Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 2, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SINGAPORE
C5+1 MINISTERIAL
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
IRAN
SYRIA
IRAQ
LIBYA
TURKEY
BRAZIL
TRANSCRIPT:
12:22 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Matthew.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: Welcome back.
QUESTION: Thank you. Same to you.
MR KIRBY: Thank you. Guys, I'm going to have to be a little quick today because we have, I think you know, the State lunch here with Prime Minister Lee, so we're going to try to get done here by about 1:00 if possible.
On that topic, I think you probably saw events at the White House, but today the President is hosting Prime Minister Lee of Singapore for an official visit and State dinner. They will celebrate, of course, the close and longstanding relationship between Singapore and the United States that has served as an anchor for the U.S. rebalance to Asia, marking the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations. The President and the prime minister will highlight the enduring principles that have inspired the tremendous growth in our cooperation. And of course, as partners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the counter-ISIL coalition and the Paris climate agreement, the two leaders will discuss how our relationship can continue to address international challenges and advance a rules-based order in the Asia Pacific region. And I think you know we're hosting – co-hosting a State lunch here at the State Department in just less than an hour from now.
For tomorrow, the Secretary, Secretary Kerry, will host the foreign ministers from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan for the second C5+1 ministerial meeting. And we welcome the Central Asian delegations to Washington and congratulate the five states as they approach their 25th anniversaries of independence. The group will be continuing the talks they began in Samarkand last November during Secretary Kerry's historic trip to Central Asia, and they will focus on issues of economic connectivity, regional security, environmental – I'm sorry, environment and climate change, and of course, humanitarian issues.
Finally, just a programming note. The Secretary will be traveling to Buenos Aires, Argentina beginning tomorrow and through Thursday. In Argentina he will meet with Argentine President Mauricio Macri to discuss cooperation on regional and global issues. He and the foreign minister, Foreign Minister Malcorra, will launch the U.S.-Argentina High-Level Dialogue to address pressing global challenges, including bilateral, regional, multilateral, and economic issues. While there he's also going to meet with the Argentine-American Chamber of Commerce to discuss U.S.-Argentine commercial engagement and trade. There may be another stop on this trip, but I suspect we won't have more on that until a little bit later today.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. I don't have anything huge, but I just wanted to run – have you seen – are you aware of the latest comments that the supreme leader of Iran has made about the nuclear deal and the fact that the United States has not lived up to its end of it – end of its – end of its – to its end of the deal? Which is not a new complaint, but --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- what he said that is new is basically that you guys can't be trusted on anything now. What do you – do you make anything of that?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the comments. And as we've said before, I'm not – we're not going to respond to every bit of rhetoric out of Iran on the JCPOA. That said, we still assess that they're meeting their obligations under the JCPOA, and we're meeting ours. And it's our intention to continue to meet our obligations and our commitments under the JCPOA because we believe it's that important, because we believe it can have a stabilizing influence on the region and indeed on the world. And so where the Secretary's focus is is on doing just that – making sure that we stay in compliance, and, of course, to watch as Iran continues to meet its commitments.
QUESTION: Okay. And then specifically on --
MR KIRBY: And by the way, I think you said something about not trusting us, right?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Again, this has never been about trust; it's been about verification and a very strict regimen of being able to verify their compliance. So with all due respect to the supreme leader's comments, nothing about the deal has ever been based just on trust.
QUESTION: With all due respect toward the supreme leader's comments?
MR KIRBY: To his comments.
QUESTION: Not to him?
MR KIRBY: To his comments.
QUESTION: To his comments only? But just then on that point though, I think what – from his perspective, or from the Iranian perspective, they're saying that we only negotiated on the nuclear deal and we're not going to be involved in anything else, because you can't be trusted, as you've proven, allegedly, on the nuclear deal. And yet you continue to, the Secretary continues to, try to bring Iran into the Syria conversation, or have brought them in and continue to. So that will continue? You don't see any reason to stop?
MR KIRBY: Well, I know of no changes in Iranian plans with respect to the International Syria Support Group. They are a member; it's our expectation that they'll remain a member and remain part of that conversation on Syria. But obviously, that's a sovereign decision that they would have to make. I'm not aware of any changes to it.
QUESTION: Okay. And then my last one is – this is more specifically toward the Iran deal itself: Have you seen the new calculations from the good ISIS, as it is known?
MR KIRBY: What?
QUESTION: David Albright's group, ISIS?
MR KIRBY: Oh, no.
QUESTION: That based on the – Iran's long-term R&D, the document that they submitted to the IAEA, they have calculated that, unlike a calculation that the AP made, that the breakout time after year 13 would not be six months but would rather be four months. Have you seen that? And if you have, do you have any comment on what you think about it?
MR KIRBY: I've not seen it, Matt. And as far as I know, nothing has changed about our own assessments and the assessments made by the P5+1 in the negotiations about breakout time. I just don't have anything more on that.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: There is a report quoting a Syrian rescue service that operates in rebel-held territory in Syria that a helicopter dropped containers of a toxic gas on a town close to where the Russian helicopter went down yesterday. Do you have any clarity on what may have happened there, whether a toxic chemical was used, and if so, whether it might be a substance banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention?
MR KIRBY: We've seen reports as well, Arshad, and I'm not in a position to confirm the veracity of them. Obviously, we're looking into it as best we can with partners in the region. And certainly, if it's true – and again, I'm not saying it is – but if it's true, it would be extremely serious. We've long expressed our strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons on civilians, which, of course, violates not only the cessation of hostilities but international standards and norms, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which the Government of Syria is a member and two – as well as two UN Security Council resolutions, 2118 and 2209. So again, I'm not in a position to confirm. We're taking it seriously. We're looking into it and we'll see.
Now, as you also, I think, know from prior reports of the potential use of – and I know you're not saying this was chlorine; neither am I, but the alleged use of chlorine – the OPCW has the monitoring – the responsibility for that, and those investigations can take quite some time to try to actually determine what happened. But obviously, it's a serious report and we're certainly concerned about it.
QUESTION: Chlorine, of course, is not a banned substance.
MR KIRBY: It's not. But if it – as a substance it's not because it has industrial purposes. But if it's used as a weapon, it still is considered a violation.
QUESTION: John, could I just follow up on this? Now, you're saying "if true." Those – the civil defense forces or the white helmets, as they are known, and first of all, is the United States in any way involved in training them, financing them, funding them, or anything like this?
MR KIRBY: Funding who?
QUESTION: These groups. This group. The civil defense forces providing --
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any --
QUESTION: You're not aware.
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any connection.
QUESTION: How do you – how do you – how will you know whether it is true or not? I mean, do you ask the --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, it's the --
QUESTION: -- these groups to submit evidence?
QUESTION: It's – as I said before, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, has a fact-finding mission, and it's their job to investigate all credible allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. If the mission determines that a specific incident in Syria involved or likely involved the use of chemicals as weapons, then the incident will be – I'm sorry, I'm trying to go too fast. The incident will be referred to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism which is established under Security Council Resolution 2235 to identify those that were involved for further investigation.
So there's a process here. OPCW owns that process.
QUESTION: In the Secretary's statement yesterday when he called on the Russians and the Syrians to stop their offensive or bombardments and so on, and in turn the United States will also lean or call on the opposition groups to stop whatever activity they do – how will you influence these opposition groups? They keep morphing into something else every other day, and they are – they take on different identities. How are you going to basically influence them?
MR KIRBY: We have been in touch with opposition groups from the onset, and what the Secretary was referring to yesterday was his intention to make sure that we maintain that contact going forward. I mean, he was referring simply to the fact that we know we have a responsibility on groups we influence. We want other nations who have influence on other opposition groups to use that appropriately as well to try to get the cessation of hostilities to actually be stable and to be enforced. But the Russians too have an obligation, and he's been very clear about their obligations here, not just as co-chairs of the task force, not just as co-leads of the ISSG, but because they have a unique relationship with the regime in Syria.
QUESTION: And finally, do you think that it is doable by the end of August for the talks to start, as Mr. de Mistura --
MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly hope so, Said. I mean, that's really not – I don't think anybody can predict it, but the special envoy did suggest that he was going to try to get the next round started before the end of August. The Secretary supports that goal and that effort. And that's why I think, back to what he said yesterday, we're – we have teams that are working so hard, a U.S. team and a Russia team working so hard right now to try to get the technicalities worked out of these proposals to better enforce the cessation of hostilities. Because we both know that that was a big reason why the previous three rounds didn't work, because the cessation was not being observed.
Okay.
QUESTION: John, Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we just stay on this?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: So really after the – everyone was under the impression that after the August 1st, if there wasn't a transition process in place or at least talks going on, that there was going to be some kind of a change in how you approach this. Clearly that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that right?
MR KIRBY: I don't know – I think some people – I've seen some reporting on this that would suggest that there was some sort of gauntlet thrown down about August 1st, and that's just not the case. It was not a deadline. It was a target date. It wasn't just the United States. The Russians also – when that date was rolled out as a target date, it was in Moscow, and the Secretary was standing next to Foreign Minister Lavrov, who also agreed that the 1st of August was a good date to be looking at, not just – and they didn't just pull it out of thin air. It was – if you look at the timeline or the process that was codified in the UN Security Council resolution, it would lead you to say that August was the timeframe when a framework for a transitioning governing body was to be established.
QUESTION: Yes, but --
MR KIRBY: Now, wait now. I'm getting there. Hang on a second. This is all important pretext. But --
QUESTION: Okay. I thought you said you wanted to be done by 1:00.
MR KIRBY: Well, I do. I do. I can get this --
QUESTION: We can go back through all four years of this.
MR KIRBY: I can get this answer done by 1:00, I promise you.
QUESTION: But my question is very, very simple, though. You said that it – you said it – that the August 1 date didn't appear out of – just didn't come out of thin air. But it appears to have gone into thin air now.
MR KIRBY: No, not at all.
QUESTION: Yeah, it certainly does, John.
MR KIRBY: Not at all, Matt. I mean, look, we got --
QUESTION: We only have 24 --
QUESTION: Right. Okay.
QUESTION: 1:00 p.m. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: We have – I mean, we have the potential of a resumption of political talks here in August. We have two teams that are working very, very hard, between the United States and Russia, to try to get some of these technicalities worked out. What the Secretary said then and what he said again yesterday was, in essence, our patience is not infinite. And we have, in the past, thought through alternatives to this preferred diplomatic approach, and we will continue, as a government, to continue to look at alternatives and options. But if you're asking has, as of today, August 2nd, the strategy changed, the answer is no. And the Secretary still believes that the efforts that we've got these teams working on are worthwhile and that, as he said in Moscow a week or so ago, if fully implemented and in good faith, they have a real possibility of getting the cessation of hostilities to be enforceable nationwide.
QUESTION: What's the new date now?
MR KIRBY: Hmm?
QUESTION: What's the new date? Any other date?
MR KIRBY: I don't have a new date for you. And again, August 1st was a target; it wasn't a deadline.
QUESTION: What's the new target? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to throw out a new target. The Secretary said yesterday we're working hard on this with the Russians. We're mindful of the failures of the past to see the cessation of hostilities be enforced. And we're certainly mindful, as we work on this, of special de Mistura – Special Envoy de Mistura's goal of trying to get the talks resumed in the end of August. So we're going to keep working at it, and we'll see where it goes.
QUESTION: Kirby, the Secretary yesterday said that if – he said we're trying to arrive at that – that being disrupting the cycle of violence and getting the Russians to refrain from their own attacks and to restrain the Syrian Government from offensive actions. And he said, quote, "If we can't, nobody's going to sit around and allow this pretense to continue," closed quote. What did he mean by that?
MR KIRBY: I think he was referring to the fact that we have seen the regime, time and time again in the past, say they were going to do something and not do it. We have seen, time and time again in the past, the Russians claim that they were going to use their influence on the Assad regime to bring about a certain outcome – humanitarian access, cessation violations, support to a political process. And there have been times where they have not made – met their own commitments in that regard. So that's what he referring to. I mean --
QUESTION: Is he going to drop the diplomatic pretense at some point?
MR KIRBY: I'm not – again, I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals here. I think the Secretary was very clear. Again, the point he was trying to make is that our patience isn't infinite here for this approach that we've been trying to pursue.
QUESTION: In a sense, it doesn't have to be infinite though. I mean, your patience can just extend for six months till the end of this Administration.
MR KIRBY: I couldn't – I'm not going to predict that, Arshad. And I rather take issue with the notion – and I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but just let me put it out there – that the work the Secretary's doing to try to bring peace about in Syria is driven by the electoral calendar here in the United States. He's mindful, of course, that we have an election coming and he's mindful that the Administration has roughly six more months in office, and he knows that. But that's not what's driving his sense of urgency to try to get something done, to try to make progress in Syria. What's driving his sense of urgency, quite frankly, are reports such as what you cited today, which, again, we can't confirm, but if true are very, very troubling. It's more and more Syrians are being killed, maimed, injured, forced to flee by their own government, and that's simply unacceptable.
QUESTION: Is it conceivable to you that U.S. patience or that this Administration's patience will run out before it leaves office?
MR KIRBY: I don't honestly know the answer to that, and I don't think the Secretary knows the answer to that. I have said before, and I think you could hear it in his voice yesterday, that he is increasingly frustrated by the situation on the ground.
QUESTION: Can you comment on the humanitarian corridors that – the UN's saying that they ought to be under the auspices of the UN. The Russians are saying we can make – facilitate those human – in Aleppo.
MR KIRBY: The UN.
QUESTION: Yeah, UN. Yeah. You think – do you have --
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't have anything additional to say. We talked about this last week. Our point is --
QUESTION: But now it seems to be people and fighters and so on that are actually taking advantage and leaving the city.
MR KIRBY: Well, those are tough decisions that those individuals have to make in terms of whether they're going to use those humanitarian corridors to leave. We're concerned that when they do that there's not a sufficient infrastructure to support them out there as displaced persons internally in Syria.
But the point, Said, is – and this hasn't changed – that they shouldn't have to flee. They shouldn't have to make that choice, because there's already requirements – international requirements for the Syrian Government to provide humanitarian access and support to their own people, and that's – that hasn't been happening in a sustained, unimpeded way as the assault on Aleppo continues. And if the cessation of hostilities was being observed by the regime, then there would be no need for a humanitarian corridor in the first place.
QUESTION: And just so you know, you can announce the other stop on the trip.
MR KIRBY: Well, let me wait for Elizabeth to get back, but thank you.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Let me go to you and then we'll go to you.
QUESTION: Turkey.
MR KIRBY: Okay. I can't keep track of so – just one at a time, guys. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. At the Aspen meetings last week or over the weekend, the CIA Director John Brennan said, quote, "We're still a long way from a situation in which," quote, "the bulk of the people" – and he's referring to Iraq and Syria – "view their country as representative." Would you agree or disagree with that statement, that characterization? If you disagree, why would – why do you disagree with the CIA view?
MR KIRBY: That sounds like a question from my history exam in college. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, how – is it --
MR KIRBY: If not, why not. Listen, I'm going to let the – I'm going to let the director speak for his knowledge of views. I'm not a pollster. I don't – I couldn't possibly speak with any expertise about the opinions of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
This is what I can speak to, and this is what I do know, that we continue to support Prime Minister Abadi as he continues to work through political reforms and to try to form a more inclusive, more effective, more efficient government in Iraq – oh, by the way, fighting a major presence inside his own borders of a terrorist group, Daesh. So there's an awful lot on his plate. There's an awful lot on the plate of the Iraqi Government. We're going to continue to support them as they continue to work through these issues.
And he has made progress. There is no question, when you look at Iraqi Security Forces, that they are more inclusive, that their battlefield competence is rising, in many ways because we're helping with that mission on the ground, and that they have been effective on the ground against Daesh in many places throughout Iraq: Fallujah, Tikrit – I mean, you could go on and on – Baiji.
So we're committed to this effort, alongside our Iraqi partners, and we're going to do everything that we do in Iraq with their consultation, with their permission, with their support going forward.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. view the legacy of sectarianism from the Maliki government something that it has to help the Abadi government deal with, to encourage them and help them – help Abadi deal with that legacy of sectarianism?
MR KIRBY: Look, certainly we've talked about this, that one of the reasons that we believe Daesh was able to be so effective two years ago going through Mosul was they went up against Iraqi Security Forces that had not been properly maintained in leadership, in resources, in training and equipment, and an Iraqi Security Force that Prime Minister Maliki paid little heed to when it came to making it more pluralistic and non-sectarian and inclusive. And so when Prime Minister Abadi came into office, I mean, he knew that that was a problem he was inheriting, and he has made strides to try to improve that. And we've seen it on the ground; we've seen it in Baghdad. We're going to continue to support him as he works through that.
But look, nobody also ever expected the challenges facing him to be solved overnight. Again, he's trying to do – anything that – take Daesh out of the picture and the tasks before him are still daunting. They're – I mean, given what he inherited and the turmoil that Iraq has gone through for so long, then you add Daesh into the picture and you can see that there is an awful lot of work that still needs to be done. And we're mindful of that. We're committed to standing with him as he does that, as he works through that.
QUESTION: Libya?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Not so long ago, commander of U.S. forces in Africa at his confirmation hearing – Thomas Waldhauser – said that he did not know what the overall strategy in Libya was. What is the overall strategy in Libya? It appears that with the Libyan Government not being able to fight terrorists on its own, the U.S. will be there for a long time. What is the U.S. doing not to be there for a long time?
MR KIRBY: Well, let me challenge a couple of the notions in your question, but I'll do it this way: The strategy in Libya continues to be to support the Government of National Accord and a – and the political process that Prime Minister al-Sarraj is trying to put in place to, again, form an effective unity government. And we continue to believe that the best path forward for the Libyan people is a political path and political solutions, and our support to the prime minister remains steadfast and sure.
The strikes that you're talking about in the last couple of days – and they were airstrikes; there was no U.S. footprint on the ground here – they were airstrikes and they were done at the specific request of the prime minister and the Government of National Accord to go after Daesh targets inside Libya.
QUESTION: The overall strategy is to support the GNA, the GNA moving forward?
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: Well, the GNA has been having a very difficult time unifying the country. There is this parallel government in Tobruk, and just a few days ago the parliament in Tobruk refused to vote – refused to hold a vote of confidence in the GNA. So at a time when the GNA is having a difficult time unifying the country, do you think UN backing and now U.S. military support could give a green light to give a sort of a signal to the GNA to crack down on parts of the country that won't go along with it?
MR KIRBY: Well, we're not interested in seeing a crackdown, to use your phrase. We're interested in seeing the GNA succeed, and we're going to support the prime minister in his efforts to do just that. And to the other parties --
QUESTION: But it may happen.
MR KIRBY: To the other parties that you're talking about, we continue to call on them to support the GNA. The responsibility is on them to support the GNA as the international community is supporting the GNA. That's the path forward here; that's the best thing for all Libyans. And so to the degree that they want to obstruct, delay, obfuscate, and make more difficult the work of the GNA, then we're just – we're going to continue to call on them to cease those activities and support the GNA. That's the way forward.
And as – and this is a political solution that we're seeking, not a military one. But the President has been clear – President Obama has been clear – that where and when we're able to degrade and defeat Daesh, we're going to do it. Now, these strikes were done at the specific request of the GNA, and I suspect you'll see that kind of communication and consultation going forward. It wasn't the first time that we did strikes against Daesh targets in Libya and it may not be the last.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. arming or planning to arm forces under the control of the GNA?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such plans.
QUESTION: What about U.S. ground troops? Are there plans to deploy troops in Libya to fight against ISIL?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to the Defense Department, but I am aware of no such plans. Again, we're seeking political solutions in Libya. This is a – the strikes you saw yesterday were very much in keeping with the same approach that we've taken in Iraq and that we have tried to take in Syria, which is supporting ground forces – indigenous ground forces to fight against Daesh. So I'm not aware of any change in those plans at all from a military perspective and no – not aware of any effort or desire or intent to put U.S. forces in a combat role on the ground in Libya. This is about supporting indigenous ground forces, as we've done elsewhere.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up? A quick follow --
QUESTION: Do you reject the Russians' claims that you are acting illegally? They claim that you are acting illegally.
MR KIRBY: The --
QUESTION: The Russians.
MR KIRBY: Well, I've seen the claims. It's just false. There was a legal authority to do this in terms of our counterterrorism role. And again, I would remind you, Said, it was a specific request by the GNA and Prime Minister al-Sarraj to conduct these strikes.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkey President Erdogan is now saying that Turkey's friends are standing with terrorists and coup plotters. His government has now, it says, submitted a second document to the United States explaining why Gulen needs to be immediately arrested. And there's a delegation of Turkish lawmakers in town visiting Justice, DHS, and over here. I'm wondering if you've got anything to respond to these comments, especially about that – if – essentially, they're saying if the United States doesn't hand over Gulen, then the United States is supporting terrorists and coup plotters and it could endanger the strategic alliance.
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I think, again, we very strongly condemn the failed coup. We've strongly rejected any attempt to overthrow democracy in Turkey. And we support, as we've said from the very beginning, the democratically elected government there. Turkey remains a NATO ally. They remain a key partner in the coalition to defeat Daesh. I think you saw that General Dunford, the Joint Chiefs chairman, was just recently there and had good, constructive meetings and came out of those meetings and publicly commented about the positive tone of those discussions. Incirlik remains open to U.S. aircraft to conduct strikes against Daesh in Syria and we look for that cooperation to continue.
We're mindful that this was a serious coup attempt and that Turkey has put in place measures to investigate and to try to bring those responsible to account. All along, from the very beginning, we've also urged and encouraged our friend Turkey, as they do this, to observe rule of law and to preserve confidence in their own democratic institutions. And we're going to stay committed to that partnership going forward.
So I've seen lots of comments out there, and again, just like before, I'm not going to respond to every bit of rhetoric. But again, I can assure you that Turkey has no better friend than the United States. We want to see Turkey emerge from this strong and democratic and surefooted.
QUESTION: But you mentioned General Dunford's visit and his comments and his message to the Turkish officials that he spoke with.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And you talked about how he spoke of a positive tone of these discussions, and yet less than a day afterwards, the president of the country – not the joint – not the Turkish joint chiefs chairman, not the Turkish prime minister, but the president of the country, the commander-in-chief makes these comments. Does that not dishearten you at all? I mean, is this message – this message that you guys are trying to send doesn't seem to be getting through. Isn't that --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can't --
QUESTION: Isn't that a problem?
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for President Erdogan or his comments. I can only speak for us and --
QUESTION: I know. Aren't you – and my – so my question is: What – are you not – does this not dishearten you? Does it not make you – annoy you or bother you that your good friend, ally, democratically elected President Erdogan that your – send your Joint Chiefs of – chairman of your Joint Chiefs of Staff over there to make nice with his people and to explain your position, and yet the next day, he comes out and trashes you again?
MR KIRBY: Well, look --
QUESTION: That's not a problem?
MR KIRBY: Matt, what matters is the partnership that we have with Turkey going forward, and certainly in the practical, tangible ways that partnership can be realized such as going after Daesh in Syria and the support that we continue to get from Turkey in that regard.
President Erdogan, as the sovereign head of state of the Government of Turkey, is certainly free to express his views and his frustrations as he sees fit. We respect his right to do that. We've also been open and honest that even before the coup, we didn't agree with Turkey on everything. So we're going to stay committed to having the dialogue going forward, and that dialogue is happening. I mean, our ambassador, John Bass, is still working hard every day in Ankara to reach out to his counterparts and to talk about these developments as they go forward.
QUESTION: Do you know anything about the second document that was mentioned that the Turks have talked --
MR KIRBY: No, I have not heard about a second document. And again, I'd refer you to Justice Department on all questions about extradition.
QUESTION: But President Erdogan is going to Moscow in one week. Do you read anything in this visit?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to President Erdogan about his travel habits and his plans. I don't know. I mean, again, sovereign heads of state are – have every right and responsibility to conduct bilateral relations as they see fit.
QUESTION: One more on this, if I may.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: President Erdogan is quoted, at least in our story, as saying, "I'm calling on the United States: what kind of strategic partners are we that you can still host someone whose extradition I have asked for?" Do you regard the – what you are aware of as so far having been transmitted by the Turks – I'm not asking about the second batch, if there was a second document. Do you regard that as an extradition request?
MR KIRBY: As I understand it – and now I'm getting into an area really that it's not for the State Department to comment on. So I'm going to obviously refer you to Justice. But as I understand it, they are in receipt of documents. I do not know how many; I do not know in what number of batches they've come in, nor do I know the content. And as I understand it, they are still analyzing those documents, and I don't believe that a judgment is made one way or the other yet in terms of whether it's formal extradition.
I do want to make two points --
QUESTION: Formal extradition request.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: Yep.
MR KIRBY: Yes. A couple of points. It can be, as I said before, a lengthy legal process, the task of extradition. And as you know, we don't typically make it a habit of speaking to specific cases. Now, this one was obviously unique, given the circumstances. It was unavoidable that we would have to address it, given the very public calls for it by the Government of Turkey. So we have had to do that. But I don't want to set an expectation up that we're going to be able to give you a blow-by-blow of the process as it works its way through.
QUESTION: Well, except that they keep yelling about it and talking about it in public, and if that forced you to talk about it the first time, I think it – you're going to have to – you're going to keep getting the question, whether you're prepared to answer it or not.
MR KIRBY: No, I'm --
QUESTION: Anyone else has --
MR KIRBY: -- fully prepared – look, I know I'm going to get – continue to get the question. But again, it's a process, and we're going to try to preserve the sanctity of it. And while I understand that it's going to keep coming up here, I just want to set the expectations as low as possible that I'm going to be able to provide a very detailed rundown every single day of the progress of it.
QUESTION: You succeeded.
QUESTION: Two very quick questions.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, you're going to have to be real quick, because I got to get going.
QUESTION: Very quick. Today also President Erdogan said there has not been a single Western officials visited me after General Dunford. I was wondering if you have any visitors going to Turkey from U.S. Government any time soon.
MR KIRBY: I don't have any other travel to speak to, other than the chairman's trip --
QUESTION: And second very quick question is that it has almost been three weeks since the coup attempt, and you said that you want Turkey to observe the rule of law. Do you think so far Turkey's action not --
MR KIRBY: I've also said I'm not going to characterize every action that they take. I'm not going to start doing that today. We – our ambassador, John Bass, is working very closely with his counterparts in Ankara, talking through what the developments are and the decisions that the government is making. And I'm going to leave it there for today.
I do have – Matt was right, and I can now --
QUESTION: Oh.
MR KIRBY: I know --
QUESTION: I'm going to put that on a loop --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely. I think --
QUESTION: -- and have it play continually. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I'm going to have a cake tonight in your honor, because I – for you to be right. But the President did announce today that the designation of a presidential delegation to attend the opening ceremony of the 2016 Olympic Summer Games in Rio, the – that the opening ceremonies would be held on the 5th of August; the delegation will attend athletic events, meet with U.S. athletes, and attend the opening ceremony. The Secretary will be leading that delegation. And then the White House put out a list of the rest of the delegation members. I'll refer you to their press release on that.
And with that, have a great afternoon. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Bon appetit.
(The briefing was concluded at 12:59 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
