Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
July 28, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL/MIDDLE EAST PEACE
RUSSIA
SYRIA
TURKEY
IRAQ
TURKEY
SYRIA
VENEZUELA
NORTH KOREA
DEPARTMENT
BANGLADESH
CHINA/REGION
TRANSCRIPT:
1:47 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I don't really have much at the top, except to announce that the Secretary will be traveling to Paris, France, tomorrow evening. While in Paris, he will be meeting with President Abbas to obviously talk about prospects towards helping us create conditions for a two-state solution. It – there is a possibility that there could be additional bilateral meetings while we're in Paris, of course. And as we have more information about his schedule, we will be certain to provide it to you. But the primary purpose is a meeting with President Abbas. The Secretary will return to Washington, D.C., on Sunday.
And with that.
QUESTION: Is that – just a quick thing. You said he's going to travel tomorrow evening. Will the meetings be on Saturday then?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And when you say additional bilats, is it the French or is there any possibility of him meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MR KIRBY: Again, I can only tell you there's a possibility for additional bilateral meetings, and I don't have details on those to read out to you today. As soon as we have better clarity on the schedule, we'll give you that information.
QUESTION: And just simply stated, can you give us a sense of what is the purpose of meeting with President Abbas?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think I sort of addressed it in my opening statement. It's to continue discussions that we have had with President Abbas about prospects for a two-state solution and trying to make meaningful progress to create the conditions where that solution can be more successfully pursued.
QUESTION: And you think there's – that's actually – sorry. You think that's actually possible between now and the end of the year, to create the conditions where that solution can be more meaningfully pursued?
MR KIRBY: The Secretary's not looking at trying to make progress based on a fixed date on the calendar. I mean, this is something he's been focused on since he's been the Secretary of State and will remain so for, I can assure you, the entire time that he's in office. And he – you've heard him speak to this many times yourself here recently, and of course, you've seen the travel that he's made to the region. This remains an area of prime focus for him, and he's going to pursue it with the same alacrity and the same energy that he has.
QUESTION: Right. But there's – I'm – you say he's not focused on a particular date, but he is surely focused on the date of January 20th, 2017, when he will cease to be Secretary of State. He has less than six months left to try to advance this. And I'm asking if you think – if he thinks that meaningful progress can be made to create the conditions so that this can be fruitfully pursued in those six months. Or is – he really doesn't – not think that's possible?
MR KIRBY: No, of course, he believes that there's – the possibility exists. He wouldn't be having these discussions, he wouldn't think it was important enough to go and have this meeting if he didn't believe that there was still a chance to make meaningful progress.
QUESTION: May I? I think just to put a finer point on what Arshad is saying is, is he trying to just continue to move this along, as you're saying, until the day he leaves with just the desire to leave it in the best possible shape for his successor? Or is this part of a effort to try and get something meaningful in terms of negotiations or some kind of understandings before he leaves office?
MR KIRBY: I think it's a genuine, concerted effort, as it has been since he's been the Secretary of State, to move the process forward, to make progress on creating those conditions where a two-state solution can be realized.
QUESTION: But I mean, again, I'm just going to repeat where – I think you know where I'm coming here. Is he trying to just continue to improve the situation so that his successor can pick it up? Or does he honestly think that between now and then there's an opening for something tangible, other than just improving the climate for the next administration?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, ultimately, the really decision-makers here are there in the region: President Abbas, Prime Minister Netanyahu. They're really the ones that can make or break any movement towards a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Is he trying to get negotiations together that could have some kind of – obviously there won't be a complete and final peace deal before he leaves. There's just – doesn't seem to be that kind of space or climate. But is he trying to get some kind of process restarted under his watch?
MR KIRBY: He would like to get us to a position where you can actually make meaningful progress towards a two-state solution, and he's not going to give up on that goal. I'm not in a position, nor would he, to predict exactly on what timeframe that could happen. But if you're asking is he just trying to hold down the fort here until he's done or --
QUESTION: I didn't say hold down the fort. I did not say hold down the fort. I said continue to – hold down the fort would be to just manage it. I understand and am acknowledging that you're saying that he's trying to continue to improve the climate. But is that just – is that trying to lead to something where he would restart what he was doing earlier in the term?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to predict specific outcomes, Elise. He's committed to this. He believes that there is still meaningful progress that can be made. And he's not putting a deadline or a timeline on it. It is an issue of great importance to him. He still has the same sense of urgency about it. And it's with that same sense of urgency that he is – that's he's going to continue to pursue these discussions.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Last night, Vice President Biden called Vladimir Putin a dictator. Now, that is a very specific word used for the roguest of rogue states. In the past, it's been used for President Assad, Muammar Qadhafi, North Korea, Saddam Hussein. Is it an official position of this Administration that Vladimir Putin is a dictator?
MR KIRBY: I'm not in a position to characterize – or further characterize the Vice President's statements. I think they speak for themselves.
QUESTION: Well, was he speaking on his own behalf or was he speaking --
MR KIRBY: He's the Vice President of the United States, so I mean, as – he's speaking as the Vice President of the United States. What I can tell is our focus here is --
QUESTION: Would you --
MR KIRBY: -- much less on a title, one way or the other, and more on working with Russia to try to achieve progress on very difficult issues like Syria.
QUESTION: I understand that. And I mean, you've worked with dictators in that regard anyway. So it doesn't – I'm not saying that would preclude you working with Vladimir Putin on Syria or not. Would – from this podium, are you prepared to call Vladimir Putin a dictator?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – I'm going to let the Vice President's comments speak for themselves. And I'm not going to qualify them one way or another going forward.
QUESTION: So are you saying that he's speaking on behalf of the Administration when he calls Vladimir Putin a dictator?
MR KIRBY: He's the Vice President of the United States, Elise.
QUESTION: A yes or no answer would be great.
MR KIRBY: You would have to talk to his staff in terms of further clarification or qualification of his comments.
QUESTION: Because the Russians are very – because obviously, there's a lot of barbs being traded back and forth between the U.S. and Russia, but Russia is taking particular umbrage with --
MR KIRBY: I would point you to the Vice President's staff for comments about his speech. All I can tell you is that the Secretary remains focused on trying to work with Russia on issues where we think we can work with them on. And that obviously includes Syria and it obviously includes getting more progress on the Minsk agreements. That's where the Secretary's head is. That's where his head is.
QUESTION: Can we --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Turkey --
QUESTION: Can we stay with Syria?
MR KIRBY: I think let's stay with Syria and then we'll --
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Syria, yeah.
MR KIRBY: You were on Syria too?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: All right. Well, let me go to Arshad, then to you, and --
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: Syria – the leader of Syria's Nusrah Front says that it is breaking ties with al-Qaida. Do you still regard – they've also adopted – they say they've adopted a new name. Do you still regard the group by another name as a terrorist – foreign terrorist organization? And from your point of view, are they still a legitimate target in Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, Arshad, this alleged announcement here of their new name and potentially new affiliation is, what, minutes old here. So I think, as you well know, we judge any organization, including this one, much more by its actions, its ideology, its goals. Affiliations may be a factor, but ultimately it's their actions, ideology, and goals that matter the most. And that's how we're going to judge going forward, as we have in the past. Certainly, thus far – and again, this announcement is, what, less than an hour old – we certainly see no reason to believe that their actions or their objectives are any different, and they are still considered a foreign terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Have there been any messages sent to the Administration or to your interlocutors, whether it's in the Arab world or Staffan de Mistura, in this vein that along with this affiliation could come some kind of more moderate position that they'd be interested in?
MR KIRBY: No. I mean, again, they just made this announcement, so --
QUESTION: I understand, but they didn't just do it out of a hat. Like, obviously it's something that's been considered for – they didn't just wake up this morning and say, "We have a new name." This has obviously been --
MR KIRBY: Then you have more insight into their thinking than I do. I don't know --
QUESTION: Well, I mean, it didn't just come out of thin air. I mean, obviously this was a considered decision of at least 24 hours, I would think.
MR KIRBY: You'd have to ask them, Elise.
QUESTION: So I'm just wondering, have you --
MR KIRBY: There has been no communication that I'm aware of that would – that would indicate any sort of a different approach to this group at this point. This announcement just got made. And again, we judge an organization by its actions, its ideologies, its objectives. And we see nothing --
QUESTION: And what if it were to moderate --
MR KIRBY: -- that would change our views at this point.
QUESTION: And what if it were to moderate its actions and just focus more on this – on the Assad regime and not the Syrian moderate opposition?
MR KIRBY: It's a terrific hypothetical that I would be absolutely – it would be impossible for me to try to engage in.
QUESTION: Well, would you – would it not be a good opportunity to encourage them to do so if the – given the fact that they're breaking with the world's most --
MR KIRBY: You mean they needed more encouragement than the – than the fact that they have been targets of kinetic strikes thus far?
QUESTION: No, obviously that's probably – I mean --
MR KIRBY: That's – that would be, I would hope, discouraging. So no, look, I can't predict what this means – it just happened – or what it portends for the future. It could very well just be a rebranding technique. So we just have to – we're going to have to wait and see. And as I say, we judge a group by what they do, not by what they call themselves. And so we're – and thus far there's no change to our views about this particular group.
QUESTION: The way that Julani describes the new – well, the same group, new names, objectives – sound very similar to that of ISIL. Does that give this government pause?
MR KIRBY: The new objectives that they've stated?
QUESTION: Yes, in this video, that they're going to basically stand up for the rights of Muslim people around the world; they're going to claim territory; they're going to act on their behalf, God willing.
MR KIRBY: They have given us pause – I mean, more than pause, as I've said. They have – because they are a foreign terrorist organization, they have been outside the cessation of hostilities. In the last hour or so, since this announcement's been made, we certainly see no indication that would give us a reason to change the designation of this group. Again, you judge an organization like this on their goals, their ideology, their objectives.
QUESTION: And in that same vein, the deputy foreign minister, Mr. Ryabkov, of Russia, is still alleging as of a couple of hours ago that the U.S. still has not distinguished between terrorist groups and moderate opposition as part of trying to negotiate some sort of cooperative deal between the U.S. and Russia on fighting ISIL inside Syria. I take it, then, that you dispute his characterization?
MR KIRBY: Yes, I would. I would.
QUESTION: What is the status of trying to reach that agreement that --
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – as you said, look, I'm not – we've said we're not going to talk about the specifics of the proposals that the United States and the Russia – and Russia have agreed to pursue here to try to better enforce the cessation of hostilities. And the reason why I'm comfortable disputing a notion that we've somehow been less clear here about groups is that it isn't just about the United States. It's the international community, the ISSG, the UN all have agreed that UN-designated foreign terrorist organizations are outside the cessation of hostilities, and those are the only groups that are outside the cessation of hostilities. And to date, that has included, obviously, Daesh and al-Nusrah. And so it's not just about the degree to which we've been clear; it's about the degree to which the international community has been clear.
QUESTION: And going back to Nusrah, or Fateh al-Sham as they're now calling themselves, what is being done to try to ferret them out, if I can use that expression, as the coalition is trying to help the Syrian opposition go after ISIL, go after the regime, whatever it is that's happening on the ground right now inside Syria?
MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ferret them out."
QUESTION: All right, that was a cute way of saying of trying to kill them.
MR KIRBY: There's been no change to the fact – again, they just made this announcement like an hour ago, right?
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: So --
QUESTION: But the fact was that even before they decided to change their name, they were still – they're in Manbij fighting --
MR KIRBY: They are still a designated foreign terrorist organization.
QUESTION: They're still in Raqqa – right.
MR KIRBY: They are still not a party to the cessation of hostilities and therefore are still a fair target for coalition operations.
QUESTION: But given that they're fighting in the same neighborhoods, on the same streets with people that the U.S. and other members of the coalition are --
MR KIRBY: And I – excuse me, I want to correct what I said. Not a fair target of coalition operations. The coalition is going after Daesh. But they're still --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: They're still – they're still legitimate targets for --
QUESTION: The United States?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, for the United States and, of course, for Russia, which has a military presence in Syria. So I wanted to correct that.
QUESTION: Yeah. So how does – so how does, then, the U.S. try to go after them or try to support the moderate opposition as it's fighting ISIL? How do you tease all that out? How do you not end up killing the wrong people, killing your own people?
MR KIRBY: This is – the fact that the loyalties of some opposition fighters have shifted or shift and that there has been an intermingling of sorts with al-Nusrah is not a new problem. It has been a struggle. Some of that intermingling has been by design, as I said, because some loyalties have shifted among members of these groups. And some of it has been coincidental. But it has complicated efforts to better and more effectively target al-Nusrah. That is one of the reasons why, quite frankly, the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov have spoken at length about trying to get some proposals in place to move forward to better be able to enforce the cessation of hostilities, which this group is still outside of.
But I'm loath to get into specific military targeting and intelligence issues from this particular podium. I mean, it remains – it has remained a problem. It remains one today. And again, that's why it was so important for the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov to have that discussion in Moscow a couple of weeks ago.
QUESTION: And finally, given that the top leadership of al-Qaida put out audio messages indicating that they supported Nusrah's move to change its name and make itself a distinct organization, what does that say to you, if anything, about al-Qaida's overall influence on other extremist groups around the world?
MR KIRBY: Look, al-Qaida core leadership has been decimated. We know that and we've talked about that many times. It still obviously remains a lethal terrorist organization with still lethal capabilities with designs to attack Western targets and to try to improve its influence. So we're very mindful of the threat still posed by al-Qaida.
I don't know what this announcement, yet one hour old, means in terms of al-Qaida's influence one way or the other. And as I said, we judge an organization by what it does, by its goals, by its objectives, not by the name. So I think we're just – we're going to have to watch this as it goes forward. But there's been, again, no change to our approach to this particular organization regardless of the new brand that they claim to be under.
QUESTION: Turkish media, recording Ambassador Bass in a speech saying that Gulen --
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: Can we stay with Syria? Unless this is Syria.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Syria? Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, it's just our tradition to try to go through one topic if we can.
QUESTION: Okay, sorry.
MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you.
QUESTION: A couple more things on Syria. The Russian defense minister today said that the Russian and Syrian militaries will start a large-scale humanitarian operation in Aleppo during which civilians and militaries – militants, excuse me, will be given a chance to leave the city. Did the Russians coordinate this with the United States? Did you know this was coming?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any coordination. We've seen this announcement, and I would tell you that it – hang on a second, let me make sure.
Without further clarification, this appears to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the evacuation of Syrian civilians from Aleppo, and any offensive actions would be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and our own understandings with the Russians. Our position on humanitarian access has not changed. Russia and the regime must uphold the basic agreed principle that the UN determines what assistance is necessary to relieve the suffering of civilians in besieged communities. And all supplies, including food and medical supplies, must be delivered immediately.
QUESTION: So you don't see this as humanitarian at all; you see this as basically an effort to get the militants to give up --
MR KIRBY: Again, without further clarification, this would appear to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the evacuation of Syrian civilians from Aleppo. What needs to happen is the innocent people of Aleppo should be able to stay in their homes safely and to receive the humanitarian access, which Russia and the regime have agreed – in principle, have agreed, certainly, according to the UN Security Council resolution, to provide.
QUESTION: Is that another way of saying that you think this is a way of the – for the Syrian Government to just try to win Aleppo for itself once and for all?
MR KIRBY: I think I've responded to the answer on this. Again, without further clarification, it appears to be a demand for the surrender of opposition groups and the forced evacuation of innocent Syrian civilians.
QUESTION: Would this move be going against the steps that they agreed to, to work towards a further military cooperation?
MR KIRBY: It goes against the UN Security Council resolution and their own stated commitments. I'm not going to detail the proposals that Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry had agreed to in Moscow, as those proposals are still being – the modalities of those proposals are still being discussed.
QUESTION: Defense minister --
QUESTION: Which means you don't have an agreement yet?
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: No, no, no. I mean, that's what that means, right? "The modalities are still being discussed of proposals" means that there's no agreement?
MR KIRBY: The way they're going to be implemented and executed or --
QUESTION: You have a general understanding?
MR KIRBY: -- the methods are still being discussed, but there were proposals agreed to.
QUESTION: The defense minister also spoke of sending experts to Geneva at the request of Secretary Kerry.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, this is all part of – as I said, there are still modalities of these proposals to be discussed, and I believe that's what the defense minister was referring to. I'd have to let them speak to what officials they're sending to Geneva. But coming out of Moscow, Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry agreed that our teams would continue to meet and discuss and to get better – some better clarity on the modalities of how to actually implement these proposals, and that's what's happening.
Go ahead. You had a question on Ambassador Bass?
QUESTION: Yes. A couple questions. Ambassador Bass is quoted by the Turkish media in a speech as saying that Gulen was responsible for the coup. So is that accurate? Also, Turkish Government officials are quoted, saying that if Gulen is not extradited it will have a serious impact on U.S.-Turkish relations. What is the response to that?
MR KIRBY: Well, first, the answer to your first question is no, he didn't give a speech and he never said that. On the answer – in the answer to the second question, look, we've been very consistent here in everything we've said about Mr. Gulen and any potential for extradition, that that kind of a decision would have to be evidence-based; it would have to be properly processed the way it is supposed to in coordination between the State Department and the Justice Department. As I have indicated earlier, we are in receipt of some material, and that material is being analyzed right now. I don't have an update for you, and I wouldn't get ahead of what is and can be a fairly lengthy legal process.
QUESTION: Since your comment yesterday characterizing Turkey, we now have official confirmation that more than 130 Turkish media organizations have been shut down. Is – that question was asked yesterday, I think, by Arshad or somebody. Do you still consider Turkey a democracy, considering the thousands of people in detention, tens of thousands of suspects, and the arrests of journalists and 130 to 150 media organizations being shut down?
MR KIRBY: Well, let me just address the media piece of that. We're obviously deeply concerned by the reports and we're seeking additional information from Turkish authorities. As you well know and as I've said many, many times from the podium, the United States supports freedom of expression around the world. And we have concerns when any country makes a move to close down media outlets and restrict this universal value. We expect Turkish authorities to uphold their assurances that the Turkish Government will protect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
QUESTION: The Turkish officials also suggesting that Erdogan, the Turkish president, wants to put the military under his direct control, not have it as a separate entity. Would the U.S. be supportive of such a move, which would require a change in the constitution, or does this raise more concerns about his ability to wield power and to control more facets of the Turkish Government?
MR KIRBY: We've talked at length, Ros, about what's going on in Turkey. We've condemned the failed coup. We've made clear that we understand the Turkish Government has a right and a responsibility, quite frankly, to their citizens to get to the bottom of this, to investigate it, and to hold those responsible for the coup to account.
The President and Secretary Kerry have also, of course, stressed the importance to their Turkish counterparts of upholding democratic principles and the rule of law throughout this process. I've said that I'm not going to make it a habit from this podium of responding and reacting to every single decision. We've seen this in press reporting same as you, and I would leave it to Turkish authorities to describe the motives behind it.
But obviously, Turkey matters to us as a friend and an ally. Their democracy matters to us. Their success as a democracy matters to us. And so as a friend and an ally, we're going to continue to stay in close touch with Turkish authorities as they work through this.
QUESTION: Quick two questions on Turkey.
MR KIRBY: I'm guessing your question's also on this.
QUESTION: Yes. Earlier, Turkish administration announced that they will send justice minister and interior minister here for the extradition process. Do you know if that visit is still happening, or --
MR KIRBY: I don't have any updates on their – to give you, and I would point you to Turkish leaders to talk about their travel.
QUESTION: And the last one. There are still a lot of conspiracy theories or theories regarding U.S. involvement, despite the fact that --
MR KIRBY: About U.S. what?
QUESTION: U.S. involvement in the coup attempt. There are still a lot of stories every day, headlines in Turkey. Do you think that the government – Turkish Government – is doing to counter these messages, or do you think the – why do you think these blames and accusations are still continuing?
MR KIRBY: Well, I couldn't possibly begin to know the answer to that question. The people propagating the false rumors are the ones to ask. Obviously, we had no involvement in this, and any suggestion otherwise is ludicrous. But why such a rumor would still be propagated or still be able to find purchase over there, I couldn't begin to guess. We are not only an ally to Turkey, we're a friend, we're a partner, and Turkey remains a member of the coalition to counter Daesh. And we value that partnership, and as we've said all along, we're going to continue to look for ways to deepen and strengthen it going forward.
QUESTION: President Erdogan is going to Moscow next week, and there are a lot of opinion pieces and speculations that Turkey's getting closer to Russia and there may be some tensions increasing between the U.S. and Turkey, as earlier question mentioned. Do you have any comment on Turkey's getting closer to Russia, whether --
MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, as a sovereign nation, Turkey has every right to pursue bilateral relations that it believes are important and to improve and strengthen those bilateral relations that it chooses to improve and strengthen. So I'm not – we're not in – wouldn't be in a position to comment or qualify one way or another President Erdogan's travel or his discussion with foreign leaders. That's his right and responsibility; that's the right and responsibility of a sovereign nation.
What matters to us is both a bilateral and multilateral relationship that we have with Turkey: multilateral through NATO, multilateral through the coalition to counter Daesh; and, of course, the bilateral relationship that we have. And look, we've been nothing but honest and open and forthright with you right here in this briefing room about issues and things that happen in Turkey that concern us. We've also been open, candid, and forthright with Turkish leaders about those same issues, as well as – and this often doesn't get attention by you guys – but the – all the many ways in which we see eye to eye with Turkey on many things and the things that we try to work together on and try to advance, and there's a lot of those too. I understand that doesn't make headlines, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening, and it doesn't mean that it isn't happening even today as Turkey works through the aftermath of this coup, because operations against Daesh continue. Operations against Daesh out of Incirlik continue.
So there's – as there always is in a consequential bilateral relationship like the one we have with Turkey, there is a wide menu, an agenda of issues, to talk with them about. That's certainly no less true – in fact, more true, I suppose, if you want to look at it that way, in the wake of this coup attempt. And that's why Ambassador Bass is working so hard to continue the communication and the dialogue and to improve the mutual understanding that he has with his counterparts there in Ankara.
QUESTION: John, following up on that, there was a message put out by the U.S. consulate saying that there are protesters marching towards the – Incirlik demanding that it be closed. Is there any concern about what appears to be a growing march of protesters?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, Abbie, so I'm going to have to kind of go back and take a look at that. So without addressing a specific query about a protest march on Incirlik, let me just say that, again, we appreciate Turkish support for the coalition in terms of the use of the Incirlik Air Base for operations against Daesh in Syria. As I said, those operations continue, Turkish support continues, and Turkish leaders – from President Erdogan right on down to the foreign minister in his conversations with Secretary Kerry – made it very clear that there were not going to be negative developments in terms of those efforts as a result of this coup attempt. And with the exception of some temporary loss of power, which we talked about last week, they've been good to their word – that there hasn't been a degradation in coalition use of Incirlik or Turkish support for that use of Incirlik against Daesh in Syria. So again, I just don't know anything about this – the protests and I'd have to go find a little bit more out for you before I could answer specifically a question about that.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: It recently emerged that the Iraqi Government has just issued orders to make the Shiite militias, the Hashd al-Shaabi, a formal part of the Iraqi army. Among many things, the number two in the Hashd al-Shaabi and the fellow who is, in effect, its head is a designated U.S. terrorist for the role he played in attacking U.S. troops when we were there and for his close ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
So I'd like to know, what is your view of this Iraqi decision to formalize the role of the Hashd al-Shaabi?
MR KIRBY: First thing I'd say is – and as I've said before – this is an Iraqi decision. Prime Minister Abadi has been clear and he's been consistent about trying to create a more inclusive force to go after Daesh both inside the Iraqi Security Force proper and in working with Popular Mobilization Forces – not all of which, I might remind you, are influenced directly by the IRGC or by Iran. And it is the government in Baghdad – the Iraqi Government – that is and should be making decisions about the degree to which these forces are factored into actual strategy execution on the ground.
For our sake, the only other thing I'd say – and again, we've made this clear before too – is that we support those forces working under the command and control of the Iraqi Security Forces. But it is up to the Government of Iraq to decide on troop composition and on placement on the battlefield, and we're going to respect those decisions.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Well, if I could --
QUESTION: Sorry, yeah, please.
QUESTION: Yeah. So, I mean, the Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Abadi, have said that the Hashd al-Shaabi should participate in the offensive to take – retake Mosul, but others, like political leaders in Mosul – in the Mosul area, have said that's a bad idea. So is that – I mean, your view on Hashd al-Shaabi's participation in Mosul's liberation is it's okay if that's what the Iraqi Government wants? It seems that's what they want too.
MR KIRBY: What I'm saying is that these are – the composition of forces on the ground – and I'm – you're getting me into military issues that I'm really not comfortable discussing in any great detail, so I would also ask you to seek out my colleagues at the Pentagon. But what we have said consistently is this is an Iraqi campaign strategy – it has been from the start, the whole issue of going after Mosul. We are supporting that – we're advising it, obviously – and we're helping, but it's their campaign strategy. And it's the strategy, oh by the way, that they have already started to execute. And we have helped in some shaping operations in and around Mosul.
But the composition of forces in the field – that's a decision for the Iraqi Government to make and for Prime Minister Abadi to make. And he has made it clear that he's going to be as inclusive as possible, but that he – he intends to, and he has the right to reserve for himself the final decision about composition in the field. And so the degree to which Popular Mobilization Forces by any name or any affiliation are used in the campaign against Mosul, again, that's for them to decide. And our role is to support Iraqi Security Forces and the Government of Iraq as they begin to – well, they already have begun, but as they complete the job of defeating and degrading Daesh inside Iraq.
Okay.
QUESTION: Just going back to Turkey, I want to make sure I understand something that you said about Incirlik when you said there's been no degradation. Is what you are saying that the tempo of operations from Incirlik has not changed – it is as high now as it was before the attempted coup?
MR KIRBY: Obviously when there was temporary power problems, I think there was a momentary pause, and it didn't take very long for them to begin flying again. I'd point you to my colleagues at the Defense Department in terms of the actual tempo. When I said no degradation I was talking strategically from a larger perspective. I have no idea what the flights out of Incirlik are on a day-to-day basis. I suspect it changes every day based on the campaign and targets, but I'm given to understand that there's been no – as I said, there's been no degradation to operations out of Incirlik. Now, again, I can't point to every single mission. You'd have to talk to my Defense Department colleagues.
QUESTION: And then I got a couple others on Syria. You said that to the best of your knowledge there had been no consultation by the Russians with the United States about this Aleppo operation. What makes you – if they're not consulting you about things like that and if you say that with – without further clarification it appears to be a ruse, what makes you think you're likely to get a wider deal with them on Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, it's – okay, a couple things here. I wouldn't call it a wider deal. We – and we did have an agreement coming out of Moscow on a set of proposals to better enforce the cessation of hostilities so that – and let's not forget – so that Special Envoy de Mistura can have the political space he needs to get talks resumed as early as we hope – next month. And the Secretary was, I thought, extraordinarily pragmatic in the way he described it even that very night. He said, look, if these steps are implemented, and implemented in good faith, they have a real chance at seeing progress with respect to the political solution in Syria. But if they're not, then obviously we're going to have to reconsider where we are.
And so that's what's going on right now, Arshad. Our teams are discussing the modalities of these proposals and how to actually get them implemented. Those discussions are ongoing. The Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov talked about that process a little bit out at the ASEAN Regional Forum, on the sidelines of it. And we've now seen an announcement by their defense minister that they're sending additional senior officers to join those discussions. Again, all that is positive movement, but as the Secretary said himself, the proof's going to be in the pudding here and whether or not these modalities can actually be agreed to and can actually be effective.
Now, on this – the corridors in Aleppo, again, you're – again, I have no indication that there was any advance consultation on this. And as I said, without further clarification – which would indicate we didn't have clarification at the outset – it does not appear to be anything more than a demand for the surrender of opposition groups.
So it is deeply concerning to us, this announcement.
QUESTION: And one other thing. Who's going to meet with General – and I'm probably going to mispronounce this – Gajima Gomadov, who is the general whom the Russian defense minister said would be going to Geneva next week and who's going to meet with Gennady Gatilov, who he said will be leaving tomorrow?
MR KIRBY: I don't – first of all, I can't verify that those are indeed the individuals that Russia is going to send. The Russians need to speak for that. There are obviously teams from both our countries that are having these discussions, and I'm assuming the expectation would be that these gentlemen would join the Russian team in those discussions. I just don't have any more specificity in terms of the agenda or who's in the room at any given moment during the discussions.
QUESTION: But are you guys – to your knowledge, are you planning to send any other senior officials from the U.S. side?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any additional officials that would be sent.
QUESTION: And who's leading the talks from the U.S. side?
MR KIRBY: It's – certainly our Special Envoy Michael Ratney is involved in this, as is, of course, Brett McGurk, but I don't have a roster of everybody that's that – that's at these meetings.
Yes, in the back there.
QUESTION: Different regions. One, Venezuela. Do you have any reaction or comment to the former Guantanamo detainee that resurfaced in Venezuela?
MR KIRBY: I've seen those reports, but I'm not in a position to confirm them.
QUESTION: And do you have any comment on North Korea saying that the U.S. has crossed a red line and declared war?
MR KIRBY: I think what I would say is the same thing we've said – that it's time for the DPRK to cease rhetoric and to cease actions that only serve to destabilize the peninsula and do nothing to improve the lives of the North Korean people.
Okay, one more.
QUESTION: Hillary Clinton emails. Do you --
MR KIRBY: So glad I asked for one more. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: You had stated that you had received an initial batch of emails from the – or documents from the FBI that they had recovered in the course of their investigation. Are you expecting another set of documents?
QUESTION: Batch from the Russians? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Another set? I don't have anything to speak to today. We have received a batch that we're still going through. I can't rule out that there won't be additional documents given to us by the FBI, but I'm going to have – I just don't have any – anything new to say on that. I mean, we have received some that we're still going through.
QUESTION: So you don't have a – any numbers that you could say as far as pages that have been provided or --
MR KIRBY: Again, we're still going through the batch that was provided to us, and again, I just don't have more detail right now.
QUESTION: Two quick ones, if I may?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Did you – and I don't know if you were asked about this and I missed it, but there's a report that an American citizen of Bangladeshi descent was killed in Bangladesh. Can you confirm that report?
MR KIRBY: I have seen reports that a U.S. citizen was killed in a police raid in Dhaka. We understand that there's an ongoing law enforcement investigation on the matter, and so I'd refer you to local authorities for more detail on that.
QUESTION: Really? So you can't even confirm that a U.S. citizen was killed?
MR KIRBY: I can only confirm that we've seen reports that a U.S. citizen was killed in a police raid in Dhaka.
QUESTION: Aren't you trying to find out?
MR KIRBY: And out of respect for the privacy of those affected --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- we're going to decline further comment.
QUESTION: And then one other one – or two other ones. China says it's pressing ahead with its own missile defense system. Do you have any views on that? And at the same time, do you have any views on China's statement that it plans to hold drills with Russia in the South China Sea?
MR KIRBY: We're certainly aware of the statement from China's ministry of national defense. We continue to carefully monitor China's military modernization and to encourage China to exhibit transparency with respect to its capabilities and its intentions. We encourage China to use its military capabilities in a manner conducive to the maintenance of peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region.
Now, as to the exercises, we have seen their announcement of joint exercises. And again, as we've said many times, I mean, militaries – part of the obligation of national defense establishments are to exercise and to try to improve capabilities. And we do that. We do that bilaterally with many nations. China has been invited, as you know, to participate – or was invited to participate in the recent RIMPAC exercise. Some of our exercises are bilateral, some are multilateral, and they're certainly – it's certainly to be expected that China and Russia would also pursue multilateral or bilateral training opportunities. But just as we do for ourselves in our training exercise and operations, we would expect that those exercises comply with international obligations and international law.
QUESTION: You don't think it raises tensions for them to do that in the South China Sea?
MR KIRBY: The physical act of exercising doesn't – there's no need for it to raise tensions. Exercises and operations are meant to hone capabilities. It doesn't have to be that way. It really depends on the way it's conducted. And as I said, our expectation is that these exercises and operations, like ours, would be conducted in accordance with international obligations and law.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:32 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
