UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Military

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 4, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL
UNITED KINGDOM
IRAN
ARGENTINA
TURKEY
IRAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
INDIA/PAKISTAN
SYRIA/JORDAN
CHINA
SYRIA/RUSSIA
JAPAN
URUGUAY
SYRIA/RUSSIA
PAKISTAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
PAKISTAN/AFGHANISTAN
CHINA/CENTRAL ASIA REGION

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:39 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hi guys. Happy Thursday.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: And what makes it even more special is it's a Thursday in August, which means tomorrow – everybody want to join with me?

QUESTION: No briefing --

MR TONER: True to our tradition, there will be – thank you, Matt – no briefing.

QUESTION: There will be one.

MR TONER: What was that, Said?

QUESTION: There will be a briefing. An old one.

MR TONER: An old briefing. (Laughter.) Anyway, welcome to the State Department. I think we have some interns in the back. Welcome. Good to see you in this exercise in transparency in democracy. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Is that what it is? (Laughter.) I thought it was a --

MR TONER: Sorry, I didn't mean to break out in laughter. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I thought it was an exercise in spin and obfuscation.

MR TONER: All right. Can you tell this is my last briefing before vacation? Anyway.

Okay, let's start. So just at the top, I did want to briefly mention the U.S. Secretary of State was in Argentina today. He did meet with Argentine President Macri. They also – he also met, rather, with the local American Chamber of Commerce and will, of course, as always, meet with the personnel and families from the U.S. embassy there.

He did meet with the foreign minister earlier today. They launched the High-Level Dialogue to strengthen a bilateral partnership that is rooted in common values, principles, and interests. And as part of the dialogue, Secretary Kerry also met with Foreign Minister Malcorra as well as the Argentine ministers of production and energy. They discussed economic reform priorities, trade and investment energy – or rather, trade and investment, energy, and bilateral cooperation in support of Argentina's reintegration into the international financial community and sustainable economic growth in both our countries.

I'll leave it there and over to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. Just very briefly, do you have anything more you can say about this American woman who was killed in the attack in London?

MR TONER: Not a whole lot more. You saw the Secretary passed on our deepest condolences to the victims and families of those who were killed or injured in last night's attack. As you know, we did confirm the death of a U.S. citizen, and there are reports, of course – many of you have reported that there is another U.S. citizen who was injured in that attack. We, as always, stand ready to provide all possible consular assistance to the families of the victims.

I can't, because of privacy considerations, share any additional information at this time.

QUESTION: Have the Brits given you any indication – more than what they have said in public – about what was behind it?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no. They're – obviously, the investigation continues, and they've spoken to at least their initial findings.

QUESTION: Okay, all right.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And then also, while he was in – or still is in BA, the Secretary was asked about the Iran --

MR TONER: He was.

QUESTION: -- the transfer. And basically repeated what you guys and the White House said yesterday --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- about it not being a ransom. But, so in keeping with your opening statement pledge to be --

MR TONER: I knew that would come back to haunt me.

QUESTION: -- that this is an – that this is an exercise in transparency in democracy, can you – do you have a better idea about why you can't get in to discuss the details of how this 400 million was sent?

MR TONER: Sure. So I did ask this question. And look, bottom line is that we generally make a practice of not commenting publicly on the details of these kinds of transactions such as settlement payments. We don't normally even identify the parties involved, and that's just due to the confidential nature of these transactions. But --

QUESTION: Well, wait a second.

MR TONER: And I recognize that a lot of – a lot of details have been shared off the record.

QUESTION: You guys shared them back in January.

MR TONER: Well, we did acknowledge that --

QUESTION: You announced the entire settlement. It wasn't as if you could keep quiet.

MR TONER: Well, we did acknowledge the settlement, but the details is what I'm saying, how these transactions are carried out.

QUESTION: So you're still not prepared today to confirm --

MR TONER: I'm not prepared to confirm that.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me just make the point that that doesn't seem very transparent.

MR TONER: And your point is well taken.

QUESTION: Okay. So despite the fact that the Administration – Administration officials – including you, including the Secretary, including your colleague at the White House – are saying over and over and over again that this wasn't a ransom payment, that question or that case continues to be made by many, many people – not just people who are necessarily critics of the Iran deal, but by others as well. And so do you acknowledge at least the appearance of --

MR TONER: Well, and I think I spoke to this yesterday --

QUESTION: -- of ransom --

MR TONER: Sure. Well, I mean, look. I mean, first of all, a couple of thoughts on that. One is – and I spoke to this yesterday. I thought I did, at least. The optics --

QUESTION: You did. But the thing is that it did not put this to rest. And when you come out and talk about transparency but – and then say you're – you expect people to just take you at your word, which is fair enough, that this wasn't a ransom payment, and yet it persists. So people aren't taking you at your word – not you personally but the Administration in general.

MR TONER: No, I understand that, Matt. I understand that. I mean, look. I mean, I will acknowledge or I will admit – and I think that this was – there was, as we've all talked about, whether at the White House or the Secretary or myself, that there were several lines of effort ongoing that came – that culminated at the same time. Part of that was because we had these – as I said, the space that was opened up by the negotiations, that we had the maneuvering room, if you will, to close out this ongoing settlement dispute.

But the idea that this was all orchestrated as part of some kind of quid pro quo is just not accurate. And the reason is is that the settlements team, they were toiling in that vineyard separate and apart from the other negotiations that were ongoing for, as I said, years if not decades before on some of these settlement issues. But we were – and we saw an opportunity to close out this settlement case as part of this – as I said, as part of the implementation day agreement, or reaching implementation day, rather.

And at the same time, we were working the release of these detainees. I recognize, I can see, the optics of this and that people would draw assumptions. People do. We can't keep them from doing so, but it's just not true that there's any linkage.

QUESTION: Well, there's – okay. Well, there's a report – I'm sure you saw it last night – that the Justice Department had issues with this and said that it would look --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- even if it wasn't technically per se a ransom, it would give that perception. And it's hard not to see that if it is viewed by the receiving party as a ransom or a quid pro quo, how it isn't.

MR TONER: Well, again, we talked about this yesterday – I thought, at least. A couple points to make on that. One is there's always an interagency discussion around any decision like this, and every relevant agency weighs in. And I think I said yesterday that, of course, we were aware of the optics surrounding this and the fact that people might draw that conclusion. But it was – we felt it was in our national security interest, as well as in the interest of the American taxpayers, to save them what could have been billions of dollars had this gone to settlement or adjudication. We felt it was prudent to act and to seize the moment.

But that's not to say that this – these – all of these aspects weren't discussed within the interagency process. And I think the Justice Department has spoken to this as well. But as the – I think the article that you're referring to seemed to allege that somehow we overruled these other agencies, and I --

QUESTION: The State Department doesn't have that much pull? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I don't want to underestimate our – the weight we pull, but I can assure you that it's a consultative process. And it's --

QUESTION: Well, in the consultative process – and I realize you probably weren't involved in it --

MR TONER: We can't overrule --

QUESTION: -- did anyone say that, "Hey, maybe" --

MR TONER: We just can't overrule other agencies. We don't – but it is – as I said, it's a discussion.

QUESTION: Okay, that's good to know. So if I want to cover power in Washington, what building should I be at?

MR TONER: We'll talk about that off the record. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: But wait, I just want – (laughter) – last question. This'll be the last one.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: The – so in all of the interagency discussion --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and knowing that you probably weren't directly involved in that discussion, but from what you know of it, was there anyone out there that said, hey, maybe it would be best, if we want to avoid this perception – which you knew was going to happen – to wait a little bit on making this delivery?

MR TONER: So I'll leave it at this – with this, that this decision was thoroughly vetted through the interagency process. We looked at all the pros and cons of it, and ultimately, it was decided that the pros outweighed the cons and that we should take advantage of the fact that we can reach agreement on this now.

Now, to go back to your other point, which is that the perception – or that this is going to be played up by the Iranians as – as you noted, as a ransom – and we've seen some comments by some Iranian officials to that – in that vein. We've tried never to let Iranian rhetoric sway our actions in any way, shape, or form, because we know that oftentimes they're playing to their own domestic constituency. Again, we were clear-eyed as we went into this, but we ultimately felt like it was the right decision to act.

QUESTION: Mark, was there --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Was there discussion around this that if the money wasn't paid, or if you didn't do the deal or pay up then, that you might never have been able to, given domestic political pushback here?

MR TONER: So look, I think what was probably of greater concern was the fact that our legal teams and legal experts who'd been working on this process believed that this could go before the tribunal for decision sooner rather than later. So again, there was some – that was motivation, I think, to move quickly on a settlement that we felt was in our interest to take.

As for the domestic political piece, we always are aware that – and that writ large about our policies towards Iran that there are always going to be people within – on the Hill who, as Matt noted, who are going to be against some of this outreach. You always take that into consideration.

QUESTION: And then did this Administration, did officials at the State Department, brief people on the Hill before that deal was made, or just afterwards? So were they aware that this was a cash payment, and were they aware why this was being done at that time?

MR TONER: It's a good question, Lesley. So I know they were informed about the settlement before. I don't know that they were informed about the mechanics of that settlement, like how it would take place, whether it would – whether it was in cash, et cetera. I don't have that answer in front of me. I apologize.

QUESTION: When --

MR TONER: I haven't been – I don't have the details. I'll try to get more clarity on that.

QUESTION: When you said – yeah, that'd be good. When you say "before" was it just before the money was released or before the tribunal met? I mean, what do you mean by "before the timeframe"?

MR TONER: Well, before the settlement was reached I think is what – before we actually did the transaction on the settlement.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: So – but as to the details of how that transaction took place, I just don't have that level of clarity.

QUESTION: And then one more. When was the 1.3 billion in interest settled? That was done through a – through the Judgment Fund, which is administered by the Treasury. But when was that 1.3 – I was told it was fully settled. When was that done and how was it done?

MR TONER: Sure. So the payment for the compromise that was reached on interest, that was 1.3 billion, as you note. That was provided out of the Judgment Fund, and that's the source of funding to pay judgments and settlements of claim against the United States when there is no other source of funding. And I think awards and settlements of tribunal claims have been paid out of that fund in the past, since 1991 I think, to a tune of some 278 million before – prior to this settlement.

Your question is when --

QUESTION: When? Was it done several weeks after the 400 million in cash was transferred?

MR TONER: I know that it was done. I don't know the – I don't have a date, the specific date on when that actually took place.

QUESTION: Can you find that out, please?

MR TONER: I can try to find that out. I know also that Treasury was speaking to that yesterday, as well as today.

QUESTION: Oh, I didn't see those remarks, which is – because it's caused confusion as far as when they were paid.

MR TONER: I understand.

QUESTION: And was that also paid in cash, or was it done through the transfer mechanism, given that sanctions at that stage were then lifted?

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Well, some sanctions, not all.

MR TONER: Right. Sorry, I'm just looking through here to see if I have an actual date on it. I don't think I do.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- you said that some Iranian officials were saying that it was ransom money. They were saying that?

MR TONER: Yeah. I think The Wall Street Journal article yesterday --

QUESTION: Iranian officials said that it was ransom money and that is not their money in fact?

MR TONER: I think The Wall Street Journal article yesterday cited one Iranian military official saying it was ransom. But again, I'm not going to – is that what you were asking me?

QUESTION: Yeah. That's what I'm – because you said that. I mean --

MR TONER: Yes. Yeah. If you look at the piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, it does quote a --

QUESTION: I mean, there were Iranian officials saying it at the time, back in January as well, right?

MR TONER: And you're right. Yeah, I agree. Yeah.

QUESTION: But can I just ask you – so --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- you said that the tribunal might have been coming up with its judgment that could have cost the taxpayers billions more dollars. So what makes you – what gave you the idea that after three decades of litigation this tribunal was going to come to a decision the very week that you also reached the nuclear deal --

MR TONER: Oh, I don't know – no, I didn't mean to imply that --

QUESTION: -- the very week that you got the --

MR TONER: But I didn't mean to imply that it was going to be that very week. I think that that was --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: -- an impetus for acting because --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- we thought it would come soon. I don't know – I don't have a timeframe.

QUESTION: After 35 years, it was just going to come?

MR TONER: Well, again, all of these things – I mean --

QUESTION: Did they – did someone on the commission tell you?

MR TONER: No. But I mean, look, these teams have been working on these issues, and it was going to come up in the near future. And the legal experts or the team that was working on this – their advice was to act while we could for a settlement that would save people money. I don't know that there was – I don't --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: I'm not trying to imply that it was --

QUESTION: After 35 years --

MR TONER: I'm not trying to imply that it was that next week or even that next month, but it was, I think, it was considered that it would be --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, but then if it wasn't --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, no. Finish.

MR TONER: No, no. I --

QUESTION: I get what you're saying. But I'm just saying that then doesn't it give more – wouldn't it give – make it more of a – wouldn't it have given a less of that – wouldn't it be less bad optics then – if it wasn't that imminent, if it wasn't going to be the next day or the next week – to wait so that the Iranians couldn't make the argument that it was a ransom, no?

MR TONER: Again, we're back to the optics argument, and I've said what I'm going to say on that.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. One more on the --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- on the optics argument. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Thanks.

QUESTION: So the U.S. policy against paying ransom – it seems like it was designed to prevent the feeling by other countries or terrorist organizations that the U.S. Government could be blackmailed.

MR TONER: That's accurate.

QUESTION: Is there any concern that because of the timing of this that other countries or terrorist organizations will see this as a change in U.S. policy, that they could kidnap an American and request ransom and it would be paid?

MR TONER: Well, I would hope not. And obviously we've been working hard over the last 24 hours in trying to disabuse anyone of that conclusion. We don't pay ransom and we don't for specifically those reasons. And so all I can say is that is our policy going forward. It's been our policy, and anyone who acts under the assumption that we do pay ransom would be acting wrongly.

QUESTION: So how is the balance likely to be paid in the future, Mark?

MR TONER: How is the balance --

QUESTION: The balance of what --

MR TONER: The balance was paid.

QUESTION: Completely, you paid?

MR TONER: Said, I think I just confirmed that.

QUESTION: So – you just confirmed that?

MR TONER: Yeah, yep.

QUESTION: So there is no --

MR TONER: Out of the settlements fund, yeah – or the Judgment Fund, excuse me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But what I don't have – and I apologize – I don't have a date of when that took place.

Please.

QUESTION: Yeah. And you're going to take that as a question?

MR TONER: I will do my best.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: And Mark, do you know if the Secretary would consider going in front of the House committee to testify, as he has been asked to?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, obviously, we always try to work with Congress to address their concerns. As to who would testify before any kind of hearing, that's something we'll take under consideration, given the Secretary's busy schedule, busy travel schedule. We would try to work with Congress to find some kind of way forward, but I'm not aware that he's been asked.

Please.

QUESTION: Change of topic?

MR TONER: I'm happy to change topics, but let's finish with Iran. If we're done – done with Iran? Okay. Go ahead, Barbara.

QUESTION: Just Argentina.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Mr. Kerry said that the declassified documents from the Dirty War would be – the first tranche would be delivered on Thursday. Do you have any information about what will be in that – those documents? Will they be specific – will they reference specific cases of the disappeared? Will they give the families answers to their questions?

MR TONER: So – sure. So my understanding of that is that it will – additional – it will be declassification of additional U.S. Government records that are related to human rights abuses by the Argentine military dictatorship, and in fact, that he delivered a first tranche of these declassified documents to President Macri. I don't necessarily have – I mean, I would characterize them as military and intelligence records, but I don't have – I don't know if they speak about specific cases. I would assume that there are some details in there that speak to specific cases, but I don't have any more details for you.

QUESTION: Any more transcripts of calls between Kissinger and the general? Communications?

MR TONER: I don't know what the contents were. However, they – the documents will be posted on the Director of National Intelligence website and available to the public on August 8th, so there you go.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: I want to just a follow up on that --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Are these documents the same documents that the President said were going to be released --

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: -- when he was there?

MR TONER: I believe so, yes.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: In keeping with – yeah – President Obama's commitment – yes --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: -- that he made the President Macri.

QUESTION: And do we – you know any more, like how many there are? Were they transported down there on pallets, or were there fewer than – could you bring them in briefcases or something like that?

MR TONER: I don't have a – I don't have a sense of the scale or the scope of the delivery of documents. I'll try to get that for you.

QUESTION: And that he gave some to the president today and a second tranche on Thursday. Is that correct? No, today's Thursday. Sorry.

MR TONER: Yes. My understanding it was just the tranche was delivered today.

QUESTION: One tranche. Okay.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Turkish media reporting the Secretary will go to Turkey later this month. Is that true?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce in that regard.

QUESTION: Related to that?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Could you tell us exactly where the U.S. is in the issue of the extradition process of Mr. Gulen? As you may have seen, a Turkish court has issued what they call an international warrant against Mr. Gulen. Do you see this as the former – formal, sorry, extradition request?

MR TONER: So my understanding of where we are with the extradition request is that we've been – or that the Turkish authorities have delivered – I think made several deliveries of documents to us and that we're in the process of going through those documents. As you know, we don't – and we've said this previously – we don't speak publicly about the details of the extradition request process. It's not something that is necessarily an overnight process. It takes time to evaluate the evidence that's presented.

I think at this point – my understanding at least, having talked to my colleagues at the Department of Justice, is that they're still trying to make a determination of whether the documents that were delivered to them do constitute what they believe is a formal extradition request. And I realize there's some – the rhetoric coming from Turkey is that they have made a formal request. I think and I believe, in fact, that we're still trying to assess that.

QUESTION: So your position has not changed in two weeks? You still don't know if or you don't say – you cannot say if it's a formal --

MR TONER: Right. We've received – as I said, we've received documents. We're studying those documents. And we talked about an initial tranche that we had received from them that did not, we believe, constitute a formal extradition request. But we subsequently received more documents. We're looking through them, and I think they're trying to figure out whether this is the full request. And I don't think they have reached that determination yet.

Please.

QUESTION: The second tranche of documents, does that involve evidence related to the coup itself? Because the first one I think was based on investigations from before the coup.

MR TONER: You are correct, I think, on the first thing. In terms of the second tranche, I don't know. I think they're still trying to assess whether that's the case. I don't have a specific readout on what – whether those documents pertained specifically to Mr. Gulen's involvement in or alleged --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, is there any – have they supplied any evidence directly related to the coup?

MR TONER: Yeah, I don't know, honestly.

QUESTION: On Turkey, couple more.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: After three weeks, do you have more of a understanding how the coup happened in Turkey, whether your own assessment, whether the documents from Turkey? But your own assessment; do you think this Gulen movement or Fethullah Gulen have anything to do with the coup?

MR TONER: I mean, it's a fair question. I'm not sure that we would necessarily share our assessment. I think that – well, a couple things. One is, as we've done from the very beginning, we condemn the failed coup in Turkey, and we also have rejected and continue to reject any attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government in Turkey. We support that government wholeheartedly as a strong ally and partner in the region.

In terms of assessing who was behind the coup, I know the – we all know that Turkish authorities are looking at that very closely and investigating it. That's a matter for them to reach a conclusion about. I don't have any specific conclusions to draw at this point.

QUESTION: While Turkish authorities are investigating this, shut down – Turkish authorities shut down hundreds of media organizations; about 66,000 people are sacked and about 20,000 people are arrested. These numbers can be a little different.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: And President Erdogan today said this is only the tip of the iceberg; they just starting to – do you – how are you assessing so far Turkish Government's action, whether you see them excessive actions, as was questioned here?

MR TONER: So – and we've conveyed this publicly as well as privately in our conversations with our Turkish counterparts. Indeed, as you said, the President spoke with President Erdogan shortly after the coup attempt, and Secretary Kerry has spoken with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, several times as well. And we made very clear we understand the need for them to go after the alleged perpetrators of this coup; but at the same time, we've emphasized the importance of upholding the democratic institutions and the rule of law that exists in Turkey and the importance of that to the Turkish people and to the integrity of Turkey's democracy.

QUESTION: But you see these moves as signs that a major purge is underway, maybe a major purge that cuts across all institutions and aspects of Turkish society?

MR TONER: I mean, I think what I'll – I'll leave it at this. I would say we're watching developments there very closely, and we're making very clear that the Turkish Government – again, while we understand the basis for its actions – that it also bears in mind that it must hold true to its democratic standards.

QUESTION: Are you --

QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up?

QUESTION: Yeah, sorry, Antoine. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Go on.

QUESTION: No, I just wanted to say that all – almost everybody in Turkey agrees or thinks that the United States had something to do with the coup.

MR TONER: Well, and I – when he asked me about our conclusions, I didn't want to offer that up there, but that's completely absurd. And I'm – we're conscious of the fact that after an event like this there's lots of conspiracy theories, lots of allegations tossed about, but the suggestion that the United States was in any way involved in the attempted overthrow of the government – the democratically elected government of a NATO ally, a major NATO ally, is just absurd.

QUESTION: Today, New York Times ran an editorial and it was then – there is a question that it's asking what to do with a vital ally that is veering far from democratic norms. This is the one question. And in same editorial, also it talks about the former State Department official, Henri Barkey. And it says that evidence against Barkey – when the coup erupted in Turkey, he was on the Istanbul island holding a workshop for academics and made some phone calls.

My question is whether former official Henri Barkey has anything to do with the coup as far as --

MR TONER: I'd have to ask you to contact him directly. He's a former official. I don't know that he plays any official role. I have no idea what his involvement may or may not have been. I just don't have any details on that.

QUESTION: The first question, the question about the vital ally that's veering far from democratic norms – what to do with such ally?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that there has been concern expressed by many organizations, by many leaders around the world about the scope of the Turkish Government's efforts to go after the alleged perpetrators of this coup attempt. We're obviously watching it closely. We've been consulting closely with our Turkish counterparts at every level, and indeed, General Dunford was just there this past week and met with his counterparts.

We want to continue, obviously, to cooperate closely with Turkey as a NATO ally and as a major counter-Daesh coalition partner. We don't want to see a disruption to those efforts, because frankly, ISIL/Daesh is as much a threat to Turkey as it is to Europe, as it is to the United States, as it is to the region. So we all need to focus on the immediate goal of going after and maintaining the pressure on Daesh. We've made tremendous progress, but we want to keep that pressure on.

But as to the extent or the scope of the government's crackdown, if you will, after the coup, we're watching it closely. We've expressed our thoughts about it to our Turkish counterparts and we're going to maintain that dialogue with them going forward.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Tuesday, Iran executed over 20 largely Kurdish prisoners, calling them terrorists and saying – and claiming they were Islamic extremists.

So, two questions: Do you have any comment on those executions generally? And given that the Iranian Kurds are predominantly secular – and Kurds tend to be secular generally because national identity trumps religious identity – might Iran be mischaracterizing those whom it executed to confuse people inside and outside the country?

MR TONER: So I would just say we reaffirm our calls for Iran to respect and protect human rights and to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings in all cases. This is something we've consistently expressed. Our concerns about Iran's human rights record have been expressed in a range of channels – obviously in our annual Human Rights Report but also in our International Religious Freedom Report. And we've also worked with other countries within the UN framework – General Assembly as well as UN Human Rights Council – to highlight our human rights concerns in Iran.

So without trying to address the specifics of this case, which we frankly don't know much about, I would just say that what we would expect and call on Iran to do is to ensure that any legal process is fair and transparent.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Iran has – excuse me. Iran has the highest number of executions per capita of any country in the entire world. If the Iranians aren't heeding your – paying attention to these reports and your suggestions, are there further steps that you'd be contemplating?

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, these are all actions – or all, rather, concerns that we would address appropriately in the right fora. One of those, as I noted, was the UN Human Rights Council. We – one of the most effective things that we can do is shine a light on some of these actions, and we do so through our Human Rights Report, which is widely read and widely regarded as one of the best, most thoroughly researched publications about human rights, the state of human rights, around the globe. So these are all efforts that we continually make to, as I said, shine a light on where we view excessive human rights abuses.

QUESTION: Just back on Iran. I've got --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I have to ask two – they're very brief – back to the settlement question.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure thing.

QUESTION: Do you know why the settlement was not reached on the 16th, the same day that the nuclear deal was implemented? What was it that held it up until – the announcement until the 17th, which, as you recall, is the day that the prisoners were released? Do you know?

MR TONER: I don't know.

QUESTION: And then, yesterday, I believe you agreed to take the question from my colleague James Rosen about the timing of the plane carrying the – I won't say cash; I'll say just carrying the method of payment for the 400 million.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Did it land in Tehran before or after the plane carrying the prisoners left Tehran for Geneva?

MR TONER: And I don't believe we've gotten clarity on that as well either. In terms of the timing, I don't have it.

QUESTION: Can you take the question again?

MR TONER: Well, we – the question is --

QUESTION: Do you know, was it --

MR TONER: The question is still taken, I mean, if we haven't gotten an answer.

QUESTION: Was it – okay. Well, do you know, was there an effort made to find out?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And the answer came back we're not going to tell you, or the answer was we don't know, we're still looking into it?

MR TONER: We're still looking into it.

QUESTION: So it's an active question still.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I move quickly to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Last week, an Israeli soldier in the occupied city of Hebron roughed up a little Palestinian girl on a bicycle, and then he took her bike and destroyed it. My question to you is very simple: Should Israel compensate this little girl for the bicycle? Very simple.

MR TONER: So I don't know that that's a question we necessarily should answer from the podium of the State Department, but what I'll say is we understand the tensions that exist in Israel regarding security and security concerns, but – and I've seen the video; I know what you're talking about – it's also legitimate to say that what's portrayed in that video is concerning and raises emotions on the part of many people who see it, and that any security forces – and I'm talking about not just Israel's, but any security forces around the world – have a difficult job. We understand that they have to balance a lot of factors in carrying out their duties, but they also need to be aware of how their actions portray what they're doing and the reasons behind what they're doing to the rest of the world. So that's a question for the Israeli authorities to speak to. I'm just offering my opinion.

QUESTION: But you subsidize Israel to the tune of billions of dollars.

MR TONER: We do.

QUESTION: Should you deduct like $100 to pay for that bicycle? It's a serious question.

MR TONER: No, I --

QUESTION: Should you deduct $100 from the $40 billion or so that you're about to give Israel for the next 10 years, and say this is to replace the bicycle?

MR TONER: Said – so I spoke about this a little bit yesterday. Our security relationship with Israel is important both to Israel's national security interests as well as our own, as well as the region's, and it's vital that we maintain that close cooperation. And, frankly, that relationship, as I said yesterday, is ironclad. Israel is a strong democracy in the region and a strong proponent of democratic values in the region. We're looking at this incident. I agree that, again, for those who watched the video, I can see where it raises emotions and raises concerns. And what we've always said – and that bears – that is true for Israel's security forces or Israelis, as well as for Palestinians – is that all sides need to bear in mind and take – or make efforts not to escalate tensions and be aware that their actions could escalate tensions in what is already an overly tense situation. And I think that's our message.

QUESTION: So you don't – you will not urge Israel to compensate this little girl --

MR TONER: I'm not aware of any efforts on that part.

QUESTION: -- to the tune of $100 for – to pay for the bicycle?

MR TONER: I'm not aware that we – and I'm not even sure we could do that.

Please.

QUESTION: South Asia.

MR TONER: Of course. Wait, where are we?

QUESTION: Two questions. Thank you, sir.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Mark, SAARC is meeting in Islamabad, and home ministers from the SAARC nations met there, including Mr. Rajnath, home minister of India. What he emphasized was mainly on terrorism. And even before his arrival there were demonstrations by the terrorists wanted by the U.S. and India in Islamabad for blocking him – not to come to Islamabad. Those terrorists are openly calling on the death to U.S. and death to India, and they don't care because nobody is arresting them or going after them. My question is here, that --

MR TONER: You're talking about in Islamabad, this – where this meeting took place.

QUESTION: In Islamabad, right – Karachi, Islamabad and all – and all that. Home Minister of India Mr. Rajnath said that I am here on the invitation of the Government of Pakistan, and we wanted to make sure that we fight together against these terrorists who are killing innocent people – and not only in India, but also in Pakistan, among others. And what he said that – to Pakistan, that don't glorify the killings of terrorists, and don't make them martyrs, because that will – they will come back to you, and they are coming back to you anyway, so we should unite, all of us, against them.

But somehow, he said Pakistan is not listening because at least three terrorists are wanted by India – of course, their names are Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed and Lakhvi, among others – which he said we have given the proof to the Pakistanis and – but they're not listening. So what he's saying, where do we go from here? And what – you have anything about this --

MR TONER: I mean, I – first of all, Goyal, you've heard us say it many times: I mean, we encourage that kind of regional dialogue regarding counterterrorism efforts. We advocate for closer cooperation, certainly, between India and Pakistan to deal with terrorist threats in both their countries. Terrorism is obviously a reality in both countries, and they need to – in order to effectively confront it, they need to work together. And that's something we've long encouraged.

So it's important that these have these fora – these forum – this forum, rather, to talk about in a candid way some of the areas of disagreement and some of the areas of concern between the two of them. I'm not going to get into the specifics of the back-and-forth except to say that we obviously believe that Pakistan needs to do all it can to confront all terrorists operating on its soil. We've seen it make progress; we want to see more progress on its part.

QUESTION: Second --

QUESTION: Can I move to a --

QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: I just – I have to leave in five minutes. On the – you're familiar with the Jordan --

MR TONER: You made me stand up here yesterday. I'm not – I might just make you – I'm just teasing. Sorry. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: You're familiar with the situation of the Syrian refugees in the Jordan berm?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: There was a delivery of aid by crane today by the UN, which I assume you think is good news, welcome news. But I'm just wondering if – do you – are – is this satisfactory? Are you pressing the Jordanians to allow more in?

MR TONER: So as unorthodox a method as it was, we are very happy that the UN was able to deliver food and other urgently needed assistance to – for the first time, I believe, since June 21st to these Syrian refugees or these Syrians, displaced Syrians who are on the other side of the border. And if the UN and the Jordanian Government agreed to it that a crane is the most efficient or effective way, or appropriate way to do that, then we're not going to second-guess that decision.

The point is that the food and the other assistance got to the people who desperately need it. Is it enough? No. We need everyone to do more, and we certainly recognize that Jordan has done a tremendous amount, and we appreciate the generosity of Jordan in – and the Jordanian people for that matter in hosting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, and stand together with them and are going to continue to work with the international community to identify ways that we can assist those vulnerable Syrians who are stranded on the Jordan-Syria border.

And it also speaks, frankly, to the broader issue that we haven't gotten full humanitarian access – the UN has not gotten full humanitarian access to all the areas within Syria, and that's another thing we need to continue to pursue.

QUESTION: All right. So secondly --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- you're probably aware that a lawyer, the third this week in China, has been convicted of subversion.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about today's case, but then more generally the trend that appears to be emerging?

MR TONER: So we're obviously watching the trials, these human rights activists and lawyers who were detained on and around July 9th this – in 2015. We're concerned that several have been sentenced to prison terms of up to seven years based on what we consider vague and apparently politically motivated charges, such as, quote, "subversion of state power," end quote. It's troubling that Chinese authorities denied these defendants access to their chosen counsel and family members as well, and we urge China to release all the lawyers and activists who were detained on July 9th, 2015, and remove restrictions on their freedom of movement and professional activities.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria really quick? Do you have anything new on the chemical attacks or the allegations of chemical attacks by Russia or --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- the opposition groups?

MR TONER: So – and we also had the, obviously – so we've had two separate allegations made over the past several days. We're looking into both of them, as we would any credible allegation of a chemical attack. We – as we stated clearly yesterday, we condemn the use of any chemical weapons. Russia did share – I was not aware of it when I briefed yesterday, but did share the allegations of the second chemical weapons attack, but up till now we've not seen conclusive evidence to suggest that such an attack took place.

But, of course, we're very concerned about and are looking into the allegations – these allegations, as well as the allegations of chlorine gas that was used by the regime in the town of Saraqeb. We would call on the OPCW, as well as the UN, to use existing mechanisms to investigate these allegations thoroughly. And use by any party in Syria of chemical weapons would violate international standards and norms against such use, and we call on all parties to abide by all commitments made under the cessation of hostilities, and that includes a moratorium on targeting civilians or civilian facilities.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: The newly appointed Japanese defense minister, Tomomi Inada, earlier today declined to say whether Japan liberated or invaded Asian countries in World War II. Is there any question here at the State Department on whether Japan invaded or liberated Asian countries?

MR TONER: Look, I'm not going to re-litigate what is historical record. I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: Do you think it's constructive for a defense minister to raise such questions, given the potential to exacerbate regional tensions?

MR TONER: Look, I'm not going to parse or second-guess those comments. Japan's a democracy. There's freedom of speech there. Again, I'm just not going to re-litigate historical record.

Please, in the back, sir.

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions on Guantanamo. Former Guantanamo detainee Jihad Dhiab, who was sent to Uruguay in 2014, went missing a while ago, and as I understand, he's still missing. What is the – what does the Department of State know about this case as of today?

MR TONER: I'm aware of the case and I'm actually looking – I thought we had an update on that. If we do, I'll try to get it to you afterwards. I just don't have it in front of me. I apologize.

QUESTION: Okay. And let me ask you another question about this case --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- if you have this information.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Is this person considered a threat to the U.S.?

MR TONER: This person who went missing?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Again – and I don't want to speak out of – I was aware that one of these individuals who went missing actually turned up. That's why I'm looking so befuddled, because I thought that one of them actually had turned up, but let me double check that.

I mean, of course – a couple of points to make. One is whenever we decide anyone from Guantanamo is eligible for relocation or resettlement, that is only done after a very lengthy process where it's determined that this person, to the best of our knowledge and best of our belief, no longer constitutes a risk or a threat not just to the United States but to anyone. And that's the first – very first step before we even negotiate or begin to talk to other governments about resettling these individuals.

As part of the resettlement dialogue that we have with other governments, we talk about ways to, in fact, ensure that these kinds of incidents can't take place, where resettled Guantanamo inmates simply disappear or fall off the grid for whatever reason. It has happened, and there are even cases, as we all know here, where some of these individuals have even shown back up on the battlefield. The cases of – those kinds of cases, rather – the percentage is very low, very low. We'd like it to be zero, but in any process like this, we can never be 100 percent correct all the time. But we take it very seriously.

And so as to whether we're concerned, of course. We're always concerned when any one of these individuals, as I said, falls off the grid or falls off the radar, disappears, and we make every effort to work with both national authorities in these countries, as well as regional authorities, to locate them.

QUESTION: Can I have – I don't know if you have the figures, but the latest update on the number of detainees (inaudible)?

MR TONER: Yeah, I apologize. I will – I may – don't know if you can see, this book is a little chock full of information here. But we'll get those for you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Can I just clarify your answer --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- on the gas attack?

MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: You said there was no conclusive evidence. Are you talking about – which gas attack?

MR TONER: Both.

QUESTION: Both?

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, look, it's – so just to talk about the process, I mean, these are – these kinds of attacks are always investigated through the OPCW.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: And they're not – we're not able to reach – or they're not able to reach a conclusion overnight or even in a couple of days. But they are looking at the facts and the allegations and are investigating it appropriately.

QUESTION: So you're talking about the one that was reported last week --

MR TONER: Both.

QUESTION: -- and then the one that the Russians --

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, we're calling on – we want to see both investigated. There was – yeah, there were two incidents, one on – that's believed to be, alleged to be the regime, the chlorine gas, and then this other one was reported yesterday.

QUESTION: And then – and the Russians had – did notify you of --

MR TONER: They did.

QUESTION: Okay. And then can I just --

MR TONER: Of the second attack.

QUESTION: Of the second attack. Can I just follow up on the other one?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: On another issue related, is how do you square these ongoing attacks and the tensions in Syria with what – with how the – with ongoing or with discussions with the Russians on military cooperation? Can you have normal discussions as well as – while these kinds of attacks are going on?

MR TONER: So you're correct that it does make that dynamic difficult. The fact that the Russians supported the regime in its attempt to seal off and retake Aleppo, unbeknownst to us, has not made those efforts to work together on finding a way forward any easier. And in fact, as the Secretary alluded to after his meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Vientiane last week, we believe that the discussions we've had with the Russians in Geneva have made progress.

The goal of those discussions, as we've talked about, is how to make sense of what groups are located where in and around Aleppo, but certainly beyond Aleppo in and around Syria, so that we can focus efforts where we believe they need to be focused, which is on going after Nusrah and going after Daesh. And then, only then, can we put a moderate – or can we put in place a cessation of hostilities that is credible and that will allow talks to get going on again in Geneva. That's where we're at. It's not an easy place to be and certainly not made any easier by these latest – this assault on Aleppo. And – but that doesn't mean we're – we don't still believe that the effort is worthwhile to pursue.

QUESTION: So you are still talking?

MR TONER: We are still talking.

QUESTION: And can I – one more follow-up. He – Kerry said that he was going – he wanted to have a – he said in Laos, in fact, where you were, that he would be able to announce any – or he hoped to announce an agreement on this early August. Given these new tensions and attacks, is that still possible?

MR TONER: We're not there yet.

QUESTION: On Syrian refugees, very quickly. I know there is something probably come out tomorrow on the status of the Syrian refugees. Do you know how many refugees have been admitted? You're saying that the target --

MR TONER: I do.

QUESTION: The target is 10,000.

MR TONER: I do.

QUESTION: And it's in October?

MR TONER: I do. I can say as of August 4th there have been nearly 8,000. The exact figure is 7,905 Syrian refugees have been admitted. That's as of August 4th.

QUESTION: So by all accounts, you'll be able to meet the target of 10,000 by the end of the fiscal year?

MR TONER: (Knocks.) Is this wood? Yes. We knock on it. I knock on it.

QUESTION: I just wanted to finish my counterterrorism question quickly.

MR TONER: I don't know how that will show up in the transcript. Sorry.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. One, is U.S. satisfied with Pakistan as far as fighting against terrorism? And second, as far as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is concerned, he's very serious fighting against terrorism and running his government peacefully. But his hands are tied by the military because he doesn't want to make the same mistake which he did in 1993 when his government was overthrown by the military. So many experts in Pakistan and here think that there are parallel governments are going on there by the military and by the civilian. So where the U.S. is now – is anybody has been connected or contacted from Islamabad here? What's going on in Pakistan? Or how do you feel or U.S. is taking this two powers or two governments within Pakistan?

MR TONER: That's a very detailed question. How I would answer it is we believe that Pakistan has taken and is taking steps to counter terrorist violence, and certainly focusing on those groups that threaten Pakistani or Pakistan's stability. They have – the military has shut down some of these safe havens. They've restored government control to parts of Pakistan that were used as terrorist safe havens for years. And these are important steps that have continued – or contributed, rather, to security interests in the region. And they've come at a cost of Pakistani lives lost. But at the same time, we've been very clear with the highest levels of the Government of Pakistan that they must target all militant groups, and that includes those that target Pakistan's neighbors, and they must also close all safe havens.

So I guess, to put it briefly or summarize it, they've made progress. They're going after groups, but selectively. We need to see them go after all groups, and as I just said, even those groups that might not threaten Pakistan itself but threaten its neighbors.

QUESTION: Sir, I have a quick question on the same topic.

MR TONER: Of course. Of course.

QUESTION: Before that, one person just comes in my mind. Sir, you were just talking about the incident happened in Israel. Sir, you just said that you are very concerned – United States is very concerned about the security of Israelis. Sir, what about the security of Palestinians? I mean, is it the – do you give the same importance to the security of the Palestinians as the Israelis?

MR TONER: You're talking about Palestinians?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: I mean, of course. What we want to see and our consistent messaging is – or consistent message, rather, is that we want to see all sides in Israel and in Pakistan – or – I'm sorry, excuse me. In – I was just talking about – sorry, I apologize – and in – among the Palestinian people exercise restraint and take measures that don't escalate tensions that are already there. Obviously, the security situation there is very tense. All I was trying to convey in my response to Said's question was that there have been a series or a number of terrorist attacks on innocent Israelis, and that has generated a high level of concern – rightly so – among Israel's security forces – a heightened sense, if you will. And that's understandable. But as they carry out – and again, I'm not just noting this for Israel, but in any place around the world – that any security forces need to exercise a certain amount of restraint. It's part of the job; it's part of their duties.

QUESTION: Sir, you just said that Pakistan doing – has progressed in the military operation against the terrorist networks, but I think you are well aware that Pentagon has withheld $300 million of military assistance to Pakistan for not acting against those militant groups who are fueling violence in Afghanistan. Do you have anything to say on that?

MR TONER: Not much. I mean, I'd refer you to the Department of Defense regarding the decision that they took with regard to Fiscal Year 2015 funding. We continue within the Department of State to provide assistance to the Pakistani people, and some of that does include security assistance. But I don't have anything specific to add to your question about this reduction in funding.

QUESTION: Sir, but are you agreed with the Pentagon that Pakistan is not doing enough to eliminate Haqqani Network and other militant groups who are fueling violence in Afghanistan? Are you agreed with the Pentagon?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think – and I think I just addressed this in talking to – responding to Goyal's question – we have concern about terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan's borders. We've urged the Government of Pakistan to address this and to pursue closer counterterrorism cooperation with Afghanistan against all groups that pose a long-term security threat to the region, not just to Pakistan.

QUESTION: Sir, situation in Afghanistan is very interesting. Recently, visit of a delegation of Afghan Taliban recently was in China. I mean, they are not talking to the U.S., they are not talking to Pakistan, they are not willing to talk with the political side of Afghanistan, but they are visiting China. I mean, what China can help in the peace in Afghanistan?

MR TONER: Well, I'd refer you to the Chinese authorities and Chinese Government to speak to that.

Yeah, one more.

QUESTION: One on China. Yesterday, China formed a quadrilateral counterterrorism alliance in association with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. Do you think this is a helpful move from China?

MR TONER: I'm sorry, you're – are you talking about the same – you're not talking about the Taliban group, but you're talking a separate thing.

QUESTION: No, it's a different --

MR TONER: I apologize.

QUESTION: This was a meeting --

MR TONER: Could you just give me the question one more time?

QUESTION: This was a meeting of the military leaders of four countries at the initiative of China. Other countries are Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan. They have formed a quadrilateral counterterrorism alliance. How helpful is this in your fight against terrorism?

MR TONER: I mean, I think my answer is that we don't view it as in any way counterproductive and we don't view it as a zero-sum game that China pursues closer ties – certainly in the security field and certainly in the counterterrorism field – with Central Asian countries. And there's a lot of work to be done, there's a lot of problems to be addressed, so we certainly don't view any effort to more closely coordinate among those countries – all of whom are affected by terrorism in the region – we don't view that as a negative at all. In fact, we view it as a positive.

QUESTION: So you view this as a helpful move in the fight --

MR TONER: I said I view it as a positive.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:41 p.m.)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list