Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 1, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
BANGLADESH
KENYA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES
YEMEN
LIBERIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE/UN
RUSSIA
IRAN/IRAQ
IRAN
SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY
DEPARTMENT
BANGLADESH
TRANSCRIPT:
1:19 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody, and happy Friday to you. Let me just say in advance I hope everybody has a good Fourth of July. I have quite a few things at the top here to go through. First – and I know you guys are probably tracking this – we're certainly aware of reports of what appears to be a hostage situation in the Gulshan neighborhood of Dhaka in Bangladesh. We're also aware that local security forces are on the scene and responding. Our embassy in Dhaka is currently conducting accountability. I can tell you as of now – just before I came out here – that they have accounted for 100 percent of American citizens working under the chief of mission authority. They are still working on accountability, obviously, of everyone under chief of mission authority. But right now we know that we have accounted for all Americans working under chief of mission authority. They're also obviously in constant touch with Bangladeshi authorities as they continue to work through this very fluid, very live situation right now.
QUESTION: Sorry. When you say "accounted for," you mean they're all okay?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you spell the name of the neighborhood, please?
MR KIRBY: G-u-l-s-h-a-n. The situation's ongoing. Obviously, too early for us to say who's involved, motivation – any of that stuff. It's all still unfolding right now, and we'll obviously update you as the situation continues to unfold and more information becomes available.
And actually, Matt, I want to go back on what you said. I know what they've done is they have got 100 percent accountability. So let me take back what I said in terms of we know everyone's okay. I just know that there's 100 percent accountability. So rather than speculate, let me just leave it at that right now.
QUESTION: Okay. Could someone ask maybe during the course of this briefing just because, I mean, you can be accounted for --
MR KIRBY: You want to see if we --
QUESTION: -- and not be okay. I mean --
MR KIRBY: That's what I mean. That's what I mean. That's why I wanted to clarify we have 100 percent accountability for American citizens that are under chief of mission authority, but I can't say with great certainty everyone's condition. So we'll check and see if we can get more information. And look, it's – as I said, it's unfolding, and more information is going to be coming in, I'm sure, as we go through --
QUESTION: And – but, I mean, "accounted for" leaves – that could be that you that know someone is being held hostage. That would be – so that's --
MR KIRBY: I can only say what I've got --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- which is we have 100 percent accountability for American citizens that are working under the chief of mission authority. And we are continuing to work on the accountability of others and we're continuing to stay in touch with Bangladeshi authorities. Obviously, very fluid situation right now.
In Kenya, we're deeply concerned by the disappearance and murder of Willie Kimani, a lawyer and investigator working with the U.S. nongovernmental organization known as International Justice Mission or IJM, along with IJM client Josephat Mwenda*, and IJM driver Joseph Muiruri. We understand that Kenyan authorities are investigating this, and our embassy will continue to monitor the situation closely.
On to the West Bank. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the latest terrorist attack that took place today near Hebron, which resulted in the death of one Israeli and left three other Israelis wounded. We call on others to also condemn such attacks. There is absolutely no justification, as we have said many times, for terrorism or the taking of innocent lives.
On Yemen. We note the UN special envoy's announcement that parties involved in the ongoing Yemen peace talks have signed a commitment document designed to guide a new phase of negotiations following a two-week period ending on the 15th of July. Discussions have led to progress toward a roadmap to end the conflict, which we expect to continue when talks resume. We continue to call on the delegations to uphold the cessation of hostilities and to return to Kuwait with a commitment to swiftly reach an agreement that will bring the Yemeni people the peace and security that they deserve and a chance to begin to rebuild their economy. We also emphasize the importance of allowing unfettered humanitarian access throughout Yemen.
We strongly support the efforts of the UN special envoy for shepherding these talks and for his tireless commitment and dedication to their success. These talks offer the best chance, as we've said before, to reach a lasting agreement. And now is the opportunity, the time for the parties to make the compromises and commitments that will benefit their people and bring stability to Yemen, a country and a people who have suffered far too long. We hope the parties will use the period – this period constructively so that when they resume an agreement can be reached expeditiously.
On Liberia. Today, Liberia's security forces have assumed full responsibility for the country's security, marking another major accomplishment in Liberia's progress toward the end of its civil war beginning in 2003. Yesterday, a United Nations mission in Liberia turned over full security responsibility to the Liberian Government. UNMIL, UN Mission in Liberia, will remain in Liberia to help the Liberian security forces – I'm sorry, security services – protect civilians in the event of an emergency that risks reversing Liberia's peace and security accomplishments. We congratulate the people and Government of Liberia on this historic transition. It reflects their significant and steady advances with the support of the international community toward restoring peace and stability for all Liberians across the country. We pay tribute to the peacekeepers – the UN mission for their continued service there in Liberia.
Matt.
QUESTION: Right. I was going to start with Bangladesh, but since we know what you know already, then I'll move to the Quartet report. I just have two brief things. One, in terms of the recommendations, they seem to be not new, shall we put it that way. I mean, it doesn't seem like there's any proposal to do anything other than what the Quartet has – and others have long called for. And I'm just wondering, one, why – why they are not – they say that they're specific recommendations, but in fact, they're pretty general. So why isn't there more specificity?
MR KIRBY: I would disagree that they are not specific, Matt, and I can't – remember, it's not just a U.S. report, so I'm not going to speak for the entire motivation of the Quartet. I can just tell you that we're comfortable – for our role in it, we're comfortable that these are legitimate recommendations, recommendations that we believe – and many of them, as you rightly said, we've believed for quite some time – but we still believe are valid and still believe can help – if enacted, if adopted, if pursued – can help us get closer to a two-state solution.
So the question – well, I don't want to say that; that's not fair. The – what matters, at least from our perspective, is that the report does lay down some specific and solid recommendations about going forward. It wasn't – the exercise wasn't about necessarily trying to come up with something new. It was about coming up with an appropriate set of – an assessment of the situation of the on the ground and an appropriate set of recommendations going forward. That many of those recommendations – most of them – are ones that we have made in the past or we have talked about before – not just us, but other members of the Quartet – I think should come as no surprise to anyone.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that they – that Israel is going to deduct from the tax payments that it sends or that it holds for and then distributes to the Palestinian Authority, that they're going to deduct the amount that the PA pays the families of attackers. One, is – what do you think of that? And secondly, why isn't there a recommendation in here for the Palestinian Authority to specifically stop such payments if you think that they're a bad idea? Or is that included in number three, which says the PA should act decisively and take all steps within its capacity to cease incitement to violence?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think it does fit into that one.
QUESTION: It is?
MR KIRBY: And as for – and we've seen the prime minister's comments. I think he can speak for his reasoning behind that. I'm not going to respond to each and every thing that he has had to say about the report. Look, I would just say that there was no expectation as we worked on the report here – at least from the United States perspective – that everybody would like everything in there. But I'm going to leave it there.
QUESTION: But – well, in the past, this – the U.S. has been critical of Israel withholding the money, the tax – that tax money. So you have no opinion about this?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say we have no opinion. I'm not going to respond to everything everybody is saying – react to that. Our views on this --
QUESTION: This doesn't – this doesn't have anything to do with the report --
MR KIRBY: Our views hasn't – haven't changed.
QUESTION: All right. Last one on this is this morning an official who's quite --
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: An official this morning said – an unnamed official this morning, but who is quite familiar with this report – said that in terms of UN – the UN, that the Security Council would not formally endorse this, but would rather just welcome it. Can I ask, one, is that – are you able to say that on the record? And two, why or why not?
MR KIRBY: I would say we would be open to having the Security Council welcome the report.
QUESTION: But you don't --
MR KIRBY: We'd be open to them – we would be open to them welcoming it.
QUESTION: But you're not looking for them, the council, to do anything more in terms of enshrining it, say, as with – they do with other things, like with the Iran deal or something?
MR KIRBY: I think I'd just leave it where I put it, that we would – open to them welcoming it. That's obviously a discussion the Security Council would have to take up.
QUESTION: One other question on that, on this specific language: The official this morning said that, quote, "At this time we are not looking for the Security Council to take any more substantive action" --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- beyond welcoming. Does that mean that you are open to the possibility of the Security Council taking more substantive action on the report at some time in the future? It's just right now you're not looking for them to do anything but welcome it?
MR KIRBY: Right now, we would be open to them looking at this and welcoming it. I wouldn't be in a position right now to speculate or hypothesize about future actions they might or might not take going forward. Right now we'd be open to them welcoming it.
QUESTION: John, this – the Palestinian negotiator, Mr. Erekat, has denounced it already. He said that it doesn't take into account that – it puts the two parties on parity, and obviously the Palestinian party see themselves as under military occupation. Whereas the – Netanyahu has said that he rejects the idea that settlements are any bar to peace. He says he's frozen them before; he didn't get anywhere then. Obviously, you're expecting pushback from both sides. Is this within the parameters of what you expected, or is this disappointing, that there's such an immediate --
MR KIRBY: I would say – I don't think we're surprised by the fact that not everything in the report was welcomed by either side. Number two, I would tell you that – and remind you that we took input from both sides as this report was being drafted. And the third thing I'd say is that we stand solidly behind the recommendations that were made. And we still believe that a two-state solution is possible, but we still believe that in order for that to be realized it's going to take some leadership and some compromise and some tough decisions and choices by both sides.
QUESTION: Could I just follow up on that and (Inaudible.)?
MR KIRBY: Sure, Said.
QUESTION: On this, first of all, I asked the senior official on the difference between illegitimate and illegal as far as the settlements are concerned. Could you explain the difference, from your point of view? What is the difference between calling it illegitimate settlement activity or calling it illegal?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, we're not going to make any determinations here or – about legality or legal definitions. Our position on settlements is the same as has been for past administrations as well. We view them as illegitimate and we don't believe that they are constructive to trying to get us to a two-state solution. So I think I'm just going to leave it there. Our policy is the same, has been the same for quite some time, and we continue to make that case to the Israelis.
QUESTION: The official also said that these are just recommendations. In other words, you don't have, like, a next step kind of a thing as far as these recommendations are concerned.
MR KIRBY: Well, and the – obviously, the next step --
QUESTION: Which you cannot make the Israelis do it, do this, or the --
MR KIRBY: The next step, we would hope, would be that the sides would look at these recommendations and seriously consider adopting them. Because we believe, as we have believed on many of them, that they're sound and they're prudent, and that they could help get us closer to a two-state solution. That's the next step that we hope results from this report. But it's obviously up to the leadership there in the region to determine and decide for themselves whether they're really serious about a two-state solution or whether they're not.
QUESTION: Now, let me – on the issue of the Gaza or point eight in the report, which is calling on Israel to accelerate the process for relieving – the restrictions --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, the access issues, yeah.
QUESTION: -- the movement and so on, the access to and from Gaza and so on, and taking into consideration the security of Israeli citizens and so on, what steps must be taken sort of in a short order to relieve a really awful situation?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think it's laid out in the report, and I don't want to rehash every --
QUESTION: But this has been – these recommendations, Kirby, were talked about before, and many times before, in many other reports. So I mean, what are you prepared to do or to pressure your ally, let's say, both Israel and Egypt that also close the border with Gaza, to basically take actual steps, tangible steps, to relieve the pressure on Gaza?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think it's, again, laid out in the report. And I would encourage people to read the report for themselves, but it says – and I know you have, Said; I'm not talking about you – but I mean, the – I mean, it makes it clear that we want to see Israel ease some of these restrictions.
So back to your question – what can they do – they can start by easing these restrictions. And we understand in Gaza – we understand Israeli concerns about security. Those are legitimate concerns, and that's spelled out in the report as well. But we think that they – a good first step here is for them to take a serious, sober look at easing some of these access restrictions.
QUESTION: On Matt's question on the withhold --
MR KIRBY: On the what?
QUESTION: On withholding some of the tax money – the Palestinians' tax money that the Israeli prime minister announced today, he's also accusing the Palestinian Authority of money laundering, that they sort of revert to money laundering schemes to get this money to the families and so on. Are you aware of any money laundering schemes? The PA – because you are – you're – you are its main financier or funder, let's say – the Palestinian Authority --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any specific knowledge of that activity.
QUESTION: And lastly, when you began by condemning the attack today --
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: -- you said that we call on others to condemn it. Are you – are you directing this to the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian Authority president?
MR KIRBY: We --
QUESTION: Who are the others?
MR KIRBY: Well, everybody, and that's nothing new, Said.
QUESTION: Including – including Mahmoud Abbas --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- the president of the Palestinian --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely, it includes President Abbas, but it's everybody. And I have said that many, many times up here that incitement and inflammatory rhetoric by all sides is inappropriate and not leading us any closer to a two-state solution. But if you're asking me does it include President Abbas, absolutely, it does. Absolutely.
Barbara.
QUESTION: Just two questions. The first is, as you've said and we've been discussing here, these recommendations have been made before in different ways. And you've also been saying for two years it's up to the parties to take the steps necessary and they haven't. So what exactly is the purpose of this especially if there's no weight – enforcement weight behind it? You're not even ready to make a UN resolution out of it. Is it to set the groundwork for a possible UN resolution at some time?
MR KIRBY: I mean, it builds – it builds on Quartet discussions back to September of 2015 --
QUESTION: Which have all come up with nothing.
MR KIRBY: No. Barbara, I would disagree. It's not nothing.
QUESTION: On the ground they haven't.
MR KIRBY: We're – none of us are happy about the situation on the ground, Barbara.
QUESTION: But then what's the point of a whole report like this if it's not setting like the groundwork for some kind of further international action?
MR KIRBY: But you're missing the point. You're missing the point entirely. The report lays out tangible, prudent recommendations that the Quartet believes, if adopted by both sides, could help us get closer to a two-state solution. And so back to Said's question – what's the next step – well, the next step here is, we would hope, that both sides would adopt these recommendations --
QUESTION: And if they don't adopt the recommendations, then what's the next step after that?
MR KIRBY: -- and take the kind of – and make the tough choices and exhibit the kind of leadership that can help us get to a two-state solution. That was the purpose of the report. It was to assess the situation and to offer some recommendations going forward. It's not an enforcement tool and never was intended to an enforcement tool.
QUESTION: So if they don't adopt the recommendations, is there another step after that?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to hypothesize or speculate about decisions that haven't been made yet. Look, it just got released. We know – obviously, both sides have reacted to it. We hope that they'll try to absorb it in the coming days and try to see the practicality in these recommendations and hopefully make the right decisions going forward. That's our – that's our hope.
QUESTION: Well --
QUESTION: Can I just – one – sorry, one other question, specific one about recommendation number nine: "Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law." This is being presented as a recommendation, which means that you assume it can be done in some way. But the senior official who was speaking this morning said elections, for example – we weren't advocating elections. How is this supposed to happen as a recommendation --
MR KIRBY: I think what we'd be looking for is for the sides, if they were to adopt that recommendation, which we – which the Quartet believes is valid, that the sides would work their way through how that's to be done. The – it wasn't intended to be proscriptive or prescriptive in every single sense of the way. It was supposed to be a set of recommendations that we would look for them to exhibit the leadership on to try to adopt. And we would look for them to, as leaders, to work together to figure out the best way forward here.
QUESTION: Please --
QUESTION: What role to the Israelis have in deciding how or when the Palestinians might hold an election?
MR KIRBY: Again, this is for something we – we're not – the report's not getting into that level of detail.
QUESTION: But you said "the sides," but presumably, it's up to the Palestinians when they have an election, right, which they haven't done for a long time now?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So it's just the Palestinians that need to figure that out?
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, if there were – I mean, again, we didn't – there was no discussion about elections in there, so I'm not going to hypothesize about elections.
QUESTION: No, it called for – it called for a democratic – the establishment of a democratic and unified Palestinian leadership --
MR KIRBY: In broad terms, Arshad.
QUESTION: -- in both places.
MR KIRBY: On all the recommendations --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- we want both sides to work together. I'm not saying that each and every recommendation has to be some sort of bilateral negotiation, but in general, we want both sides to work together to try to adopt as many of these recommendations as possible.
QUESTION: And you said – you said in response to one of Barbara's questions, you said she was missing the point entirely. I'm not clear what the point of the Quartet is, actually. It's been around for 14 years and aside from producing the roadmap – which the both sides ignored – and now this, has it accomplished anything?
MR KIRBY: Well, look at the report. It is certainly --
QUESTION: No, what has the Quartet done since it's – since it was born 14 years ago? I mean, I don't --
MR KIRBY: Matt, I'm not a historian on the Quartet.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: I mean – but look, I mean --
QUESTION: Let --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no. I mean, go --
MR KIRBY: No, go ahead.
QUESTION: Finish. Tell me why this – tell me why do you think that this is going to help.
QUESTION: Or what's the point of it, just simply stated?
MR KIRBY: It builds on the last session of the Quartet back to September, it's a report that the Quartet had been planning to issue for quite some time and had worked very hard on, it was designed to come up with a series of recommendations that we would hope the leadership on both sides would adopt to get us closer to a two-state solution. That was the intent of the report. That is what the work of the Quartet has been at least since September – actually back to March before. And so now there's a report and we – the Quartet desires that both sides take a look, a serious, sober look at it, and adopt the recommendations. That's the point.
QUESTION: All right. So Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the settlement – stopping, halting of the settlement activity hasn't worked before in terms of dealing with the violence. Is that something that you agree with?
Let me put it this way: Does the Administration, as part of the Quartet, think or believe that an end to West Bank and East Jerusalem construction will result in no more attacks?
MR KIRBY: We do not believe that construction or sole-use designation is constructive to getting us closer to a two-state solution. But Matt, you got to look at all the recommendations cumulatively. We're not saying that any one of them is going to – if just that one is solved, that it's going to solve all the problems and solve Middle East peace forever.
The reason there's so many recommendations is because we believe that all of them are important and they should all be adopted, and that if they're all adopted, we certainly would be able to create the climate and the conditions that would be more conducive to a two-state solution. But there's no intent here to say that, well, number nine or number eight and then that solves it all.
QUESTION: Can you cite any period during this time where actually settlement activity was frozen and how it impacted --
MR KIRBY: Said, you're going to – I'll have to get you somebody who has a sharper history on the --
QUESTION: Well, because I think the only time was – the only time that I can think of was back in 2010 when they froze settlement activity for a while, or they said they froze it while expanding it.
MR KIRBY: You have a better sense of the history than I do, but look, we continue to believe settlement activity is illegitimate. We do not believe that it is leading us any closer to a two-state solution and we want to see it stop.
QUESTION: And one last thing: The official also said that we need some actual steps – not only steps for confidence-building measures to restart the talks, one-to-one talk. What does that mean? Not just steps for confidence-building measures.
MR KIRBY: It means we want to see tangible, affirmative action taken and leadership demonstrated on both sides to take down the violence, to reduce the tensions, and to move us forward to a two-state solution. That's what we're talking about and that's what the report designates.
QUESTION: John, but there's a very small technical point. You said you want them to consider it in the coming days. It has been around – the Quartet has been around 14 years or so. Now, what is the deadline? How long the Quartet is going to wait – 14 days, 14 months, 14 years – before they go get together again and bring out another --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, Tejinder, there's not a – there's no deadline on this that I'm aware of nor was there intended to be. It was intended to be two things: an assessment of the situation and recommendations for leadership going forward. And there's not a deadline on it and it's not an enforcement tool.
QUESTION: Yeah, but --
MR KIRBY: It is a set of recommendations represented by the Quartet to encourage the kind and-- to provide options for the leadership there in the region to take to move forward, to create the conditions that are more conducive to a two-state solution.
QUESTION: No, but when will the Quartet look at it again to assess that this is what we --
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't have an agenda item for the Quartet going forward on this. Again, this just got released today.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: And I can appreciate why we would all want to see everything enacted today, right? But there was no expectation that it would be. And as Matt pointed out, not all these recommendations are necessarily new. They are things that we have been espousing before, and therefore, should be of surprise to no one that they --
QUESTION: I don't think any of them are new, actually.
MR KIRBY: In any event, we want – again, it is intended to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations that the leadership on both sides can take a sober look at and hopefully make the right decisions to move us closer to a two-state solution.
Josh.
QUESTION: Thanks. Change of topic?
MR KIRBY: Can we? Okay.
QUESTION: On Russia. Yesterday, the Russian ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson gave a lengthy and detailed account of a June 6th incident outside the Moscow embassy that was first reported Wednesday in The Washington Post. According to the Russian foreign ministry on the record, on that night a U.S. diplomat emerged from a taxi late at night in a low cap pulled down over his face, rushed to the checkpoint, refused to show his credentials, hit the sentry in the face with his elbow, pushed the security guard, and fled into the embassy. Is that the State Department's understanding of the events of that night, or do you dispute the official Russian account?
MR KIRBY: Josh, I'm not able to speak to the specifics of any particular incident. But I can say that we continue to be very troubled by the way our employees have been treated over the past couple of years. And I can tell you that we've raised those concerns at the highest levels, including to President Putin, there in Moscow. Harassment and surveillance of our diplomatic personnel in Moscow by security personnel and traffic police have increased significantly, and we continue to find this unacceptable.
I have also seen these comments made by Russian officials, which are factually inaccurate, and Moscow knows that all too well. However, we're not interested – the United States is not interested in having a public debate on the issue. We believe that this is best handled in private government-to-government discussions. That's how we're going to continue to do this. We've raised, as I said, our serious concerns all the way up to the highest levels of the Russian Government.
And the last thing I'd say is the Secretary takes extremely seriously our responsibility to look after the safety and well-being of our personnel overseas wherever they are, and we're going to continue to do exactly that. And we're going to continue to make known our concerns.
QUESTION: Yeah. I want to make sure we're not conflating two different stories here. On Monday, The Washington Post reported increased harassment and intimidation of U.S. diplomats in Moscow. Right? That seems to be what you're responding to in that statement.
On Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that the specific incident was a violent attack from an FSB guard in front of the embassy against a U.S. diplomat. So I understand your comments about the overall level of harassment. But are you – when you say that the Russian media – Russian foreign ministry is inaccurate, are you saying that they are inaccurate about this incident, which is separate and distinct and unique?
MR KIRBY: Josh, I'm aware of the – of both stories. And my answer was in response to your question and also in response to our larger, broader concerns about harassment.
QUESTION: So was --
MR KIRBY: So, I mean, again, I – I'm just not going to get into talking about specific incidents. We're going to handle this the way we believe it's appropriate, which is not – to not get into a public debate but to do it in government-to-government discussions. And I just am not able to speak to the specifics of any individual incident one way or the other.
QUESTION: But to be clear, you're saying that the Russian accounting of that incident is inaccurate; is that right?
MR KIRBY: What I'm saying is that we've seen comments by Russian officials over the last several days --
QUESTION: I'm talking about this specific --
MR KIRBY: I understand.
QUESTION: -- comment from yesterday --
MR KIRBY: I understand.
QUESTION: -- about this June 6th incident.
MR KIRBY: We have seen the comments by --
QUESTION: You've seen that comment?
MR KIRBY: I have. I have seen it, Josh.
QUESTION: And is that comment inaccurate?
MR KIRBY: Josh, I've seen the comment. What I'm telling you is we've seen several comments by Russian officials over the last several days which they know all too well are inaccurate.
QUESTION: Well --
QUESTION: Let me just follow up, Matt, if you'll allow me.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. The Russian foreign ministry also said that there is a video of the incident that they have handed to the State Department that is in your possession; is that correct?
MR KIRBY: We – we're aware of a video, yes.
QUESTION: Will you release that video?
MR KIRBY: I know of no plans to release that video.
QUESTION: The Russian foreign ministry said that the diplomat is a known CIA agent who is disguised and returning from an intelligence operation. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: I'm just not going to go into more details about these incidents.
QUESTION: Okay. The Russian foreign ministry further says that the State Department leaked the story to The Washington Post in a deliberately – deliberate effort to spoil bilateral relations. Is that correct?
MR KIRBY: You tell me. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I can tell you that is not correct. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: There you go. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Also it is – they said that the American diplomats themselves requested that the U.S. embassy be guarded by a Russian police guard, including FSB guards. I know that this is not uncommon for local guards to defend U.S. diplomatic facilities; but at the same time, has there ever been, to your knowledge, or is there now an examination of whether or not having Russian police and Russian FSB guard the U.S. embassy in Moscow should be continued as a policy?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that that's under consideration, Josh. But as you rightly said, it's not uncommon at all for our posts overseas to have local security forces on the outside. Of course, you know we have Marines that are inside, but it's not uncommon for us to have local security forces of whatever stripe is appropriate per country we're in provide a measure of security outside. That's not uncommon, and I'm not aware of any consideration or review of that policy with respect to our post in Moscow.
QUESTION: Can you just say if the diplomat is safe and sound and in good health?
MR KIRBY: I'm not in a – as I understand – again, look, I really don't want to get into talking about specifics, specific incidents.
QUESTION: I mean, it's out there.
MR KIRBY: Apparently --
QUESTION: The horse has left the barn.
MR KIRBY: Yes, apparently, it's out there. You've rightly noted that. But I'm just not going to talk about the details of it. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Well, then how can you tell us that it's factually inaccurate?
MR KIRBY: Because we know it is.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: Because we know that --
QUESTION: Because?
MR KIRBY: Because we know and they know that their comments --
QUESTION: Eat your peas. They're good for you.
MR KIRBY: Many of their public comments are inaccurate, and they know. And I'm not going to get into a public debate about what goes on.
QUESTION: Well, that's fine, but we don't know which of the comments are – you're referring to. So I just --
MR KIRBY: And --
QUESTION: I mean, are you saying the entire story that was told – that she relayed is inaccurate?
MR KIRBY: Matt, I'm not going to get into the specifics of these incidents.
QUESTION: Well, then don't tell us that it's inaccurate and expect us just to believe that if you can't tell us what is – what part of the story that she told is wrong. What's – I mean, was there an incident?
MR KIRBY: There have been many incidents of harassment --
QUESTION: This one that he's talking about.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak to specific incidents.
QUESTION: This --
MR KIRBY: There have been many incidents of harassment. There have also been many comments made in the last several days by Russian officials about those incidents, and many of those comments are factually incorrect. And we're going to take this up with them – this inaccurate depiction, depictions – we're going to take this up privately government-to-government the way we think it should be done.
QUESTION: So you're – have you complained to them about them making this – their version of the story public?
MR KIRBY: We have made clear and plain our concerns not only about the comments but more importantly about the incidents and the harassment.
QUESTION: And how was that done – about the comments?
MR KIRBY: Well, it --
QUESTION: Did you call her up and say, hey, this is – we don't like this?
MR KIRBY: I don't have any calls with my Russian counterpart to read out to you, if that's what you're asking.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, I mean --
MR KIRBY: But again, we have many --
QUESTION: So how was your displeasure made known?
MR KIRBY: We have many ways in which we can convey our concerns and displeasure over this – over this issue with Russian authorities. Many, many levels and many ways to do that.
QUESTION: As part of the broader issue, getting away from this one incident which you won't confirm happened, the Russians have complained that the United States is involved in similar behavior, harassment and surveillance. Are you saying that that's incorrect, that you don't have people following Russian diplomats here, in New York, or at consulates that you suspect are up to – that are not involved in activities compatible with their diplomatic status?
MR KIRBY: Russian claims of harassment by the United States are without foundation.
QUESTION: Right. Well, you said that's harassment, but they're – what about surveillance?
MR KIRBY: All accredited diplomats and consular personnel serving in the United States enjoy the protections afforded by international law, including the applicable Vienna Conventions and bilateral agreements.
QUESTION: But does that mean no accredited – no accredited Russian diplomat is ever followed, surveilled?
MR KIRBY: Russian claims of harassment are without foundation. Everybody is treated with the proper international law protections.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Today, the number two in the Iranian army threatened to attack the Kurdistan Region in northern Iraq, and this follows several days of intermittent Iranian shelling of Kurdish border villages. And I've got a two-part question. When that Iranian shelling was going on of the Kurdish villages and the Kurdistan Region, the United States didn't say anything. In fact, it didn't even acknowledge that this was happening. So my – the first part of my question is do you think that kind of closing a – turning a blind eye to what Iran was doing might have contributed to the escalation of the threat from Iran? And two, the second part of my question is: What is the U.S. response to today's threat from Iran?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen either reports of the shelling or this comment that you're referring to, but – so you'll have to let me look into seeing what we know about both of those. But this – the notion that we're somehow turning a blind eye to Iran and whatever destabilizing activities they may be conducting, is not an accurate portrayal. I mean, we're mindful – now, again, I don't have the details on this, and I would also encourage you to consult the Defense Department as well and the coalition. I just don't have operational details on this. But this notion that we're somehow giving Iran a free pass in the region is simply not accurate.
QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: The other day in Aspen, Secretary Kerry made some comments to the effect that trade and business – specifically U.S. trade and business, but more generally all trade and business – will serve as a catalyst to or could serve as a catalyst to moderate Iranian behavior that you object to. Is there any evidence to suggest that increased trade – like the Boeing sale, for example – will moderate Iranian behavior?
MR KIRBY: I think what the Secretary was referring to was the fact that we know many Iranians want to have better relations with the rest of the world. They want to be more outward-looking. Not everybody does, but it's a very young population, and we know that there are some even in the leadership that would like to be more open to the rest of the world. And we have seen in many places around the world when formerly closed societies become more open, that it can have a positive effect on – not only on their local economy, their security, their stability, upward mobility of the population, but also increased and more constructive relations with neighbors.
So I mean, you can see that through the arc of history. That doesn't mean it's going to happen here. He wasn't at all prognosticating, nor was he saying that we're trying to somehow leverage a specific, unique bilateral outcome with Iran; that Iran – the deal was to do what the deal did, which was to cut off their pathways to a nuclear weapon. And as he has said many times, if, as a result of that, it could lead – and I think he's referring to the fact that trade could be one of those factors – could that plus an opening by the Iranian people to better relations with the West – if that could lead to moderating behavior or the cessation of destabilizing activity, well, that's all to the good. But that's not why we went into the negotiations.
QUESTION: Can you – could you rattle off a few of the countries that – formerly closed countries that have moderated their behavior due to these --
MR KIRBY: Well, look at what's happened – look at what's happened in Burma. And again, early on, but there's been some positive effects there. Again, I'm – I can get you – if you want a list, I'll get you a list. But I mean, I'm not --
QUESTION: All right. Well, I just – I'm just curious as to why the Administration – or Secretary Kerry, but presumably the entire Administration – believes that this kind of trade will encourage moderate behavior rather than giving them – giving the Iranians more tools, more money to continue the behavior that it has been that you have objected to in the past.
MR KIRBY: And we've said all along – we've said all along, Matt, that if, as a result of the sanctions relief, whether that's the actual unfreezing of assets or through deals like with Boeing Corporation, if the money that is obtained as a result of that from the deal is used for terrorist activities, we still have plenty of tools at our disposal to deal with that.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Very quickly. Now, in the past, you've called on the Syrian Government not to attack or the Russians not to attack groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam. Well, today, a Syrian jet was downed apparently or crashed as a result of --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- technical things, and Jaysh al-Islam captured the pilot. Now, in this event, if the – and you call on the Syrians not to attack them. In this event, would Syria be right to let's say attack or try to retrieve its pilot – the government forces?
MR KIRBY: You should probably talk to somebody in the legal profession that's better on rules of engagement than I am. This isn't – I don't want to get into a back-and-forth over specific rules of engagement here. What we want to see is the cessation be applied nationwide, which means that parties to the cessation are not shooting at one another. And I'm not going to debate the merits of this incident. I'm aware of the press reports about it. I don't have any specific information about the veracity of it. But the idea here – what the Secretary is focused on – is getting the violence to end and getting a cessation that can be applied nationwide and duly enforced by everybody.
QUESTION: I guess my question is that you are – you're saying that ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusrah are fair game, but this and this and this are not for the ceasefire to have much of a chance.
MR KIRBY: It's not just us, Said. The entire international community signed up to this through the ISSG, and there's – any UN-designated foreign terrorist organization is not party to the cessation.
QUESTION: I know. But when a group like Jaysh al-Islam comes out and says and boasts about capturing a certain pilot and invokes the kind of rhetoric about war and fighting and bringing down the regime and so on, does that give the regime sort of a – perhaps the right to respond?
MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to debate what the regime might do or might not do. I think just based on past experience, I don't see any proclivity by the regime to need excuses. I mean, they continue to kill and harm their own people, and that itself is unconscionable. And I mean, it's not about whether they have a free pass or not. They have been liberally taking the lives of their own citizens now for five years.
QUESTION: Can you confirm (inaudible)?
QUESTION: And lastly – lastly on the release of the Russian --
MR KIRBY: I'm not – look, I don't – I can't even confirm the veracity of these reports, so --
QUESTION: If they've captured a pilot, would you urge them --
MR KIRBY: I don't have a comment on that right now.
QUESTION: On the Russian-American joint cooperation and so on, could you give us a clearer picture today on what is that likely to be?
MR KIRBY: Nope. I'm going to let my comments yesterday stand.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Two quick questions on Turkey, John. One of the Turkish police stated that they already got the IDs of the attackers, Istanbul airport attackers – two of them Russian citizens. Do you have any information on those suspects? Have you been told by the Turkish Government about these attackers?
MR KIRBY: We don't have any additional information.
QUESTION: Second question is there are just today six different news websites have been shut down, and it looks like there are more critical news sites maybe shut down very soon. I was wondering if you have any comments on this.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. We've seen those reports. And look, as we've said in the past, unfettered access to information is an essential element of a democratic society. Freedom of expression for individuals as well as media organization we believe is a key element in – and we think that free expression, free press, access to that information are the kinds of principles that are enshrined in the Turkish constitution, and we'd like to see those lived up to. As Turkey's friend and ally, we're obviously – go ahead.
QUESTION: You --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. Somebody didn't like what I just said, so --
QUESTION: Yes, I did not like that. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Both of you. You didn't like it, and apparently you two didn't like it. (Laughter.) So it's all right. Let's --
QUESTION: I didn't have a problem with it at all. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I had a question on Turkey, but --
MR KIRBY: But it's not that one.
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: Oh, okay. Well, when I get interrupted in midsentence, I just have to assume that you're not partial to what I'm saying.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: These freedom of press questions have been asked to you many times.
MR KIRBY: Yes, you have.
QUESTION: In recent times, it looks like you are basically repeating the exact same words and sentences; and this kind of gives that even though the trend is really getting worse and worse, we don't see any kind of change on your side.
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) That reminds me of a story when I was an altar boy.
QUESTION: Oh my. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: The priest that I knew was writing his homily, and saying the same thing Sunday after Sunday, and didn't seem to think it was having an effect, so on one particular Sunday in the margins he wrote, "Shout here."
I can – I'm not saying it any differently because we don't believe it any differently. And I don't – we don't believe that – just like to Josh's question about Russian harassment – that me standing up here and pounding my fist on the podium and getting all hot and bothered and lathered up about it is going to make it any better. Okay? We believe in freedom of expression. We believe in freedom of the press. I would think that you guys would appreciate that. And we believe it not just here at home, but we believe that any country that says it believes in democratic principles and has a constitution that enshrines those principles ought to feel the same way. And we're not bashful about saying it, but to scream it and yell it, to use different verbs or nouns, as you described it, isn't going to change at all the fact that our concerns remain the same and that we're having the – unfortunately having to have the same conversations with Turkish officials.
What I'm saying – hang on a second. What I'm saying to you is what we're saying to them. And as Turkey's friend and ally we do it in the spirit of friendship, we do it in the spirit of hopefulness that this trend, which I agree with you is worrisome and definitely going the wrong direction, can be reversed. And it can be. It's a very simple thing to reverse through good, solid, sound leadership decisions. And so far, those leadership decisions haven't been made. In fact, they're – the opposite are being made. But I guarantee you that next week and the week after, if we continue to see things going the wrong way, you're going to continue to hear me say it in exactly the same way, because there's no better way to put it than we have been putting it.
QUESTION: Okay. On the first – your answer to the first question on the suspects, does that also apply – that means that you haven't – you can't confirm and you haven't even heard it from the Turks? And secondly, does that also apply to these reports that a Chechen was the mastermind of --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I'm not aware of every conversation that we're having with Turkish authorities as they investigate this. It's their investigation. We've obviously offered to do whatever we can to help. I'm not aware that they have accepted any of those offers of help, so I – I'm not aware of any conversation specifically that perhaps our law enforcement agencies may be having with Turkish authorities. I can tell you here at the State Department we are not getting blow-by-blow updates from the Turks about what they're learning in the investigation. In fact, many times we're hearing about it, as you are, when they read their findings out in the media. So we just don't have any additional information.
QUESTION: Okay. So in terms of the – you're not aware of any validity of a Chechen --
MR KIRBY: I don't – I have no – I have nothing specific on the investigation or the progress of it to talk about.
QUESTION: All right. I have an unrelated question.
QUESTION: In the spirit of friendship and hopefulness, do you --
MR KIRBY: You're going to end the briefing? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I've got one more, but it'll be really quick.
QUESTION: Do you have any fresh comment on Turkey's parliament late last night passing a law restructuring the judiciary?
MR KIRBY: I do, actually. We note the parliament's passage yesterday of a bill to overhaul two of Turkey's highest courts, which we understand will be conveyed now to President Erdogan for signature. The United States is deeply concerned about the legislation's potential to erode the independence of the Turkish judiciary and subject it to increased political pressure. We believe an independent judiciary, as provided for in the Turkish constitution, is essential for advancing the rule of law, promoting a fair and transparent business environment, and remains a key pillar of a healthy democracy. As a friend and NATO ally, we will be monitoring Turkey's judicial reforms closely to understand how they adhere to our shared democratic values.
Okay.
QUESTION: Yesterday, you were asked about the court filing – this has to do with the email FOIA issue. I just wanted to clarify one thing, because I assume you don't have anything new to say about it today.
MR KIRBY: I don't.
QUESTION: All right. But I just wanted to know, when you said that the delays that your people are predicting in these court filings – like 2018, late – stuff will – a lot of things won't come out until after November and then there's other things that might not come out until 2018 – are those delays solely a function of the deluge or the number of requests that have come in, or is there something else going on here too?
MR KIRBY: No, it's solely --
QUESTION: Of the 22,000 --
MR KIRBY: It's solely the result of the increased workload – yes – of the FOIA requests that we have received and the staffing challenges that we continue to have to face, absolutely. If the question is --
QUESTION: No, no, the question doesn't – isn't intended to imply that there's some political reason. I'm just wondering, is it only because of the number, the sheer size or sheer amount of the request that's slow? Or is there something institutionally that needs to be fixed to speed this up?
MR KIRBY: Well, those are two --
QUESTION: That's the question.
MR KIRBY: Those are actually two different questions, so --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- so let me take the – I'll take it the way I'm interpreting them. Yes, it is about volume, but it's also about – so it's not just about the numbers, the increasing numbers of FOIA requests – as I said, tripled in the last several years. It's also about the fact that more and more, the FOIA requests are ever more expansive, that we are seeing increasing not only numbers of requests but the scope of information – the volume of documents that the requests are asking for – are bigger and bigger and require that much more search effort, that much more analyzing before they can be prepared for release. So it's a function of the number of requests, but also the nature of them, which are more expansive.
And then thirdly, yes, look, we – I talked about this yesterday. The Secretary is very keen to see if he can make the process here at the State Department more efficient, more effective. Some of that has to deal with resourcing and manning, and we have made efforts to increase the manning of the FOIA office. I can tell you we're open to considering additional changes if need be. That's one of the reasons why he hired Janice Jacobs to come in to take a look at – and she is working hand in glove with the FOIA office right now to see if there's ways that we can improve processes.
So we're mindful that there's probably things we can do on our end to try to clear the backlog faster, but as I said yesterday, they keep coming in and they're coming in now asking for increasing volumes of data and material that just take a lot longer to deal with. And that is – those are the sole reasons why these delays are going to ensue.
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up on that one: Are they dealt with the order received strictly, or do you prioritize some depending on content or ease of processing? Or is it just first come, first served?
MR KIRBY: I mean, it's – we're getting so many, Dave, that it's not about – it's not about first come, first served. You do the – certainly – I don't want to leave you the impression that we're picking and choosing off a menu – well, this one's – we'll do this one today and not that one because this one we think is easier. I mean, there's a – they are working through to try to – they're trying to figure out how to better process FOIA requests, but it's not – it is largely done by when they're received, because as you know, and the law is clear, you've got a certain timeline to get answers out. So it's largely done, but you may get several in a given day. So there's – we're still working through the process to try to make it more efficient, but it is largely done in order of arrival. But some of them --
QUESTION: But not strictly – it's not issued a number when it comes in and --
MR KIRBY: Well, no, they are. I mean, they are – they're all given case numbers, absolutely, but some of them – like, let's say, hypothetically we get five today. Maybe three of them are fairly easy and can be knocked out in short order, and maybe two of them may take us longer and we'll have to get back to the requester and just let them know we're not going to meet your deadline. But there is a timeline for that. We have – and we're mindful that we don't always meet the timeline, but there definitely is a timeline. So you do date-stamp them when you get them and you do track them as they come in, yes.
Okay? Thanks.
QUESTION: John, can you give us an update on Bangladesh (inaudible)?
MR KIRBY: I can give you one thanks to --
MS TRUDEAU: If you can read my writing.
MR KIRBY: -- if I can read her writing. It's no --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on camera.
MR KIRBY: So no – yeah, we want to put this back on camera, guys? No Americans --
MS TRUDEAU: Under chief of mission.
MR KIRBY: No Americans under chief of mission were involved in the incident, so I think that answers your question, Matt, in terms of that they're okay.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: We're still accounting for all private American citizens who may have been in the area. We don't have finality on that, and again, it's still a fluid situation, so we'll continue to update you throughout the day.
Thanks, Elizabeth. Appreciate that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:13 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
