• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 23, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
DEPARTMENT/VENEZUELA
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT/VENEZUELA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
INDIA/CHINA
CHINA
NORTH KOREA
TURKEY
SYRIA/TURKEY/REGION
GUANTANAMO
JAPAN
DEPARTMENT/RUSSIA/UKRAINE
PAKISTAN
KUWAIT
IRAN
HONDURAS
BAHRAIN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:07 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: A couple of things right off the top here. I left my glasses here yesterday, so I now have two pair. (Laughter.) I was wondering where they were. I had to go to the car to get these, and I just have to decide which one I want to use.

QUESTION: They're both very stylish.

MR KIRBY: Thank you. Today the U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed targeted sanctions on a senior police official in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for his role in police violence targeted against DRC civilians, including peaceful protesters. This action against Celestin Kanyama, the commander of the Congolese national police force, or PNC, will freeze his assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction and generally prevent U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with him. We're deeply concerned about the ongoing political crisis in the DRC, the violence that gave rise to Kanyama's designation is unacceptable and undermines the country's stability and democratic institutions. We urge all Congolese stakeholders to refrain from violence and to commit to an inclusive, credible dialogue aimed at advancing national elections in line with the DRC constitution.

A quick note on Under Secretary Shannon's travel to Caracas. He wraps up his visit there today. As you know, as I said, he went at the request of the Secretary and at the invitation of the Government of Venezuela. He did meet with President Maduro. He met with Foreign Minister Rodriguez as well as civil society representatives and opposition leaders to discuss the challenges in Venezuela and to help foster an environment that would permit a meaningful dialogue among Venezuelans from across the political spectrum. Under Secretary Shannon and President Maduro also discussed the potential for a more constructive bilateral relationship.

And I don't have additional readout details on his meetings. However, he will come back to town tonight and we are looking at ways to try to make him available to some of you guys tomorrow when he gets back into town. So I think we can have a more comprehensive discussion with him once he gets back home.

And then just a travel note. I think you may have seen this, but just restate, the Secretary will participate in the 2016 Aspen Ideas Festival on the 28th of June in Aspen. At the festival, he'll participate in a conversation with Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson, which will cover a wide range of global issues. He will then accompany President Obama on the 29th of June to Ottawa to meet with Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada and President Pena Nieto of Mexico for the North American Leaders' Summit. The leaders there will discuss their vision for a more integrated North America that provides a prosperous and secure future for the citizens of all three countries and promotes North American leadership on global and regional challenges. I think you can also expect that they'll discuss concrete initiatives to promote peace, security, and development, protect our climate and environment, enhance our competitiveness in the global economy, and expand opportunities for our citizens. Following that trilateral meeting, the Secretary will also join the President for his bilateral meetings and engagements with the Government of Canada.

And as you know, we already talked yesterday that the trip will be preceded by a short visit to Rome over the weekend and into Monday, where the Secretary will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He's also expected to meet with the Italian Foreign Minister Gentiloni and the EU High Representative Federica Mogherini. So he's got a full agenda for those couple of days as well.

Matt.

QUESTION: Just logistically, you really don't have any anything else on Tom Shannon's meetings? Like, you can't say --

MR KIRBY: I don't have a deeper – I don't have a deeper readout today.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, did – can – how about just a tenor or an – atmospherics? I mean, did he emerge hopeful that a new relationship was possible?

MR KIRBY: I think, without – the under secretary felt like they had good discussions, constructive discussions. I think he feels positive about the engagements that he had down there. But obviously, as I alluded to in the opening, there's more work to be done in our bilateral relationship. And I'll let him describe it when he gets back home, but I think he would tell you that he's optimistic that we continue – that we can continue to work on that relationship. But look, I mean, nobody's underestimating the scope of the challenges that remain down there – the food shortages, the public unrest, the political challenges, the economic troubles. I mean, there's a lot on Venezuela's plate, and so there's plenty of work to do.

QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, unless anyone else has anything on Venezuela, on – logistically – on the Rome trip and the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, it's my understanding that they spoke yesterday?

MR KIRBY: They did.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: There was a short conversation yesterday. I don't have a full readout of it, but obviously, the conversation was predominantly about the logistics of the meeting and the topics to be discussed.

QUESTION: And do you have any reason to believe that this meeting will produce something in the way of a – I don't want to say agreement, but a consensus on how to go forward particularly as it relates to the Quartet's report and the recommendations that are expected to be in there?

MR KIRBY: I think, clearly, the Secretary expects to talk about the upcoming Quartet report and about the situation in general on the ground there. I don't want to get ahead of outcomes of the meeting, a meeting that hasn't happened yet. The Secretary's looking forward to having this face-to-face discussion with the prime minister, to also hearing his views about the situation and his views about ways forward. And I think both leaders are looking forward to learning from one another and to hearing their – each other's views on this. I just wouldn't point to specific outcomes at this stage.

QUESTION: Is it still the case that you guys have not made up your minds yet on the utility or wisdom of the French initiative?

MR KIRBY: I think it's safe to say that we're still considering the French initiative.

QUESTION: Can I quickly follow up --

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on that? Now, is the Secretary – is he likely to meet with any Palestinian – on the – with the Palestinian side?

MR KIRBY: Not during this trip.

QUESTION: I understand, not on this trip. But as a result of this trip?

MR KIRBY: I don't know, Said, and I wouldn't get ahead, again, of outcomes of this particular meeting. I couldn't – can't rule it out that in the wake of these meetings that he might want to have follow-on discussions from – on the Palestinian side. But I've got – I can't confirm that right now.

Now, that said, all that aside, as you well know, he routinely meets and discusses these issues with President Abbas, and I fully expect, regardless of the outcome of the meeting this weekend, that those discussions, that conversation, that dialogue will continue.

QUESTION: Abbas today spoke before the European Union in Brussels. And he said that they are open – or the Palestinian side is open to land swaps and so on. Does that in any way impact the meeting between the Secretary of State and the prime minister of Israel?

MR KIRBY: Again, I don't want to get into specific outcomes here for this meeting or even get ahead of agenda topics. I think you can expect that we'll have a readout of the meeting when it's over, as we typically do. And I think we're going to leave it – leave the discussion till then to get into what exactly they'll be – they'll talk about. I – I mean, I've seen this – these comments. I certainly, again, couldn't rule out that his comments would be referenced in the meeting. But I just don't know right now.

QUESTION: And finally, on Matt's point on the Quartet report – now, the Israelis are saying – or they're conveying that they are unhappy with the report. How can they impact the language in the report? And will the Secretary say --

MR KIRBY: As I said --

QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, I asked you about this yesterday --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I know. And as I said yesterday --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- the Quartet took input from both sides and gave consideration to input from both sides. I'm not going to obviously get ahead of a report that hasn't been released yet.

QUESTION: Is there room and elbow room for the Secretary of State to sort of impact the language, the final language, of the report?

MR KIRBY: The Secretary has had input throughout the whole process. And I can tell you that he's comfortable with the input that he's been able to provide it – to provide to it, sorry.

QUESTION: Can we go to --

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Just one more on the – you said you're familiar with President Abbas's comments to the EU?

MR KIRBY: I just – the ones that he cited.

QUESTION: Are you familiar with the comments – the part of his speech in which he said that there were some rabbis who were wanting to poison Palestinian water?

MR KIRBY: I've seen the comments. I can't confirm the veracity of that.

QUESTION: You can't – I'm not asking you to confirm it. I'm asking you what you think of it.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean --

QUESTION: I mean, is this the kind of – is this the kind of language that you guys want coming from someone who says that he's a partner for peace and wants to negotiate, and then he accuses the other side of trying to poison his people?

MR KIRBY: We've been – without speaking to specific comments, as you know I'm not wont to do, we have been very clear – the Secretary's been clear about our concerns about inflammatory rhetoric and incitement and --

QUESTION: Well, this is before the EU parliament. What --

MR KIRBY: Again, we want – here's how I'd put it, Matt: We --

QUESTION: You don't think it's --

MR KIRBY: As we've said before, we --

QUESTION: You don't think it might be true, do you?

MR KIRBY: I – again, I've seen nothing to indicate the truth of that. But we have long said what we want is for both sides to ratchet down not just the violence but the rhetoric, which can inflame some of the violence. And we just don't find that sort of rhetoric helpful.

QUESTION: Why can't you demand evidence from the Palestinian side?

MR KIRBY: Why can't I what?

QUESTION: Why can't you demand the Palestinians submit an evidence on this? Will you ask the Palestinians that if that – these are serious allegation, and if they exist, they ought to submit evidence, right?

MR KIRBY: Look, we just saw the comments today, Said. Again, what we want to see is that kind of rhetoric – the kind of rhetoric that could inflame tensions, we want to see that stop and for tensions to be --

QUESTION: And this is that kind of rhetoric?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to characterize each and every comment. As I said earlier, we just don't – we want to see both sides take affirmative steps to get us closer to a two-state solution, and we believe a part of that is showing the kind of leadership that goes with reducing the kinds of rhetoric that could inflame tensions. I'm not going to characterize each and every comment.

QUESTION: All right. How about I ask you again tomorrow, because I have a feeling you're going to want to say something a little bit stronger than what you just did. So --

QUESTION: Central African Republic?

MR KIRBY: Now you're just encouraging me not to change my story.

QUESTION: Well, no. I mean, I just can't believe that you're saying that there might be some credence to this.

MR KIRBY: I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Well, you're --

MR KIRBY: I said I've seen absolutely no indication that there's any truth to that.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: That's what I just said. I see absolutely no indications that there's any truth to that.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: So on the Central African Republic, in targeting this particular police official --

MR KIRBY: You mean the --

QUESTION: DRC.

MR KIRBY: The DRC.

QUESTION: The DRC. Excuse me, excuse me. Are you trying to send a signal to other people in the – well, let me ask it more simply: Are you considering the possibility of sanctions on additional officials in the DRC?

MR KIRBY: I won't get ahead of any future actions, one way or the other. We obviously reserve that right if we feel we need to. This isn't about – I mean, obviously, when you do this, that certainly you send a message of the concern and the condemnation of the actions that led to it, clearly. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a message that goes along with this.

But I don't want you to come away from this thinking that we did this just to send some sort of public message. We believe there was good cause for it, based on his role. And I wouldn't rule out one way or the other any future actions that we could take against other officials.

QUESTION: Would you have – well, simple question: To your knowledge, does he have any assets in the United States or that fall under U.S. jurisdiction?

MR KIRBY: I'd have to point you to Treasury on that. I wouldn't have that kind of information.

QUESTION: Third, would you have preferred to have acted in this case in concert with the European Union, which I believe – where I believe, to the extent that DRC officials are thought to have assets outside the country, they're for the most part thought to be in places like France or Belgium, where there are significant emigre populations. So would you have rather done this in concert with the EU?

MR KIRBY: Well, I won't speak for the EU. We felt – and again, I also want to be careful I don't speak for Treasury, but I can – as a government, we felt that there was certainly enough cause to do this and felt comfortable in doing it and, again, won't rule out things going forward. And I don't believe that – I mean, so we made these decisions on the merits of the case, not necessarily on trying to spur or perhaps impel other international community actions. I mean, we'd leave it to EU nations to make these decisions for themselves. The EU as a body or individual nations as sovereign nations can make those calls for themselves. We did this because we felt it was the right thing to do and there was good cause to do it.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: What?

QUESTION: Nuclear Supplier Group. In the meeting in Seoul, Korea, do you know if India – was India's membership taken up for consideration at the meeting?

MR KIRBY: As I said before, Lalit, we've made clear our desire to see India's application be seriously considered. I don't have a readout from the meetings to give you, but we've made clear --

QUESTION: I was asking because --

QUESTION: Well, do you plan on raising it?

MR KIRBY: We have – we've raised it consistently.

QUESTION: So then it – so then if you were planning on raising it, then it was discussed?

MR KIRBY: I don't know the degree to which it was discussed, Elise.

QUESTION: Can you let us know about to what degree it was discussed and why it was not – there was no consensus inside the group on this issue?

MR KIRBY: I'll see if we can get you a deeper readout on this. But as I said --

QUESTION: Is the U.S. hosting this meeting in South Korea?

MR KIRBY: I don't think we are hosting it.

QUESTION: The U.S. is a member of --

MR KIRBY: But we're a member.

QUESTION: I'm aware of that. I just want to know why --

MR KIRBY: We're a member.

QUESTION: -- would you know the answer to this question?

MR KIRBY: I don't know the answer to the question. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Oh, okay. Clearly. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I mean, that's what I've been trying to say in as many words. I do not know the answer to the question.

QUESTION: I know. But you're --

MR KIRBY: I will see if we can find out for you. But again, we've made very clear our support of their application, and I have no reason to suspect that it wasn't discussed at this meeting. But what was discussed in the room and where they came down, I just don't know. And I'll see what we can do to find out for you, but I don't know how complete an answer I'm going to be able to give you.

QUESTION: I have one on North Korea.

QUESTION: Back over to --

QUESTION: Can I just follow --

QUESTION: Sure.

MR KIRBY: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. North Korea, Turkey, and you're what?

QUESTION: Follow on (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: Why don't we stay in the region, and then we'll go over here.

QUESTION: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: No, no, no. The region would be Korea. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: No, I thought the region was India. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Please, Goyal.

MR KIRBY: You guys tell me where you want to go, and then we'll --

QUESTION: Goyal, please ask your question.

QUESTION: Thank you. According to the think tanks and also press reports, China is punishing India because of the ongoing U.S.-India relations, which China doesn't like the growing relations between the two largest or oldest democracies. Is that true? Or how can you bring China into this, that relations between the two countries has nothing to do with China? It feels like that maybe it's threatening by these two relations.

MR KIRBY: Well, I can't speak for the Chinese here. Again, we've made very clear how seriously we want India's application to be taken up inside the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The Chinese can speak for themselves in terms of their views on that. But if you're asking me a broader question about would we favor healthy bilateral relations between India and China, of course we would. We wouldn't stand in the way of that at all. But those are – to the degree there's tensions there over this or any other matter, it's really for those two nations to speak to.

QUESTION: And also India's Foreign Minister Madam Sushma was in China and Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in Tashkent the Chinese president, and also both of them made clear that relations between India and U.S. has nothing to do with the – China it's different. And also they asked for the support of NSG, but still China was against it. I mean, where do we go from here?

MR KIRBY: That's a big one.

QUESTION: Now that all of the children are grown.

MR KIRBY: Look, again, I think we would like to see healthy bilateral relations between India and China. We'd like to see them work out whatever differences they have. We have differences with China and we have a strong vehicles for dialogue to try to work through them. It doesn't mean we get to complete agreement on everything, but we have vehicles and avenues to have a healthy discussion. We would welcome that between India and China.

They're both two very strong, very growing economies with large – each with a large population and a significant influence, not just regionally where they are, but globally. And so we believe it's in everyone's interest to have India and China have good, healthy bilateral – a good bilateral relationship. But where it's going to go, I mean, I couldn't possibly predict that, Goyal.

QUESTION: One more quick (inaudible) China. When Dalai Lama met with President Obama in the White House a few days ago and after coming out, and also Tibetans here are saying that China is destroying their culture and also violation of human rights and they are putting people there in Tibet against – Tibetans and the culture is being destroyed. Anything on this has been going on in this building as far as preserve the cultures of Tibet and also the human rights in Tibet?

MR KIRBY: We – I think the President spoke to this after his meeting with the Dalai Lama, and it was an important meeting to have, and he's a recognized cultural and religious figure. And we've been nothing but candid and forthright about our concerns over human rights and religious freedom in places like China. And again, you can go online and look at our report and see that. I mean, we've been very open and honest about that.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir.

QUESTION: North Korea. This Mr. Choi, who was the envoy in Beijing for this conference that Ambassador Sung Kim attended, made some interesting comments suggesting that he might have met with Sung Kim. Can you let us know if there – if a meeting took place?

MR KIRBY: He did not meet with him. I can confirm that.

QUESTION: And can you say why not? I mean, was there any consideration of such a meeting? And --

MR KIRBY: No, there was no consideration. There was no planning to have that meeting. There was no need for him to have an individual meeting with the North Korean representative at the talks, so there was no meeting.

QUESTION: Do you think that this would have been a good opportunity for the U.S. to pass a message about the urgency of stopping its nuclear activities there? I mean, you talk about that you have channels to North Korea – and obviously, the New York channel is one, but this is a kind of senior envoy and seems like it might have been a good opportunity to pass some kind of message.

MR KIRBY: No, I think we've made very clear our views of what the North is doing through many different ways. There's no doubt about what our message is to the North, so there was no need to have a private meeting to carry it.

QUESTION: Well, when you say there was no meeting, does that mean there was no, like, formal, sit-down meeting? They were in the same room together --

MR KIRBY: No, I'm not parsing words. There was no meeting. They were not in a meeting. They were not --

QUESTION: So they didn't exchange any private words? They didn't even say, "Hello, how are you," in a one-on-one way, even if it was in a group setting?

MR KIRBY: There was no meeting, and as I understand it, there was no group meeting at which the two were equally present. Now, if they passed each other in an elevator or --

QUESTION: Well, that's what I mean.

MR KIRBY: -- in a men's room, I just don't know.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, that's the – that's --

MR KIRBY: But that wouldn't constitute a meeting, actually.

QUESTION: I don't know. A lot of stuff – it's like the golf course. A lot of stuff can get done in odd places, so anyway.

MR KIRBY: There was no exchange between the two.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Turkey. So going to Turkey --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on what the --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: You'll get – we'll get to Turkey.

QUESTION: Yes. Yeah, it's okay.

MR KIRBY: Don't worry about it.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: I'll get to you. Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on your assessment of the missile launches?

MR KIRBY: I don't.

QUESTION: So no assessment in terms of whether it was – there was technological improvement from previous firings?

MR KIRBY: Nope. Nope.

QUESTION: Do you expect that there will be one?

QUESTION: Can I have just one more on that?

MR KIRBY: Turkey?

QUESTION: One more on that. There are claims out today that – by the North Koreans that they believe they could hit U.S. territory in the Pacific. Do you have any reason to believe that's right?

MR KIRBY: I won't talk about intelligence estimates of their capabilities. Obviously, we're mindful that every time they conduct these tests, whether they're successful or not, they learn from them. And these tests are still, obviously, violations of UN Security Council resolutions and their international obligations, and we want them to stop. The pursuit of these capabilities are not good for the peninsula; they're not good for the region. And we're mindful of the potential of where these capabilities could go. But I don't – I wouldn't speak to specifics in terms of what we think about – our assessment about these particular tests.

Turkey.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So on Monday, Erol Onderoglu, the longtime Reporters Without Borders representative in Turkey, was detained. He's now, I understand, being charged with terrorist propaganda, allegedly because he covered protests against the closure of a newspaper, which comes under his remit as a Reporters Sans Frontieres representative. Obviously he's been involved in all of these cases before that you commented on. Does the U.S. Government have any views on the detention and charging of --

MR KIRBY: Yeah – no, we certainly do. We've seen the reports. Again, this appears to be just a continuation of a troubling trend that we've seen in Turkey to discourage legitimate discourse and freedom of expression, freedom of the press. And again, as we've said, as Turkey's friend and ally, we urge the authorities there to ensure their actions uphold the universal democratic values enshrined in the Turkish constitution, which includes freedom of speech. In a democratic society, we believe that critical opinions should be encouraged, not silenced. We believe democracies become stronger, not weaker, by allowing the expression of diverse voices within society and the actions and the work and the important efforts of independent journalists.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Turkey?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Today, a court sentenced a novelist for one year in prison for allegedly depicting a person that is similar to Erdogan in one of his novels – Rifat Cetin is his name. Are you aware of that?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that particular --

QUESTION: Would that – would you find that to be really disturbing?

MR KIRBY: I will look and see what we know about it. But if true, it's certainly, again, yet another example of a worrisome trend there.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: And Turkey-related – I'm sorry – the Russians called on Turkey to – again to close its border with Syria. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, but broadly speaking --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- look, I'd say a couple of things. The Turkish Government should be given credit for efforts that they have made to try to get a better handle on the border with Syria. Is it perfect? No. Is there still a flow of foreign fighters and material across that? Absolutely, and we know that. And we're working closely with Turkey to try to help them get a better handle on it. But they have made efforts and they are working at it and they are mindful of that. And as we have said before, that border – there's – they have legitimate security concerns because of that border. And they are hosting hundreds of thousands --

QUESTION: Refugees.

MR KIRBY: -- of Syrian refugees and doing the best they can with it. So it's not a philosophical exercise for them. They're mindful of the challenges on that border, and we believe that they're working hard at the challenge.

QUESTION: Some months back there was talk of about 98 kilometers of the border that was quite porous and so on. Is there any update on closing these holes in the border and so on?

MR KIRBY: That was predominantly what I was speaking about, was that 98 kilometers which has remained problematic. And I think Brett McGurk spoke to this a week or so ago in a briefing at the White House, that they are – that they're working hard on that. It's – nobody is saying it's a complete success, but everybody is mindful of that stretch and the importance of it, and we believe the situation is improving.

Yeah. I'm sure you're going to be on Turkey, too. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Turkey. Thank you. One Turkey-Syria and then only Turkey: President Erdogan has been talking about the al-Nusrah group in Syria, and he has repeated several times – not once, not twice – that al-Nusrah is fighting with ISIS whatever they got, so why would you call them terrorist organization? Do you have a comment on that?

MR KIRBY: Fighting with or fighting against?

QUESTION: ISIS – against, sorry.

MR KIRBY: They are a UN-designated terrorist group. And the U.S. would consider them a terrorist group, and we see absolutely no reason to remove that designation or to treat them in any other way. And they are not party to the cessation of hostilities.

QUESTION: Okay. In Turkey, just three journalist got arrested three days ago for only because taking part with the newsroom of a critical newspaper. I was wondering if you have comment on this new arrest. They have been still in jails right now.

MR KIRBY: I did – I already commented on that before you came in.

QUESTION: I'm sorry.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So you just check the transcript when it's over and you'll be able to get everything you need.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Change of --

MR KIRBY: Let's go to – we're still kind of on Syria, so go ahead.

QUESTION: I'm sure you've seen the letter that Riyad Hijab has written to the secretary-general asking for an investigation into what he says is Russia's use of banned incendiary aerial weapons in Syria, particularly in Aleppo; his demand for protection of Syrian civilians from those weapons; and his call on member-states to – call for member-states to impose consequences for repeated breaches such as this. Do you support his call for such an investigation?

MR KIRBY: Well, let me say first we've seen the letter that he submitted. We're not in a position now to confirm the veracity of his claims. That said, we take those claims and those allegations very, very seriously. And the other thing I'd say is regardless of what weapons the Russians are employing – and I'm not saying that we wouldn't take these allegations seriously of this particular type of weapon, which, if true, would be deeply concerning. That said – and it's important for me to have said that – regardless of what weapons they're using, they shouldn't be striking groups that are committed to the counter-ISIL fight or to civilians, as we saw – as we've seen in the past and certainly saw earlier in al-Tanf down in the south.

The only other thing I'd say is – and we've said this before, but Russia and the Assad regime need to be more careful about distinguishing between terrorists, civilians, and parties to the cessation of hostilities. We all agree that ISIL, the Nusrah Front, and other UN-designated terrorist groups pose a real threat to regional and international security and to Syria, but civilians cannot be targets or otherwise victims of the indiscriminate use of force.

Okay?

QUESTION: Could I have a follow-up on the opposition groups that you guys support? Now, many of these groups seem to find their way either to Jabhat al-Nusrah or to ISIS and so on. So how do you do – I mean, let's go back to the same old question: How do you do the vetting? How do you go about supporting these groups? Lately, I mean, this Jordan issue, the bombing in Jordan yesterday – apparently, they were groups that even the Jordanians trained and so on. So somehow these groups find – they keep moving from one entity to another. So how could you be certain that those groups that you support will not end up with ISIS or with al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: The groups that are supported by the United States or other members in the coalition are groups that we or they have longstanding relations with or understandings of. I won't speak to DOD and – they've got a new program in place to provide additional training and equipment. How they manage that, I think they should speak to.

But Said – and we've said this many times – we understand that membership in these groups can be somewhat porous. And we have seen in the past where – where some opposition groups – legitimate opposition groups, either by design or by accident find themselves comingled with groups like al-Nusrah. And that has created problems in terms of effective targeting against Nusrah in places in and around Aleppo, for instance. And we have urged – we have urged the groups that we're in direct contact with and we have urged our friends and partners particularly in the Gulf states who also have influence over some opposition groups to make sure that they understand the risks of that kind of comingling. But they're not all monolithic, chain-of-command organizations through which complete absorption of information can be had. And you can't control each and every fighter and what that individual may decide to do with his or her time and his or her efforts.

So we recognize it's a challenge, which is why we continue to call for the Assad regime and for Russia to be as careful as possible in so distinguishing.

QUESTION: Because almost all of these opposition groups are – espouse very extremist Islamist ideology, even Ahrar al-Sham, which you support. I mean, the difference is very little between them and Jabhat al-Nusrah and others and so on. There are virtually no secular groups that you can support. So how do you – how do you say we want to support Ahrar al-Sham, but we are not going to support al-Nusrah?

MR KIRBY: We have – look, we've talked about this before.

QUESTION: Yes, yeah.

MR KIRBY: We're mindful that not every idea espoused by every opposition group would be one that we would espouse as well. But the ISSG went to great lengths in working through how the cessation of hostilities was going to be organized to make sure that the – that any group recognized by the UN as a terrorist organization – by the UN; not just the U.S., by the UN – would not be a party to the cessation of hostilities. And when you look at Syria, right now, that's two groups. That's al-Nusrah and Daesh.

QUESTION: Can I – I have a new topic. This is on the – we talked last week or earlier in the week – I can't even remember – this point about a Guantanamo detainee in Uruguay and reports that he disappeared – Mr. Jihad Ahmed Mustafa Deyab.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Syrian national released to Uruguay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: There were some reports that he maybe went to Brazil or he just disappeared. But now there seems to be an assessment that he was trying to make his way to Syria, and I was wondering if you have any --

MR KIRBY: We've seen reports that – about this individual. I'm not in a position to confirm them one way or the other.

QUESTION: Not in a position or don't know?

MR KIRBY: Not in a position to confirm one way or the other. I think my colleagues at the Defense Department have also spoken to this a couple of days ago, but we're just not in a position to confirm.

QUESTION: I have questions on Japan.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Vice President Joe Biden expressed his concern on Japan's potential to produce nuclear. And he said recently Japan is capable of going nuclear virtually overnight. Do you have any comments or concern on Japan's ability to go nuclear?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything to add to what the Vice President said.

QUESTION: Is there any adjustment of U.S. policy to nuclear policy to Japan?

MR KIRBY: You're talking about nuclear weapons?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: I mean, I – look, I think our policy with that – on that has not changed at all. We take our responsibilities for the security of Japan very seriously and our alliance commitments. There's been no change with respect to our policy on that.

QUESTION: Unless you have --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Japan. This week --

MR KIRBY: You're going to ask a Japan question?

QUESTION: Yes. Japan-U.S. --

MR KIRBY: I can't wait for this one. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. So this week there was a trilateral meeting between India, U.S., and Japan – and Japan. So there was previously a question asked about a readout of it. Do you have it now?

MR KIRBY: I don't. I don't think I have that, no.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR KIRBY: Uh-uh.

Okay. Just a couple more. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have any updates on Assistant Secretary Nuland meeting in Moscow?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates for her meetings in Moscow. As you know, she is – she's there today. I think we may have more to say when the – when that's over. But she did have good meetings in Kyiv prominently centered around the Minsk agreement and our desire to continue to see it be fully implemented. I just don't have any more updates for her meetings in Moscow.

QUESTION: One more on Pakistan?

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have something to say on this killing of this popular singer Amjad Sabri in Karachi this week?

MR KIRBY: I would say we express our sympathies with the people of Pakistan as they mourn the senseless murder of a Qawwali singer, Amjad Sabri. Such acts violate the fundamental freedoms of expression and religion and belief. The arts have long been a forum for new ideas for fighting against intolerance. And again, our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to the people of Pakistan.

QUESTION: One more on freedom of speech. The Government of Kuwait has amended its electoral law to bar anyone who's convicted of insulting the emir from standing in national elections. Do you have a view on that?

MR KIRBY: This is where? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Kuwait.

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, Arshad. So let me see if I can get you a better, more comprehensive answer. But obviously, our concerns about freedom of expression are universal. But I don't have anything on that particular one, so you're going to have to let me get back to you on that.

QUESTION: I've got three different topics I need to follow up on. I'll start with Boeing in Iran. Did you manage to come up with a – or get the answers to my questions from yesterday?

MR KIRBY: I – so which one do you want first?

QUESTION: Well – well, all of them. I don't – it doesn't matter which one is first. Which one – start with the best one.

MR KIRBY: Why don't you tell me what you think the best one was?

QUESTION: I don't know what the best – no, it's the --

MR KIRBY: Oh, all of yours – all of yours were equally good, Matt.

QUESTION: It's the answer, not the best --

MR KIRBY: I can't possibly judge between them.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I want to know how it is that – how – what did Iran Air do to get off the sanctions list? How did they address your concerns that they were being used by the IRGC to fly weapons and materiel and perhaps even people into Syria and Lebanon, which is what they were – was what they --

MR KIRBY: Okay, so a couple of thoughts there.

QUESTION: -- which is what they were sanctioned for back five years ago today, June 23rd, 2011.

MR KIRBY: So a couple of thoughts there. And I think you know that Iran Air was never actually sanctioned under terrorist – of terrorism authorities. That said, they were designated, as you said, in June of 2011 pursuant to an executive order, 13382, which is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters, isolating them from the U.S. commercial and financial systems. Now, pursuant to the commitments that we made in the JCPOA, Iran Air was removed from the SDN list. And I'm not at liberty to go into the reasons behind the fact that it was removed from the SDN list. All I could tell you is that we wouldn't have done that if we weren't comfortable doing so.

That said – and this is important, and I think I talked about this yesterday – the government still retains the full right to use all our existing authorities, including under that same EO, to pursue actions against any Iranian entity for support of terrorism or for, as it was designed, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Should we determine that licensed aircraft, goods, or services are being used for purposes other than exclusively civil aviation end use, or they've been resold or retransferred to persons on the SDN list, we would view this as grounds to cease performing our commitments under that aviation section in whole or in part.

QUESTION: So I just find it – I find it interesting and maybe you can explain why it is that they were – that the sanctions – that the executive order that was used was the WMD one, when the announcement from Treasury and then the joint statement from then-Secretaries Clinton and Geithner about this make no mention of WMD in relation to Iran Air and makes mention of terrorism. And in fact, it talks about rockets that they've moved, which – rockets, I suppose, could be part of WMD, but it doesn't use that language at all, and so it's just kind of surprising when the headline of it is "Treasury Targets Commercial Infrastructure of IRGC, Exposes Continued IRGC Support for Terrorism," that --

MR KIRBY: Well, certainly, there can be a nexus between the use of --

QUESTION: Exactly.

MR KIRBY: -- weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. All I can tell you is – I can't rewrite the history.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: All I can tell you is the EO that designated Iran Air was 13382, which was specifically for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: So – and you can't say whether – I mean, is there anything to suggest that these concerns are no longer concerns?

MR KIRBY: Again, I'd say – that we wouldn't have made the decision we made in the JCPOA in terms of removing them from the SDN list if we didn't have reason to do that. And I can't --

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: -- in this forum discuss that in any detail other than to tell you we wouldn't have done it if we didn't believe we had reason enough to do it.

QUESTION: Yeah, but reason enough to do it is to get Boeing a lot of money and to comply with the JCPO – it could be, okay? So unless you got assurances from Iran Air – there were no representatives of Iran Air in the negotiations, were there? No?

MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Okay. It is a state-owned company, so perhaps the government was negotiating on their behalf. I just simply want to know, was there a pledge from the Iranians that Iran Air would no longer be used for these kinds of activities? And if there wasn't, how is it that you're allowing a U.S. company to sell them planes?

MR KIRBY: I'm not at liberty to discuss the deliberations that led to their being removed from the SDN list. We wouldn't have done that if we didn't believe we had reason enough to do it, number one. Number two, this isn't about and never was about helping Boeing conclude this deal when there's no way we could have predicted Boeing's decisions back when we signed and approved the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Well, maybe (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: And number three – number three – number three --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Wait a second. You think that there's a company out there that might – that stands to make $25 billion that would say no?

MR KIRBY: I didn't – what I'm saying is your implication that --

QUESTION: I'm saying that – no, no, no --

MR KIRBY: -- we had that in mind back when we did the JCPOA --

QUESTION: Well, you did have (inaudible) --

QUESTION: Your – the implication is drawn --

MR KIRBY: We had – this particular deal, Elise – this particular deal.

QUESTION: The – that implication is drawn by the fact that you cannot say, you're refusing to say – or you can't – you are not allowed to say what it is that the Iranians did to convince you that Iran Air was no longer engaged in these kinds of activities. And you can't even say that you don't think that they're no longer engaged in these kind of activities.

MR KIRBY: I mean, I think now three times I've said that I'm not at liberty to discuss the reasons for which --

QUESTION: I know.

MR KIRBY: -- they were taken off the SDN list, but that we wouldn't have done it --

QUESTION: I know.

MR KIRBY: -- if we didn't have reason to do that. But I want to get to the – a third rebuttal here, which is that --

QUESTION: But the thing is that you say you're comfortable with it, but that could mean anything.

MR KIRBY: But let me finish --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- my original answer from five minutes ago --

QUESTION: All right. And I want to move on.

MR KIRBY: -- and that is that we're not ever going to turn a blind eye to Iran's continuing destabilizing activities and their --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- state sponsorship of terrorism.

QUESTION: So if --

MR KIRBY: And any suggestion that we would --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- that we wouldn't and don't have tools available to us --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- to deal with that is simply baseless.

QUESTION: So is it fair to say that if Iran Air continues to do the kinds of things that you said it was doing in 2011, that this license will be yanked? That would be --

MR KIRBY: Absolutely.

QUESTION: Yeah? Okay.

MR KIRBY: If we have any reason, as I said in my earlier --

QUESTION: I hope there are executives at Boeing out there listening to us. Thank you. Second one, Honduras.

MR KIRBY: That's only one? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: That was just one, yeah.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: I got Honduras and Bahrain to go.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: So yesterday, on Honduras, we – there was quite an exchange in here about these allegations that – or about the fact that you said that there were no credible allegations that --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, overnight, it turns out that there – these haven't come in, but there have been hundreds and hundreds of allegations like this. Are you saying that none of them are credible – that you've looked into all of them and that none of the allegations that the police, even U.S.-trained police or security forces, have been involved in extrajudicial killings – none of them are credible at all?

MR KIRBY: What I would tell you is we take all allegations of human rights very seriously. We've been in touch with the Government of Honduras on this – on this particular one and others in the past. When we receive credible information about human rights violations by members of security forces, we take immediate action. And we have done this in the past, not just in Honduras but around the world, and we also – when we see those credible allegations, we encourage the relevant foreign government – we've done that here as well – to thoroughly investigate and to take action on those cases.

Additionally, we regularly report those allegations publicly in our Human Rights Report, and you can go online and you can see that, and we detail these incidents. Just as an example, over the last 300 calendar days, the State Department has vetted more than 58,000 cases from countries in the Western Hemisphere to ensure that U.S. assistance does not go to anyone for whom there is credible evidence of a gross human rights violation. So again, it's not as if we're doing this passively. We constantly – as I said yesterday, we constantly monitor our bilateral military relationships.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: And when these allegations come up, we take each and every one of them seriously. If you're asking me do we go out like sleuths and deliberately look for them, we rely on the foreign governments to monitor their own security forces. But when something comes up, regardless of the source – and it can be a media source – we take it seriously.

QUESTION: Okay. So – but you're still – first of all, do you know – 58,000 in the whole Western Hemisphere. Can you break that down for Honduras?

MR KIRBY: I can't right now. I'll have to do that.

QUESTION: And then --

MR KIRBY: I'll see if we can get WHA to do that for you.

QUESTION: But does that mean that you've looked into all the allegations that you've received, that various NGOS and whoever – human rights groups – have submitted to you, and found that none of them are credible? Or have you found that some of them are credible?

MR KIRBY: If – look, I'd have to get you the case file on Honduras. I don't have every single case. But I can tell you – and I can tell you this from my prior experience as a military officer – that when there are – when allegations are proven to be credible and true, the aid and assistance by law has to and does stop for that unit.

QUESTION: I got it.

MR KIRBY: It doesn't always apply to the entire army or the entire navy, but it'll apply --

QUESTION: I got it. I know.

MR KIRBY: -- to the unit that is responsible for them. And we have absolutely no compunction about doing that. So is there still aid and assistance going on and training with the Honduran military? Yes. And there wouldn't be that if we had a reason to believe that there was a violation.

QUESTION: All right. Even – that's not my question. It's whether or not any of the things – any of the allegations that you've received so far having to do with Honduras are credible or not, or do – are they all specious?

MR KIRBY: I don't have the entire case file of every allegation received.

QUESTION: Okay. Out of the 58,000 vettings that you say have been done in the Western Hemisphere, how many have resulted in termination of or suspension of aid? Any?

MR KIRBY: I don't know.

QUESTION: Can – is it possible to find that out?

MR KIRBY: We can see if we can find out.

QUESTION: All right. Last thing on Bahrain. I'm just wondering if there's been any response – you said yesterday that the Secretary had spoken to the foreign minister about the report that was sent to the Hill, and I'm just wondering if there's been any response or you've seen any kind of action to remediate, to alleviate the problems that you say continue to exist.

MR KIRBY: Since yesterday? No, I can't point to --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, can you say if the foreign minister said, "Yeah, okay. We'll take this board"?

MR KIRBY: And – so a couple of things. The conversation wasn't just about the report. As a matter of fact, I think, by and large, the Secretary spoke in general about our concerns and recent actions they have taken. So it wasn't a call just to talk about the report; in fact, it was really a call designed to speak to their recent activities and actions and decisions that we have found unhelpful to their own success. And since you and I talked yesterday, I can't point to something specifically that has been done to remedy or to lessen our concerns. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)