Boeing planes flying around Sudan, or Syria for that matter. And I don't think that the North Koreans, when they were on the list, had any American planes. Do you know – is this an unprecedented thing to sell --
MR KIRBY: I'm certainly not aware of another example in the way you characterize it. But I would like to, if you could just let me, talk about this with a little bit more depth. So I don't know the answer to your question, that it's ever happened before quite the way you describe it. But --
QUESTION: Well, the way – what do you mean, the way I described it?
MR KIRBY: As licensing to a state sponsor of terrorism.
QUESTION: But that's what happened, isn't it?
MR KIRBY: But it's all – but again --
QUESTION: I know it's legal under the JCPOA, but --
MR KIRBY: -- the JCPOA specifies --
QUESTION: -- they're still a state sponsor of terrorism. And I'm just asking if you know of any other case where the U.S. Government has permitted the sale of American planes, civilian aircraft to --
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any. But again, let me stress that the JCPOA states that any license for such aviation sales – and this is a quote: will include appropriate conditions to ensure that licensed activities do not involve and no licensed aircraft goods or services are resold or re-transferred to any person on the SDN, the Special Designated List. Should the United States determine that licensed aircraft, goods, or services have been used for purposes other than exclusively civil aviation end use or have been resold or re-transferred to persons on the designated list, the United States would view this as grounds to cease preforming its commitments under the aviation section, in whole or in part.
QUESTION: Does that mean that Iran Air would have to sell these planes? What if they just, like, lent them to another aircraft company?
MR KIRBY: Resold or re-transferred to --
QUESTION: Okay. So any kind of, like, lending --
MR KIRBY: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: -- is out of the question.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: What happens if – is flying flights into Damascus with these planes, is that – would that be okay under the current – recognizing that it's going to be awhile before they get delivered, but in the current situation, if they – a 777 or a 737 was sold to Iran Air and they started flying whatever into Damascus, would that be grounds for the license to be --
MR KIRBY: I'll have to take that question. I'm not sure. But again, going back to the language, it's talking about reselling or re-transferring. It's not talking about the transportation of – the use of civil aviation to transport passengers to and fro.
QUESTION: There have been a lot of – right. But there's been a lot of allegations --
MR KIRBY: I see nothing in there.
QUESTION: -- that a lot of the passenger – a lot of passengers on some Iranian airlines flying from Tehran into Syria and other – and Beirut, other places, have been carrying not just ordinary passengers and not just ordinary cargo. But I'm just wondering if those kinds of flights – or to, say, North Korea for example, which is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, are – would that --
MR KIRBY: I'm not an expert on that particular – you're asking a very legal question that I will take and get back to you rather than speculate. But again, the JCPOA is clear about reselling and re-transferring or repurposing for anything other than civil aviation. It's very, very clear. So I'll take that.
QUESTION: Okay. And as we understand it, under the terms of the deal, it could be worth up to about $25 billion. Is it – is there any provision in this or in the government's license that would prevent or stop U.S. money from going to help pay for these?
MR KIRBY: Say that one again. There any --
QUESTION: Is there any possibility that American money, U.S. money in the form of, I don't know, subsidies or some kind of payment – whether it's taxpayer money or not, could be Boeing itself – could be used in this sale?
MR KIRBY: I don't believe so, but let me check.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: If there is misuse of the planes once they get to Iran, is Boeing in any way liable for that, or have they got a – you'll punish Iran under the JCPOA, but would Boeing share any liability for end use?
MR KIRBY: You'll have to let me check, Dave. You guys are asking me questions of a legal nature that I just – I'm not schooled on and I'm not going to speculate.
QUESTION: May I add one more to that list? When Matt asked you about whether any U.S. Government monies would be used in the sale, can you explicitly check whether any guarantees from the U.S. Government export credit guarantee organization – I forget what the exact name of it is, maybe the EXIM Bank – but whether there are any U.S. Government export guarantees that are supporting the sale.
MR KIRBY: I'll – we'll take the question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Just – you guys are asking very detailed questions I just don't have information on.
QUESTION: Well, it's not like you haven't had time to prepare. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: That's right, you're absolutely --
QUESTION: We've been asking about this for a couple weeks. Anyway --
MR KIRBY: You're right.
QUESTION: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
MR KIRBY: No, all good questions. We'll take them.
QUESTION: No, but thank you for taking them.
MR KIRBY: I'm not challenging that, just don't know the answers.
Okay?
QUESTION: No, no, Bahrain. But go ahead.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: One on Japan after that.
MR KIRBY: What?
QUESTION: I have one on Japan.
MR KIRBY: Japan, go ahead.
QUESTION: Assistant Secretary Russel is in Japan for the U.S.-Japan-India trilateral. Do you have any readouts for the dialogue?
MR KIRBY: I don't at this time, but I'm sure we'll get something --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- as a result of it. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I wanted – just wanted to ask you if there's any update on the Bahrain report to the Hill.
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR KIRBY: You asked if there's an update. No, there's no update.
QUESTION: Tick-tock, tick-tock, okay. So --
MR KIRBY: We – as I said yesterday, we're mindful that we're late.
QUESTION: Maybe by January 21st or so --
MR KIRBY: We are working on it very, very hard. I suspect that we'll have something done soon.
QUESTION: And there have been reports this morning that the Bahraini Government has called the National Guard out into the streets. Have you seen this? Is this --
MR KIRBY: Seen the reports, can't confirm it. We're in touch with the post trying to get a better sense of what's going on, but I can't confirm those reports.
QUESTION: Okay. But as you will recall, the removal of the military from the streets had been one of the big accomplishments, as it were, of the dialogue. So is this something that you would warn against or tell the Bahrainis that you think is a bad idea?
MR KIRBY: I think we need to know more about the veracity of the reports before we jump to a conclusion, but you're right – I mean, it was the – it was the use of and presence of, actions of security forces that certainly caused alarm, particularly back in 2011. But again, we just don't know the veracity of these reports, and so I think we're going to reserve jumping to any conclusions or making specific comments about it until we know more about these reports.
QUESTION: What – so am I hearing that right that you're going to wait until after they do it or don't do it --
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no, no.
QUESTION: -- to say anything?
MR KIRBY: No, I didn't say that. I said we're looking into it right now; we're trying to figure out ground truth here --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and then when we do, then we'll figure out what the next best step is to do there. But obviously, we're very mindful of the fact that it was security forces that were the problem back in 2011, and as you know, when we lifted some of the sanctions, we left some in place --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- on some security forces. So – it's not like we're unmindful of the potential here, but I just don't want to jump to any conclusions.
QUESTION: Well, is that because you think that there might be some validity or that it could be – that it would be okay for them to --
MR KIRBY: No, it's because we just --
QUESTION: -- call the National Guard?
MR KIRBY: No, it's because we just don't know.
QUESTION: Well, then why wouldn't you say, "Hey, Bahrain, we think that it would be – we're seeing reports" --
MR KIRBY: Because we don't even know if these reports are accurate. So I think it's pretty safe to assume, Matt, that if we have concerns, we'll express them. We express them privately, we express them publicly.
QUESTION: Well, wouldn't you be concerned about the possibility that it could happen?
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we're concerned by the reports. I mean, we're – that's why we're looking into it, but I just don't have anything --
QUESTION: I mean, you just called – you don't know that North Korea's about to launch another missile, but you just called on them not to do it. Why wouldn't you – here's a situation where there are reports that this is going to --
MR KIRBY: I don't know that I would put the two in exactly the same category, Matt.
QUESTION: No, I'm talking about things that haven't happened yet that you would warn against, right?
MR KIRBY: Why don't we see what's going on and then we'll determine the right response for that.
QUESTION: So in other words, there is a – there is a scenario in which they could call out the National Guard to go into the street and you guys wouldn't have an issue with it, is that correct?
MR KIRBY: It depends on the usage if it was, in fact, happening.
QUESTION: Right. So there is a scenario that it would be okay?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to speculate about something we don't even know is happening yet, so let's figure out --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- what's going on and then we'll – then we'll respond appropriately. Thank you, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:49 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
