Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 22, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
IRAQ
COLOMBIA
SECRETARY KERRY TRAVEL
BAHRAIN
VENEZUELA
COLOMBIA
CUBA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN
NORTH KOREA
HONDURAS
IRAN
UNITED KINGDOM
UKRAINE/RUSSIA
TRANSCRIPT:
2:24 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
QUESTION: Afternoon.
MR KIRBY: A couple things here at the top: On Iraq, we are pleased to announce that the United States will co-host a pledging conference with Canada, Germany, and Japan in Washington, D.C. on the 20th of July to raise support for urgent humanitarian and stabilization needs in Iraq. This will be an effort to help the people of Iraq weather the humanitarian crisis and destruction wrought by Daesh in the country, and as – to remind, as you know, I mentioned yesterday, we announced yesterday $20 million of assistance for Iraq specifically for humanitarian purposes. And I fully would expect that the pledging conference will see, as I said yesterday, additional contributions by the United States.
Now, while Daesh has suffered continued defeats on the battlefield, we now believe we're at a critical juncture in the fight. Iraq needs the international community's support to provide desperately needed items such as food, water, shelter, medicine for those in need, and to assist in the return of displaced families back to liberated areas as quickly as possible. It's critical that we focus not only on defeating Daesh, of course, but also what comes after that. Reconciliation and long-term peace are simply not possible until Iraq's acute humanitarian crisis is alleviated and people can return to their homes with access to basic services, to health care, education, and with at least a modest hope for prosperity.
We believe that this pledging conference will provide a unique and important opportunity for the international community to assist in doing just that, and to helping Iraq's citizens move past some of these challenges and in remedying the harm caused by Daesh and to show solidarity with the people of Iraq as they rebuild their nation.
Now, on Colombia, I think you may have at least seen reports that the Colombian Government and FARC negotiating delegations have issued a communique from Havana earlier today announcing that they had reached agreements on a definitive bilateral ceasefire – a cessation of hostilities, disarmament, and security guarantees. The delegations announced that an event will be held to formalize these announcements tomorrow, the 23rd of June, mid-day in Havana, and will be led by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the FARC leader. The United States welcomes the communique, looks forward to the event tomorrow, which will be attended by our Special Envoy Bernie Aronson, and hopes the parties will continue to make progress toward a final peace accord.
And finally, on a programming note, the Secretary will travel to Rome on Saturday, where he will be meeting with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu. They plan to discuss a range of issues – including Syria, of course – developments in the region and efforts to advance a two-state solution.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: I don't --
MR KIRBY: Actually, Matt --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: What?
MR KIRBY: Because if you don't mind --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: -- I know Bahrain is on your mind.
QUESTION: I do mind. Actually, I wasn't going to ask about Bahrain. I have a --
MR KIRBY: Well, but I --
QUESTION: This is a logistical question.
MR KIRBY: -- figured you would and --
QUESTION: Well, I am – I mean, it was in my plans. It's on my list here, but I just have a logistical question about the FARC announcement, and that is: Envoy Aronson is going to be the only U.S. --
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: -- participant there? Okay.
MR KIRBY: Correct, and I've seen some --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- rumors out there that the Secretary was going to travel to Havana for this event. He is not. He is – he's leaving this afternoon, as you know, for Palo Alto for the Global Entrepreneurs Summit. There's no change to his schedule. He'll be participating in events there tonight and tomorrow. Mr. Aronson will be representing the United States.
But Matt, if I could – if I could --
QUESTION: Go ahead.
MR KIRBY: -- take advantage of this --
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: -- because I know that you've been asking about Bahrain and I was remiss there at the beginning here. I want to make clear that yesterday, the Department of State sent to Congress its report on Bahrain's implementation of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry. This report was requested by Congress in the most recent Senate appropriations bill. I think you guys know that.
The report concludes that the Government of Bahrain has implemented some important recommendations of the commission of inquiry, including establishing institutions of oversight and accountability, conducting human rights training for police, and rebuilding mosques that were destroyed in 2011.
However, there are other key recommendations that have not been fully implemented. Limitations on political activism and peaceful assembly, lack of due process, and the criminalization of the exercise of free expression continue to undermine the progress Bahrain has made since 2011. We are alarmed by recent actions by the government which call into question Bahrain's commitment not only to implementation of the BICI – the commission of inquiry's report – but also to the core concepts of inclusiveness and respect for fundamental rights that Bahrain first committed to 16 years ago.
Moreover, we are concerned that the intensified crackdown on civil society actors will only lead to greater instability and strengthen the influence of outside actors. We continue to urge the Government of Bahrain to implement fully the recommendations in the report which was accepted by the – which were accepted, excuse me, by the king in 2011, and to, more broadly, reverse recent harmful actions. These include the suspension of the opposition political society Al-Wefaq; the extension of the prison sentence of Wefaq's secretary-general, Sheikh Ali Salman; the detention of activist Nabeel Rajab; and the revocation of citizenship of Sheikh Isa Qassim – all of which I have spoken to in just the last week or so.
So I hope you don't mind me --
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: -- circumventing you. I knew that was on your mind and I meant to say something earlier, and I --
QUESTION: That's okay.
MR KIRBY: -- I apologize for that. So --
QUESTION: So – but in – is there any consequence for the fact that they're not meeting their – not meeting all the recommendations, and in fact, as you say, they're undermining progress by their recent actions? Is what – does the Administration intend to do anything other than tell Congress what its opinion is on this?
MR KIRBY: Well, it's – first of all, it's important that we did submit this report and offer our views on Bahrain's implementation. I would say that this report is part of an ongoing dialogue, and we're going to continue to make the case that these reforms are in Bahrain's best interest. I think I said that, I think, yesterday or the day before. And as Bahrain's partner, we have a common interest in that country's security and stability, and we do not believe that recent actions that they have taken will further those interests. So I'm not going to speculate about specific consequences at this time, but again, I'll go back to what I said at the outset. We urge Bahrain to make the necessary reforms they need to --
QUESTION: Well, okay.
MR KIRBY: -- to continue the progress that they started in 2011.
QUESTION: So any discussion of consequences at this point is purely speculation? You're not thinking about – I mean, there were consequences before. You cut off arms sales to them.
MR KIRBY: I'm not – what I'm going to – what I'm not going to do is speculate about what decisions we might make --
QUESTION: I'm not asking you to speculate.
MR KIRBY: -- or not.
QUESTION: Will there – well, okay, so --
MR KIRBY: There – this is an ongoing dialogue – an ongoing dialogue between us and the Congress and certainly an ongoing dialogue between us and the Kingdom of Bahrain. And as a matter of fact, the Secretary had a phone conversation today with the foreign minister of Bahrain to again urge Bahrain to make the necessary reforms it needs to make.
So I'm not going to predict repercussions or consequences with any specificity today except to say that this is an ongoing dialogue we're going to continue to have, and I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that haven't been made yet.
QUESTION: Well, it sounds like you gave the report to Congress because they asked for it, and that's like a responsibility that you had in terms of Congress asking for the report. But in terms of changing the policy on Bahrain, or as you were just saying, like, imposing any consequences for their behavior, that's not part of what you were doing in terms of this report?
MR KIRBY: It wasn't part of the – it wasn't the function of the report. So, a couple of things, Elise. We didn't give it to them because they asked for it; it was legislated. I mean, this was a --
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: That's – (laughter).
MR KIRBY: -- the – a report – our report – our report on --
QUESTION: That's the same as them asking for it.
QUESTION: Well, it was legislated, but they asked – but you were supposed to give it to them (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: I know, but I just wanted to make clear that this was, as I said at the outset, as part of our --
QUESTION: So you wouldn't have given them a report if they just asked (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: It was a mandate in legislation.
QUESTION: Well, I know. I know it was a mandate.
MR KIRBY: And we have to obey the law, so we did – we – we submitted a report on their progress in terms of implementing the commission of inquiry's report back in 2011, and we take that responsibility seriously. The report was designed to assess their implementation of their commission of inquiry, and we did that. And as I said at the outset, we found that they had made some progress but that there was a lot more work to do. There were some – some things that have not been done, and not been done satisfactorily. That was the purpose of the report. That's what we submitted to Congress. It wasn't about adjudicating or speculating or offering recommendations about specific consequences going forward.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, given the fact that you had to do this report in this point in time, and given the fact that in the last several weeks there have been several statements that have come up about your concerns about human rights abuses on the ground, I mean, is there any new recourse in terms of your policy, or are you examining any other new options, or you're just going to hope that they listen to your calls to make the necessary reforms?
MR KIRBY: I think we've shown in the past that we aren't afraid to make decisions that change the level of cooperation that we've had, or have had with Bahrain in the past. You know we had – we placed holds on some foreign military sales. Now, some of those got lifted about a year ago; others still remain. So it's not like we're unafraid to make those kinds of decisions if we feel we need to. I'm not going to speculate about the future here. As I said to Matt, it's an ongoing dialogue – one we're having with Congress, one we're having with the Kingdom of Bahrain, to include today – and we'll just see where this takes us.
Obviously, what we'd like to see is there be honest, real efforts to make additional necessary reforms and changes so that our partnership with Bahrain can continue to foster and to grow. But when we see that some of these reforms and – some of these reforms not being made or we see actions and decisions such as we've seen in the last week with respect to freedom of expression – when we see those decisions, it's certainly calls into question Bahrain's commitments to furthering their progress on human rights.
QUESTION: Or implementing the reforms maybe that they said?
MR KIRBY: Indeed.
QUESTION: Are these reforms on paper?
MR KIRBY: Indeed, it calls those into questions. And again, we want to see the relationship be as successful as possible, but more critically we want to see Bahrain be as successful as possible. And we don't believe that some of the actions that they have taken and the failure to implement all of the recommendations in their own commission of inquiry – we don't see that as in their interest.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, you keep citing progress that they have made. Can you cite some of the progress made?
MR KIRBY: I did. I did in --
QUESTION: Like what? Because last week, for instance --
MR KIRBY: As I said at the outset, Said, they have made some progress in terms of establishing institutions of oversight and accountability, they have conducted human rights training for police, and they have made an effort to rebuild some of the mosques that were destroyed in 2011. So they have made some. But I followed that right up with a clear statement that there's other key recommendations that they've not fully implemented.
QUESTION: But you always have, like, a caveat that there will be no consequences almost – no consequences in terms of – you keep urging them. For instance, last week, when they stripped eight people of their citizenship and they sentenced them to 15 years in prison each, and your response was interpreted in many ways to be a bit tepid, not strong enough. Some people think that if you came out strongly against that, maybe the stripping of Sheikh Isa's citizenship would not have taken place. I mean, I – if you care to comment.
MR KIRBY: I take issue with the characterization that our response has been tepid. We have been strident, we've been clear, and we've been public about it right here from this podium as well as having private conversations with Bahraini officials about this. We've made no bones about the fact that we're concerned about this. We've done it verbally and now you can – we've done it with respect to the report to Congress. We've been nothing but strident about this. Bahrain is a partner and we want to see the partnership succeed. We want to see Bahrain succeed. But – and I – look, I totally understand the interest by you guys in knowing exactly what levers are going to get pulled, and I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that haven't been made. But you don't have to look much farther back in history to see that we aren't afraid to make decisions with respect to – in this last case with foreign military sales when and if we feel it's responsible to do that.
Now, are we at that point right now? I don't know and I don't have anything to announce today. But I can tell you that – as I said, this is a subject of constant conversation and concern here at the State Department, constant dialogue and discussion privately and publicly, and it will remain so. And I just won't get ahead of decisions that haven't been made, but obviously we have options at our disposal.
QUESTION: What other options besides withholding some deliveries on military equipment do you have?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I – we know that that was a decision we had made in the past. I'm not going to speculate one way or the other about options going forward. What – it's a great academic exercise to stand up here and try to speculate about that, but the – it could – all of this could be resolved very easily should Bahrain just make the necessary decisions that they need to make to complete the reforms that in some cases they've started and to stop making some of the what we believe to be harmful decisions and actions that they have made of late. And so that's what we really want to see happen. Nobody wants to see it get to a point where other decisions have to be made. Okay?
QUESTION: Why was it – I mean, February 1st – why did it take so long?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we talked about this earlier. We were very focused on making sure that we did this report in a thorough, complete, professional manner, and it took a lot of staff work and it took a lot of time. We're not unmindful of the fact that we were very late. We regret the fact that we didn't meet the deadline, but more critically, we're confident in the thoroughness and the completeness of the report.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, given the fact that all these months have passed since the original deadline, have the recent abuses and areas of concern that you've raised in your statements included in this report?
MR KIRBY: The report was designed, again, to provide a sense of the implementation of the commission of inquiry's recommendations and that was its focus. We have talked – we have talked --
QUESTION: Right, the fact that these abuses have taken place would suggest that some of those recommendations have not been implemented. Right?
MR KIRBY: Clearly, yeah. Clearly some of the recommendations haven't been fully implemented. I'm not going to get into much more detail on the specifics of the report.
QUESTION: How recent is the report?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get much more specific about the content. It was designed --
QUESTION: But for what period?
MR KIRBY: It was designed to give an assessment of Bahrain's implementation of their commission of inquiry report, which was in 2011. It was designed to be a report card on that report, basically. We have, separate and distinct from that – and again, I'm not going to get into the content more than I already have – we have, separate and distinct, in public and private, expressed our concerns about recent decisions that Bahrain has made.
QUESTION: But Congress can now move if it wants to. If Congress wants to try to force the situation, it can do that now, right?
MR KIRBY: I won't speculate for what actions members of Congress might make based on the report that was submitted to them.
QUESTION: I think another way to get at this and whether or not you were timely or not, you're not claiming to – that you responded to the legislative mandate in a timely fashion, correct? You're not. Because it's been four months – more than four months.
MR KIRBY: We acknowledged that we were late.
QUESTION: So is there any concern at all that the fact that it was so late might have contributed to the fact that – contributed to these recent abuses? And are all the setbacks that you're referring to – do those postdate February? In other words, had the report come out when it was supposed to have come out, would it have been more positive or would it have just been – or would it have been pretty much the same? Because it seems to me the period of time that it covers would be important.
QUESTION: Exactly.
QUESTION: And if all the setbacks are post-February, that's – that's kind of interesting.
MR KIRBY: Let me see how I can carve this up. As I said, on the recent actions we've issued separate statements concerning our concerns over these developments. The report addresses the specific recommendations made in the commission of inquiry, and it describes our concern regarding Bahrain's curtailment of freedom of expression, violations of fair trial guarantees, lack of progress --
QUESTION: Up until February, or up until now?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to be able to get into more specificity about the content.
QUESTION: Why not?
MR KIRBY: But clearly, what's happened in the last --
QUESTION: Until tomorrow, when Congress leaks the report and then you're going to have to respond?
QUESTION: So – yeah. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Look, it's a report to Congress, and if Congress – if members of Congress wish to make it public, that's their decision. But it's not our call to do that. And I've gone into about as much detail as I can here. But what --
QUESTION: I'm sorry, but you're parsing. It's directly relevant if some of these – and I have to go back to some of the statements that you issued, but I'm sure that you mention the commission of inquiry and how this is not in line with some of the recommendations that they've called for.
MR KIRBY: The report's an assessment of their implementation of their own commission of inquiry.
QUESTION: Until when?
MR KIRBY: I don't – I'm not --
QUESTION: Until yesterday, when the report went to Congress?
MR KIRBY: We've been working on this for quite some time. There's been a lot of staff work, Elise. I am not going to get into more detail in terms of what's included in the report, or up until what date things were considered. But clearly our entire – our approach to Bahrain is absolutely informed by what's been going on in recent months. But remember what the report was designed to do: to be an assessment of their implementation of the 2011 commission of inquiry.
Said.
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: Can we change the --
QUESTION: Can I – can I just ask --
QUESTION: That was really infuriating.
QUESTION: Can you – obviously, we'll look at the report, and presumably the report says what time period it covers, right? I haven't seen it yet.
MR KIRBY: I don't have additional detail on the – it was an assessment of their implementation since 2011.
QUESTION: Until – but it was supposed to be – the way the Congress had envisioned it, until February.
MR KIRBY: Until the due date, until February.
QUESTION: Right. So the question is just simply whether or not it had – because you guys were so late, you included stuff in the report, and that the negative things that you're – the recent negative things are actually in the report itself, or --
MR KIRBY: As I said, we've issued separate statements about those events.
QUESTION: I know. But it matters whether this is in the report to Congress or not. I mean, it just --
MR KIRBY: I'll tell you what. Let me find out --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: -- if I can even go into that level. Let's just --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- put an end to this line of questioning right now. I'll take a look at it. I can't promise you that I'm going to be able to go into more detail, but I'm --
QUESTION: Well, you were going to go into it – to more detail tomorrow when everyone has the report. Some people have it already.
MR KIRBY: Look, I can't speak for what Congress is going to do with the report, Elise. It was a report from us to Congress, and we're going to respect that channel. I've given from the podium today as much detail as I'm going to give today. And I'm not going to speculate about if or when or how it might make its way into the public domain. It's a report from us to Congress and we're going to respect that process. I get the line of questioning. Let me look at it and let's move on.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject, then?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you done? Can I go to Venezuela? Tom Shannon has met with President Maduro now. Can you confirm that? Well, we've got that from Caracas, but can you confirm it from the State Department?
MR KIRBY: Yes. He was meeting with President Maduro. Now, I don't know if the meeting is still ongoing, but it was scheduled to happen early this afternoon. So yes, he is meeting with President Maduro today.
QUESTION: Has he met any other officials? How did the meetings yesterday go?
MR KIRBY: He also met with the foreign minister earlier today, and yesterday he met with a series of both government, nongovernmental, and civil society members. And we'll have a more detailed readout of the scope of his meetings when his trip concludes.
QUESTION: So what did – during – from his meetings yesterday with opposition and nongovernmental, was that going to inform what he was discussing with – is there anything specific he wants from Maduro in today's meeting?
MR KIRBY: As I said earlier – I mean, I think the purpose for this trip is to help foster a constructive dialogue that can hopefully lead to solutions to so many of the challenges facing Venezuela today – political, economic, social. And all of his meetings in Caracas were designed to help foster that kind of dialogue and to help generate some of those ideas, and I have no doubt that he'll be sharing with President Maduro some of what he learned and some of what he heard while he was – while he's been down there.
QUESTION: Is the aim to set up more meetings? Is that what was going to come out of this – these discussions?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any additional schedule items to speak to today.
QUESTION: John, on Venezuela.
QUESTION: Is --
QUESTION: Did Under Secretary Shannon bring up the recall effort to President Maduro?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'll have a more detailed readout when his meetings are complete. And as far as I know, the meeting with President Maduro may still actually be going on. It started a little bit later in the day than I think it was originally scheduled, so I just don't have a readout from that meeting. And I don't know, quite frankly, and I don't want to promise --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- that as a result of it I'm going to be able to offer a whole lot of detail.
QUESTION: Can you – just a background question, but can you update us on the situation with the ambassador there? There's a --
MR KIRBY: The ambassador there?
QUESTION: I – there is no ambassador at the moment, right?
MR KIRBY: What we have – but we have diplomatic --
QUESTION: Of course, yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- relations with Venezuela and direct contact --
QUESTION: It came up in a House hearing today on Venezuela. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen was wondering aloud whether State would be --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any – I don't have anything to announce with respect to an ambassadorial presence there, but as you know, we maintain diplomatic relations, direct contact. In fact, Under Secretary Shannon's there at the invitation of the Venezuelan Government.
QUESTION: In that same hearing, some lawmakers raised concerns about this effort to engage in stepped-up dialogue with Venezuela at a time when there is strong concern about human rights abuses and other issues. What do you say to address concerns from those who believe that the U.S. should hold off on higher-level dialogue until Venezuela addresses some of these concerns?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think, as the Secretary said himself last week, the United States joins with others in the international community calling on Venezuela to release political prisoners, respect freedom of expression and assembly, alleviate shortages of food and medicine, and honor its own constitutional mechanisms, including fair and timely – including a fair and timely recall referendum. And we support, as he has said before, dialogue efforts facilitated by former Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero and former Presidents Fernandez and Torrijos. And we remain committed to working with all OAS member states to help Venezuelans find remedies to the deeply troubling situation there. It is – in the Secretary's view, it is precisely because the situation is so challenging there and because so many Venezuelans are suffering that the – that he wanted Under Secretary Shannon to go and to have this dialogue and these discussions. I mean, this is the time to foster dialogue and discussion – because things are the way they are.
Said.
QUESTION: Kirby, the --
QUESTION: Can we move --
QUESTION: Tomorrow's the meeting – the OAS meeting in which the head of the OAS has tabled a proposal that would kind of click in or start a process in which they could suspend Venezuela. The Secretary said in the Dominican Republic last week the U.S. would not support that. Is that still the position?
MR KIRBY: Not support --
QUESTION: The – any effort to kind of suspend Venezuela, saying that dialogue now is more important?
MR KIRBY: I don't know of any change in our position on that, no.
QUESTION: Can we go --
QUESTION: Yes, he said – that's what he said. He said in Venezuela on Tuesday last week that he – the U.S. does not support that effort.
MR KIRBY: Right, I'm saying --
QUESTION: Oh. That remains --
MR KIRBY: I thought you were asking me if he changed his mind from then.
QUESTION: Oh. I was wondering, given the situation now and the meeting is tomorrow, what is the view of the U.S. going into that meeting?
MR KIRBY: So last week, as you know, the United States joined with 14 other countries to express concern about the situation there, to encourage dialogue, call for respect for human rights and democratic processes. We expect discussions at the OAS to build on that measure and on the consensus declaration that the OAS put out on June 1st. That's our expectations on that. And there's no change to the Secretary's views. I'd – I didn't understand the nature of the question.
Pam, on – I don't know if it was your question or Nicole's, but I did forget to mention that while we don't have an ambassador, we do have a charge d'affaires representing U.S. interests at the embassy in Venezuela.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: So there's no formal ambassador, but there is a charge d'affaires.
QUESTION: And there's nothing – nothing going to change imminently on --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any changes to that structure to announce today.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: But I did not – I neglected to add that fact.
QUESTION: But I mean, it's not just a personnel – kind of a thing about personnel. I mean, you made the decision several years ago to withdraw the ambassador. And it is – while we do have diplomatic relations, it is kind of a downgrade in diplomatic relations, wouldn't you say?
MR KIRBY: It's not a full ambassadorial presence, if that's what you're asking.
QUESTION: For reasons of policy.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Didn't the Venezuelans reject your choice?
MR KIRBY: But I also --
QUESTION: Yes, they did.
MR KIRBY: But – but look --
QUESTION: So it's their issue.
MR KIRBY: We're focused – we're really trying to focus on the future here and to try to foster the dialogue, to make the kind of changes in Venezuela that are needed.
Said.
QUESTION: Wait. Colombia, just since we're in the region, real quick?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I wonder if you might – your statement at the beginning – thank you for that, but maybe I missed – there was a statement that went out earlier? I'm not sure, but does this department welcome the announcement, obviously, or – and are hopeful that this is actually --
MR KIRBY: I said – I said we welcome the communique and we look forward to seeing the events tomorrow unfold.
QUESTION: Is there any --
MR KIRBY: And we congratulate President Santos on the work and the effort that he has put into this to get the process his far.
QUESTION: Is there any concern that the process blew through the March deadline and now here we are; this isn't the final agreement that everyone was hoping for back in March, but it is a step in the right direction?
MR KIRBY: We believe it's an important step forward, and look, sometimes diplomacy, particularly this kind of difficult diplomacy, takes time, and it takes a lot of hard work and effort. And we believe that the results that were announced today and will be talked in more detail about tomorrow reflect that.
QUESTION: And do you think – just since we're on it, do you think that this agreement could ever have been reached without the Obama Administration's pursuit of the detente with Havana?
MR KIRBY: We believe that it was reached through the hard work and leadership of many, and in particular President Santos.
QUESTION: Right, but I was talking about the current Obama Administration's detente with Havana. Could this agreement --
MR KIRBY: Oh, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: -- have been reached without that, do you think? I know it's a hypothetical.
MR KIRBY: Look, I can't possibly speculate one way or the other about the impact of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. Certainly it helped foster – there's no question that that helped foster a better climate. But again, this – but there isn't – there isn't one factor here that got us to this point. A lot of factors and a lot of leadership, a lot of diplomacy and a lot of hard work went into this. And again, we congratulate President Santos for his particular leadership in this regard in getting us to this point.
QUESTION: Can we move to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Where you started with the meeting between Secretary Kerry and Prime Minister Netanyahu. First of all, in what context this meeting occurred? I mean, is it, like, part of the follow-up to the Paris process? Is it a prelude to anything at the UN?
MR KIRBY: I think as I said at the outset, Said, there's --
QUESTION: Right, I mean --
MR KIRBY: First of all, they're going to talk about a lot of things.
QUESTION: Is that independent of everything else that is going on regarding --
MR KIRBY: No, it's – they're – no, meeting with the prime minister is not independent of what else is going on. In fact, it's very dependent on what's going on. And as I said, they're not just going to talk about the potential to get to a two-state solution; they're going to talk about Syria, they're going to talk about regional challenges, and there's a wide swath of issues that you can imagine that the Secretary and the prime minister will have to talk about – counterterrorism. And I suspect they will. I think they'll touch on all those things. But – so the meeting is being held in the context of all that. I mean, there are plenty of issues of concern to both Israel and the United States that merit this discussion.
QUESTION: Because the Israeli prime minister is vociferously opposed to the Paris effort on the one hand. He opposes the Quartet report that is upcoming. Could it be maybe an effort on his part to sort of soften the language in the Quartet's report? I mean, it is not really part of what's going on, let's say, with the international community, is it?
MR KIRBY: Look, on the Quartet report, as you know, the Quartet is preparing a report on the situation on the ground. It will include recommendations that can help inform international discussions on the best way to advance a two-state solution. It's going to discuss the situation there on the ground, obviously. Largely it will reflect the Quartet statement from September, which addressed a number of threats dangerously imperiling the viability of a two-state solution. And I would just tell you that the Quartet received input from both sides throughout this process, which the Quartet considered.
QUESTION: Let me just follow up with a couple things on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Yesterday the Israeli army shot a 15-year-old boy who was with other kids celebrating the beginning of summer and so on.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is that considered as an extrajudicial execution? I mean, I've asked this issue many, many times before. Last month they shot a boy with Down syndrome, and he died yesterday. Now the Palestinians are saying they want to go to the UN for investigation and so on. So what is it – in your assessment, what can the United States do to sort of implore Israel to cut back on its excessive use of force?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, our condolences go out to the family of the boy that you're mentioning, the 15-year-old boy. I guess there were two others that were wounded when they were mistakenly shot by Israeli security forces. We've seen also the reports that the security forces were pursuing a group of Palestinians who had earlier thrown rocks and Molotov cocktails at cars, and opened fire on those individuals by mistake. As I've said many times, we've been very clear it's critical that every possible effort be taken to show restraint, guard against unnecessary loss of life, and de-escalate the tensions.
Now, I understand the Israeli authorities are – have opened an investigation on this, and we want to see that investigation proceed before we speculate one way or the other about what happened here. Certainly refer you to Israeli authorities if they're speaking to it; that's really their place. Okay?
Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Kirby. Do you think UN Security Council resolution take another additional sanctions regarding yesterday North Korean Musudan missile launches?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is – let me just back up a little bit, because you're – just so everybody has the same sense here, we can confirm that the DPRK launched two ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. We are continuing to assess the situation in close coordination with our regional allies and partners. We obviously strongly condemn these and North Korea's other recent missile tests which violate UN Security Council resolutions that explicitly prohibit launches of ballistic missile technology. These launches only serve to increase the international community's resolve to counter the DPRK's prohibited activities, including through implementing existing UN Security Council sanctions. We're raising our concerns at the UN to hold the DPRK accountable for these provocative actions, including the launches that just happened. And as I said, we're in close consultation with allies and partners.
QUESTION: What about the – by United States separate? Do you think you need any actions --
MR KIRBY: We have – obviously, we have at our disposal the ability to unilaterally hold the DPRK accountable. I'm – I don't have anything with respect to that to announce or to speak to today. Those are obviously options that we have at our disposal, but I can tell you that we are raising these particular two launches – we're raising those inside the UN, raising our concerns, and we'll see where that discussion goes.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Yeah, Alex Emmons with The Intercept. I wanted to change gears and ask about Honduras, and specifically the murder of Berta Caceres.
QUESTION: Can I do one more --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Sure, go ahead.
MR KIRBY: I think you're getting overridden there, chief.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Will the missile launch by North Korea affect the pace of your discussion with South Korean Government regarding the THAAD system deployment?
MR KIRBY: Are you asking if – in the wake of these two launches, if there's been any change in the discussions over THAAD? I'm not aware --
QUESTION: Yeah, or will accelerate the --
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any changes. As you know, those consultations are ongoing. I'd refer you to the Defense Department for anything additional on that. I just don't know.
QUESTION: And how successful do you regard the U.S. sanction on North Korea is, given the fact the North Korean Government is launching the missiles more frequently than before and you only leave the North Korean people suffering?
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we're deeply concerned by these additional launches. That doesn't change the fact that the sanctions that were enacted through UNSCR 2270 are the toughest in two decades, but they're only three months old, and sometimes it takes a period of time before you can start to see the effect of sanctions. In fact, it often takes a long period of time. That doesn't change the fact that they are the toughest ones that we've enacted in two decades. It doesn't change the fact that they do have tougher enforcement mechanisms attached to it that we haven't seen in the past. And it doesn't change the fact that the UN may still take up additional options going forward, and that's why we want these two launches in particular to be discussed at the UN. And we're in support of that dialogue. Okay?
QUESTION: There is a UN report – there is a UN report comes up pointing out that the North Korean officials involved in WMD-related programs got training at a space technology institute in India that taught courses to North Koreans that violates UN sanctions. So how do you see this investigation by --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report. I'm not going to comment on that today, okay?
QUESTION: Back to the missiles yesterday. I guess the South Koreans and the Japanese have found that the second launch marked some sort of technological improvement. I know you said you're still assessing the situation, but I guess do you share that preliminary assessment? And then secondly, given that, are you making any – reaching out to the Chinese, or are you going to take any steps following that?
MR KIRBY: On the first question, no, we're still assessing these two launches, and I'm – we're just not in a position right now to qualitatively offer a characterization, except that --
QUESTION: Well, didn't one of them go into space briefly?
MR KIRBY: Again, we're still assessing information from these two launches, and I'm just not at liberty to characterize them any further. Obviously, we know they happened, clearly violations --
QUESTION: And if it did mark some sort of improvement, like, what steps would you --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, Felicia, I just don't have additional information right now. We're still assessing these, and I'm not in a position to characterize them one way or the other.
I'm sorry, and your second question was --
QUESTION: I just – are you making any – reaching out to the Chinese or any --
MR KIRBY: Outreach to the Chinese – I don't have any specific conversations to read out to you today, but as I said earlier, we are raising this inside the UN and, of course, China is a member of the Security Council. So I fully would expect that they would be part of that dialogue.
QUESTION: Sung Kim – is he still there?
MR KIRBY: As far as I know, he is, yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday at the Beijing meeting, the North Korean delegation Lee Young Ho – he said – he strongly comment they never give up their nuclear development. So how you think about this?
MR KIRBY: Janne, we've talked about this many times. I mean, we are – nothing has changed about our commitment to a verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. That remains our policy, that remains our goal, that remains our objective, and nothing has changed about the fact that we would like to get back to the Six-Party process. But the onus is on the North, and when they do things like this, it's impossible to see how we can get back to that Six-Party process.
QUESTION: So – but he said that normal Six-Party Talk (inaudible) – he mentioned that, the North Koreans. So how you going to make Six-Party Talks without the North Koreans?
MR KIRBY: As I said, the onus is on the North to stop these provocative actions and to resume to that process in good faith. It's difficult to see good faith here when they keep violating Security Council resolutions and putting the security and stability of the peninsula at risk.
QUESTION: Or perhaps the Security Council resolutions they are passing are not seen as being effective enough.
MR KIRBY: As I said, these are the toughest sanctions in two decades and it takes time. It takes time. It – sanctions are not usually immediately felt – even tough ones.
QUESTION: So I mean if you – so, okay. So if these sanctions are going to take time, I mean, that would suggest that this is going to fall to the next administration to come up with some kind of policy.
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not – I couldn't begin to speculate about what the next --
QUESTION: Well, do you think that these --
MR KIRBY: -- administration will or won't do or will or won't take up.
QUESTION: Well, when you say that the sanctions take time, do you think that they'll have enough effect by the end of this Administration to force North Korea's hand?
MR KIRBY: We believe that these sanctions are stringent enough and tough enough, that the enforcement mechanisms are clear enough, that they will have an impact, that they will be felt by the regime. But it's difficult for me – impossible for me to tell you exactly when that's going to be or what effect it might have. But as we've talked about before, these particular ones are designed to really – to impact the regime more stringently than we have in the past. And we'll – and oh, by the way, in the wake of these launches, we're taking it up with the UN even today.
QUESTION: For more sanctions?
MR KIRBY: We're going to have that discussion with the UN on how best to continue to hold the North accountable. I'm not going to rule in or out additional sanctions from the UN. I wouldn't speak for the UN in that regard, but clearly we're raising our concerns inside UN channels even today about last night's launches.
QUESTION: So you said you haven't seen the report of UN on North Korea but – though I have sent these documents in the morning to your press team. But sir, have you – are you aware about the training of North Korean scientists in India?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: No?
MR KIRBY: No, I'm not aware.
QUESTION: Amazing.
MR KIRBY: It's amazing, huh? No, not aware.
QUESTION: For me it is.
MR KIRBY: I know there's a lot in this book, but it doesn't include everything.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Are we good on Honduras now? Okay. So I wanted to ask – there was a report The Guardian yesterday from a high-level deserter from the Honduran army that noted environmental activist Berta Caceres was killed by Honduran Government forces, that her name appeared on a kill list of activists and community leaders that was circulated to multiple U.S.-trained Honduran Government army units – some might say "death squads." How would you respond to the accusation that she was killed by the Honduran Government?
MR KIRBY: We've seen media reports alleging the existence of a Honduran activist hit list, as you've described it.
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: The U.S. Government has not previously heard any credible allegation of hit lists, of deaths ordered by the military, and we do not have any information which would substantiate this report.
QUESTION: You have not – you've not heard of these kill lists?
MR KIRBY: I think that's what I just said. We don't –
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: We haven't heard of any credible allegation of hit lists, of deaths --
QUESTION: I mean, since --
MR KIRBY: -- and we do have any information that would substantiate this report.
QUESTION: Since the transition of power took place, Honduran human rights activists have documented dozens, hundreds of community leaders, activists, journalists murdered by government forces. I mean, just back in April Honduran rights activists were on Capitol Hill saying that death squads have returned to Honduras. You're saying you don't know about this?
MR KIRBY: Sir, I can say it again for you if you want. But we --
QUESTION: You're saying --
MR KIRBY: -- don't have any – we have not seen any credible allegations of this list. But if you'll let me finish --
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: -- if we were to come into information that would prove that credible, we would obviously take it very seriously. It's important to note the United States has provided its security and military aid to Honduras in the form of training, equipment, supplies, and other non-cash support, and we're constantly reviewing – as we always do – our support of Honduran security and military forces in accordance with U.S. law.
QUESTION: So this changes nothing in regards to sort of human rights vetting of Honduras?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that. Well, first of all, we haven't seen credible allegations. As I said, if we do, we're going to take it seriously. Number three, we're always reviewing our support and assistance to Honduras in accordance with U.S. law, which we obey and we will continue to obey. So if there's credible information that backs up these reports, we're going to take it seriously. And we'll use that in what is an ongoing constant review of our security assistance with Honduras.
QUESTION: One human rights professor called this "smoking-gun evidence." If this isn't credible, what is credible evidence in the level you're talking about?
MR KIRBY: We haven't seen, in our view, credible evidence to back up these allegations. If we do, we'll take it seriously.
QUESTION: Have you met with some of these activists that he's speaking about in the Capitol?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such meetings.
QUESTION: When you talk about you haven't seen credible evidence to – about these accusations, is it the accusation that there was a hit list or the accusation that the government --
MR KIRBY: There's no specific --
QUESTION: Hold on. Wait – I just want to – which accusation are you talking about, the one that there was a hit list or that the military or police may have been involved in these killings? Both or one?
MR KIRBY: Both. We have not seen any credible evidence to support the existence of a hit list. I'm not saying that there isn't; I'm just saying we haven't seen it.
QUESTION: I get it.
MR KIRBY: And if we did, we'd take it seriously. And at this time, there's no specific credible allegations of gross violations of human rights that exists in this or any other case involving the security forces that receive U.S. Government assistance. And we obey the law. If we see it --
QUESTION: Well, there's pretty much credible –
QUESTION: There have been hundreds of documented accounts in Honduras of either abuses ranging from beatings to torture all the way up to killings, and you haven't met with any of these activists or journalists who have documented these things? Can you confirm that?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that we didn't. I said I'm not aware of any meetings.
QUESTION: Well, there's clearly abuses going on. It's a question of who's committing them, right? You're saying that you don't have any – you haven't seen any credible evidence that the security forces are playing a role in this?
MR KIRBY: I'll say it again. At this time, there's no specific credible allegations of gross violations of human rights.
QUESTION: Yeah, I get it. I think the reason you're being asked to repeat it is because it's kind of hard to believe.
QUESTION: Have you investigated it, or you're just waiting for credible evidence to land in your lap?
MR KIRBY: We don't have credible evidence to support --
QUESTION: I know – you don't – please stop saying that. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I mean, I don't know how else to --
QUESTION: I'll return to my question, which is: What credible evidence --
QUESTION: No, no, no, but you haven't said --
QUESTION: What evidence do I have to bring you --
QUESTION: No, no, no, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
MR KIRBY: Hey. Hey, relax.
QUESTION: You haven't said that you – have you investigated this?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any investigations because there's no specific or credible allegations to support such an investigation. But if the presumption in the question is that we don't take this seriously --
QUESTION: It wasn't.
MR KIRBY: -- it's false and baseless.
QUESTION: It --
MR KIRBY: Of course we take it seriously.
QUESTION: It wasn't. You said that there's no credible evidence and the question is: Have you been looking for evidence or you're just waiting for it to fall into your lap, in which case you would launch an investigation?
MR KIRBY: We constantly – as I said earlier, we constantly review our relationship with security forces in Honduras. It's not something that we just sit back and wait. We actively, constantly review that kind – that relationship, as we do with other military relationships around the world. I mean, it's not that we're just sitting back waiting for somebody to drop something in our lap. And --
QUESTION: Have you contacted The Guardian? And what would be your timeline to investigate this (inaudible) it seems very serious?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that we've contacted The Guardian – the newspaper – about this. Okay? Thanks.
QUESTION: Wait. No, no, no, no.
QUESTION: Can we – can we do one (inaudible)?
QUESTION: No, no, no. No, no, no, no.
MR KIRBY: You guys are the ones who said you wanted to --
QUESTION: Just --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just one more on this Honduras thing. Does the United – say it were true that there was a hit list, that these were U.S.-trained people, they had one and they went out and killed these people. Do you – does the United States take responsibility just because these people were trained by the U.S.? Do you feel that you have some kind of a responsibility to either the Honduran Government or people for the actions of security forces that you may have – that you trained?
MR KIRBY: What we have a responsibility to do is to properly manage the aid and assistance that we give to foreign militaries --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: -- and if there's – no, wait, let me finish – if there is – if there's evidence that proves that there are human rights violations and abuses by security forces that we are supporting, whether that's through training, material equipment, we absolutely have a responsibility to alter that relationship and to hold them to account for those human rights abuses, and we do do that. I mean, that is the foundation of the law that we must obey.
If you're asking, are we going to blame ourselves for the specific human rights violations of another human being in that regard, that's a pretty difficult connection to make. But we certainly will hold --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- that unit to account.
QUESTION: Can you – it just seems – there just seems to be a level of incuriosity on the part of the --
MR KIRBY: No, I would refute that, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, if you say --
MR KIRBY: I would refute that 100 percent.
QUESTION: Well, can you take the question, then, to find out exactly what it is the department is doing to look into these – you say there aren't any credible allegations, but an allegation has been made – several, numerous, many. Are you looking into those allegations to see if there's any credence to them?
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: Or are you just not?
MR KIRBY: We constantly review allegations of misconduct. There's ongoing – I'm not going to take the question because I don't need to. We absolutely – ongoing review --
QUESTION: Well, I --
MR KIRBY: -- of the military relationship.
QUESTION: But does that include this specific allegation --
MR KIRBY: And we take allegations – we take them --
QUESTION: -- that was in the newspaper?
MR KIRBY: We take them seriously, and if they – if they are --
QUESTION: It doesn't sound --
MR KIRBY: If they are credible, we look into them.
QUESTION: How many times --
QUESTION: Okay. But it doesn't sound like you're taking it seriously if you say, "Oh, it's just in a newspaper report, we haven't looked into it." So I just want that – so specifically, what I'm asking is: Are you looking into this specific hit list, U.S.-trained people report, or are you not? Maybe you're not. I don't know.
MR KIRBY: As I said, we took – we've seen the press report. Yes, we take that seriously, and we don't have any credible allegation, other than the media report, of hit lists of deaths ordered by the military. Now, if --
QUESTION: So you're saying that this report is not a credible allegation?
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, Elise, please. Let me finish.
QUESTION: Well, you've said that 40 times, so I --
MR KIRBY: Let me – well, apparently, I need to say it 50. If we – if there – if any additional information comes to light that proves there's credibility to these allegations, obviously, we're going to take that very, very seriously.
QUESTION: How do you determine the credibility of the allegation? If there's an allegation made in a major British newspaper, how many times from that podium have you said, "We've seen the reports and we're seeking further clarification"? And you don't seem to be saying that here.
MR KIRBY: Obviously, we're concerned by the press report, and of course we're looking at that. Of course we are.
QUESTION: Thank you, end of question.
MR KIRBY: But I don't have additional, credible information about it.
QUESTION: I've got a couple on Iran that go back to some – that go back to yesterday if I could.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I'll try to make this as quick as possible. Specifically as it relates to the Boeing deal, were you able to find out whether or not the U.S. has, in fact, sold or licensed the sale of aviation – of airplanes, et cetera, to other state sponsors of terrorism?
MR KIRBY: Other agencies, including Treasury and Commerce, have licensing responsibility for authorizing U.S. exports to any other countries designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. So I have to refer you to Treasury and Commerce on that. I don't have additional information.
QUESTION: All right. As it relates to this sale and the JCPOA – which the JCPOA does allow – but the Administration made the point over and over and over again that the only sanctions that would be eased or lifted as a result of the nuclear agreement would be the nuclear sanctions. Non-nuclear sanctions in place for terrorism, human rights abuses, et cetera, would remain in place.
Five years ago tomorrow, in fact, the Administration imposed sanctions on Iran Air – not for any nuclear reason, but for terrorism – support-for-terrorism reasons. In making that announcement, they said that – the Administration said that Iran Air is a commercial airline used by the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the ministry of defense to transport military-related equipment; said it's been doing so on behalf of the IRGC since 2006; said that rockets and missiles have been transported via Iran Air passenger aircraft, and that IRGC officers occasionally take control of Iran Air flights carrying special IRGC-related cargo. It says that the IRGC is known to disguise and manifest these shipments as medicine and generic spare parts on Iran Air. It also says that IRGC officers have discouraged Iran Air pilots from inspecting potentially dangerous related cargo, including that being sent in commercial Iran Air aircraft to Syria. It also said that Iran Air flights have been used to transport missile and rocket components to Syria.
All of these were – all of these were made – these statements were made in the terrorism designation of Iran Air. The nuclear talks that led to the nuclear deal, the negotiations, did not include Iran Air specifically, I don't believe, and yet Iran Air was removed from the sanctions list in the annex – the third annex, I believe, to the sanctions. Can you point me to where the United States Government has said that it no longer has any of these terrorism concerns as related to Iran Air? And if there isn't a place, except for the two words "Iran Air" being mentioned in the annex of the agreement, can you tell me how a Boeing sale to Iran is a positive thing that you said yesterday you would welcome, if, in fact, they are still – Iran Air is still being used to do all this nefarious activity?
MR KIRBY: On your first question, let me take it, Matt. You're asking me a very technical question that I don't have information here to support. But I would tell you that in the text of the JCPOA, the U.S. Government reserved the right in the text to revoke the commitment to license the export of commercial passenger and related parts and services if we determine that licensed aircraft, goods, or services have been used for purposes other than exclusively civil aviation end-use or have been resold or retransferred to persons on the SDN list.
And any suggestion that – and I'm not saying you are, but let me just say this. Any suggestion that in implementing the JCPOA that we would or will or turn a blind eye to Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism or their terrorist-supporting activities, again, is completely without merit. We have, as you've noted, unilateral tools at our disposal to deal with that – not just in a military presence but on an economic front as well, and we're going to maintain the right to keep those tools in place.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you're not using them, or you're suspending them as related to Iran Air. I mean, unless the Administration has made a determination that Iran Air is no longer engaged in any of these activities that you designated them for --
MR KIRBY: Well, as you noticed – as you said, Iran Air was taken off the list.
QUESTION: Yeah, but there wasn't – but without any explanation as to why other than --
MR KIRBY: I will look up and see if there's more explication to be had about that.
QUESTION: So are you saying that if --
MR KIRBY: But I can tell you that – again, that we have the right inside the JCPOA, without violating our commitments under the JCPOA, to revoke that license if we feel that the – it's being – determined for anything other than civil aviation purposes.
QUESTION: Okay. So in other words, if Iran Air is being used like it was being used five years ago --
MR KIRBY: We could revoke the license agreement.
QUESTION: You could or you would?
MR KIRBY: We absolutely have the right to revoke the license agreement if it's being used for anything other than commercial aviation purposes. Now, I'm not going to --
QUESTION: Okay. But can you --
MR KIRBY: -- speculate going forward here. We absolutely --
QUESTION: Okay. Can you explain to me, though, why this isn't a – isn't a non-nuclear sanction relief?
MR KIRBY: It's part of the JCPOA that --
QUESTION: Yeah, which was supposed to only involve easing or removing nuclear sanctions.
MR KIRBY: Because these were – because the sanctions in place did not allow the commercial licensing for civil aviation purposes. The sanctions that were in place --
QUESTION: Yeah, but this is --
MR KIRBY: The sanctions that helped lead Iran to the table --
QUESTION: But this is a separate thing. This is a separate thing. This is for terrorism. These – the sanctions on Iran Air were put in place for support for the IRGC and support for IRGC terrorists.
MR KIRBY: And as you noted, Iran Air was taken off that list.
QUESTION: Yeah, but it didn't do anything to get off the list.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, why don't you let me --
QUESTION: What did it – unless you can explain it to me, why they were taken --
MR KIRBY: Why don't you let me try to explain that further.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Wait, just one more. I had --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: It's your last chance --
MR KIRBY: Two more. Two more. Go ahead.
QUESTION: They vote tomorrow on Brexit.
MR KIRBY: Put the lights back on. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I know that you've given the U.S. position before on Brexit, but it's your last chance before we vote. Anything you want to add or underline about where the U.S. stands on the British referendum.
MR KIRBY: It's the decision --
QUESTION: We're going to start voting soon, so --
MR KIRBY: It's a decision for the British people to make, and we --
QUESTION: Nothing --
MR KIRBY: -- we respect that.
QUESTION: Can you update Assistant Secretary Nuland's talks with Ukrainian and Russian officials? In particular, who has she met with at this point? And then secondly, has there been any sort of progress in implementing Minsk?
MR KIRBY: You've seen the media note, I think, about her travel. I won't get ahead of her diplomatic meetings, but you might recall that she traveled to Kyiv in April and to Moscow in May. This is a continuation of those conversations and our efforts to see that Minsk be fully implemented. We believe it's important to keep talking.
As Assistant Secretary Nuland said to the press in Moscow on her previous trip, and as we've said many times here from the podium, the United States view is that we want to see Minsk fully implemented as soon as possible. It will be good for peace and security in Ukraine. It will be good for relations between Russia and Ukraine. And it'll be good for relations between the United States and our allies and Russia if we can move forward on this. And as the President has said also, if and when Minsk is fully implemented, sanctions can be rolled back.
QUESTION: But do you have anything about her current meetings?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – you've seen the media note. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that. And after the fact, we may be able to provide more detail when her trip is over.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:24 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
