Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
August 23, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY TRAVEL/NIGERIA
IRAN
SAUDI ARABIA
INDIA/PAKISTAN
RUSSIA/SYRIA
TURKEY/SYRIA
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
TURKEY
EGYPT
TURKEY
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
CHINA/REGION
PAKISTAN/REGION
NORTH KOREA
ETHIOPIA
TRANSCRIPT:
2:09 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Hello, everyone.
QUESTION: Hello.
QUESTION: So what, 10 minutes today, you think? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: All right, guys.
QUESTION: Ten minutes total?
QUESTION: Let's try it.
MR TONER: It's always a wish of mine. Anyway.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Very good. Hey folks, no worries. Take your time. (Laughter.) No, I'm just teasing.
All right. Welcome to the State Department. Just a quick topper on Secretary Kerry's travel to Nigeria today. Obviously, earlier today Secretary Kerry did arrive in Sokoto from Nairobi and is currently, I believe, in Abuja. While in Sokoto, the Secretary had an opportunity to meet with and engage with local religious leaders on how to counter the influence of violent extremist groups. You'll obviously have seen his remarks, many of you, on this – community-building efforts to counter violent extremism, and the importance of good governance and strengthening democratic institutions.
He then traveled to Abuja where he had the opportunity to meet with President Buhari. They discussed Nigeria's economy, the fight against corruption, human rights issues, and of course, Boko Haram. He also later met with the foreign minister, Onyeama, who – and northern governors, rather. Tomorrow, the Secretary will meet with anticorruption NGOs and will then travel onward to Jeddah, and we'll have more to share with you on that tomorrow.
Matt.
QUESTION: That's it?
MR TONER: That's it.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MR TONER: Being concise.
QUESTION: No, just kidding. Sorry.
MR TONER: I'm going to answer all your questions in a yes or no. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Really? Okay.
MR TONER: No. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: That would be a nice --
MR TONER: A first.
QUESTION: -- a nice change.
MR TONER: That would be nice, wouldn't it?
QUESTION: Yeah. Let's start --
MR TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: -- with the story that doesn't seem to want to go away, and that is the payment of The Hague judgment, the settlement claim. So yesterday, it emerged in various news reports that the judgment fund, which Treasury runs, had put – posted, kind of hiding in plain sight, 13 payments of $99,999,999.99 – which, if you add them all up, comes to just under the 1.3 billion that you guys had needed still to pay the Iranians.
Since the Department of State is listed as the defendant name in the case, I don't think that there's much use in you trying to say that this was not the money for Iran, considering the history of these payments on their website, which doesn't show anything close to that for the rest of this year.
So first all – I've got a couple things on this. The first thing is, one, if you add it all up, you're 13 cents short. (Laughter.) Have the Iranians asked for their 13 cents, or are you guys holding onto it for leverage in the next – for the next release of prisoners?
MR TONER: Are you actually asking me that question?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: We've paid in full.
QUESTION: You paid in full. So this was the money?
MR TONER: I don't know. I've seen the document to which you're referring. I have not had a chance to double-check it or check that its accuracy – that it's a legitimate document.
QUESTION: Well, do you have any reason to believe that it's not accurate?
MR TONER: I don't.
QUESTION: It's a government website.
MR TONER: I don't. I just don't know. I'm just not aware of the document's legitimacy.
QUESTION: So you --
MR TONER: I don't have any comment on it. I don't.
QUESTION: It seems to me that one might – that since this came out, you might have expected a question on it, no?
MR TONER: We've been very clear about drawing the line at what we're going to say about the actual financial transaction.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: And bearing in mind that it touches on certain confidentiality, third parties and other parties who might have been involved in that transaction, except to say that we have paid the settlement in full.
QUESTION: Yeah. But trying to say that it's confidential now after it's on a website that – and it's publicly accessible to anyone except maybe, I don't know, people in North Korea – (laughter) – is just – seems to be – it just seems to be a bit ridiculous. Anyway, other than the --
MR TONER: To be honest, Matt, I'm just not – I know – I've seen the document, but I don't have any further comment on it.
QUESTION: Right. Well, can I ask then – it raises a broader question.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Which is these transfers, it appeared – certainly appear to be – have been made by wire, not paid in actual cash. And if that is the case, I am wondering why it – how it was done; and even if you can't answer that, why you couldn't have paid the 400 million in the same way. In other words, what made the payment of the 400 million different – not in terms of what the money was for, but what made it different than the payment of the interest?
MR TONER: Well, I'm not sure if I can give you a complete answer on that, to be perfectly honest.
QUESTION: Any answer would be nice.
MR TONER: We've talked before about the fact that when this – so a couple thoughts. One is that we did not have a relationship with Iran, a bank-to-bank or financial relationship with Iran leading up to this settlement payment that was established or solid, given the somewhat strained relations we've had over the past – since 1979. And so it was not necessarily an easy or straightforward transaction to make.
Now, whether that was later amended, I can't speak to that.
QUESTION: You can't --
MR TONER: For the balance, for the interest, which is what you're referring to here.
QUESTION: But you're suggesting that there might have been some change in your --
MR TONER: I don't know.
QUESTION: -- banking relationship between the 17th of January and the 19tth of January that would have allowed this to --
MR TONER: I don't know.
QUESTION: The 18th, as I recall, was a federal holiday, so I don't – you don't know?
MR TONER: I don't know. And we've said we're not going to talk about this.
QUESTION: I mean, this stuff keeps coming out – drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.
MR TONER: I understand that.
QUESTION: And if you want to put this – if the Administration wants to put it behind itself, it would seem to me that it would be smart to actually get an answer to these questions. Because as you made note of yesterday, yours is one of the rare – one of the few federal agencies that gets up every day and briefs. Treasury certainly does not do that.
MR TONER: Treasury doesn't.
QUESTION: They are not – in the most transparent administration in history, they are not very transparent. In fact, they're probably extremely opaque. So why is it that you can't get an answer? This is not secret. This is out there on the internet. It's on a federal website.
MR TONER: Matt, I am – I'm aware of your and others' concerns about this. I can only say that there are reasons for us withholding this information – I'm talking about the details of this information – to protect the confidentiality. And that's all I can say about it.
QUESTION: All right. Can you – so you can't – you won't even – you're not even in a position to confirm that these 13 payments of 99,999,999.99, whatever, was --
MR TONER: I can see if we can confirm it. Okay?
QUESTION: You what?
MR TONER: I will look into it, as I have in the past.
QUESTION: Can I ask one follow-up?
MR TONER: And by – and just let me clarify. By – when I say I look into it, I'll look into it, I do look into this stuff. It's not that I'm trying to hide or pass the ball or hide the ball in any way whatsoever. If you guys think that I enjoy standing up here and getting continual questions from you about the process here, I don't.
QUESTION: No, Mark, I'm not --
MR TONER: And I want to try to be forthcoming with information.
QUESTION: I'm not accusing – it's not you that's --
MR TONER: I know.
QUESTION: -- the issue here.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: It is this hell-bent desire to keep this stuff secret when it's not secret anymore. Anyway, I'm done.
QUESTION: Can I just ask one, one quick follow-up on this?
MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: Implementation day for the JCPOA was January the 16th, 2016, correct? I just checked. It was.
MR TONER: That's right. It was. Yeah, that's right.
QUESTION: Yeah. So is it not conceivable that the subsequent payments were able to be made in the manner in which you made them --
MR TONER: Because of the sanctions.
QUESTION: -- because implementation day had occurred --
MR TONER: Yeah. Because the sanctions had been released.
QUESTION: -- and therefore the sanctions had been lifted and --
MR TONER: That's actually a very valid point, Arshad. I'll look into it and see what we can confirm on that.
Please.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Now, you said that you withheld the money because you had last-minute thoughts or you were worried that Iran might renege on its delivery of the prisoners.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: What made you that – what gave you that impression?
MR TONER: Well, we've talked a lot about this, but I can --
QUESTION: No, I mean, was there any particularly --
MR TONER: No, no, that's okay. I can quickly summarize. I mean, essentially, we had a very dynamic situation on the ground. We were trying to make sure that our American citizens who were being detained by the Iranian government were safely on a plane out of Iranian airspace. At the final moments, as is often the case with these kinds of high-stakes transactions – and by transaction here I'm talking about we were also releasing --
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: -- Iranian prisoners who were in U.S. prisons at the time. But at the final moment, there were some issues that arose with the family of one of the detainees. And because of that, we took the measures we took.
QUESTION: Okay. So it's not a precedent that Iran has done in the past, where they reneged on something similar or a similar kind of deal?
MR TONER: Well, I think – Said, I think that it – we didn't know. And again, that's what others have said, is we didn't have, shall we say, a relationship founded on trust with Iran. And we still don't. We have been able to reach agreements with regard to their nuclear program, with regard to this Hague settlement, and in other areas with them, but they're not based on trust.
QUESTION: Which is why, I think, there's a lot of people who are unhappy with that deal. And that's why this issue will keep coming up endlessly.
MR TONER: Yeah, and I agree. I mean, there's a lot of unhappiness – I certainly acknowledge that – with some of the agreements that we have reached with Iran. We're by no means saying that – whether we're talking about the Hague settlement, whether we're talking about the nuclear agreement and the release of our detainees – that is all is well and all is perfect with Iran. We've never claimed that. What we have always said is that preventing them from attaining a nuclear weapon, getting our detainees, our American citizens, home, settling this claim and saving the American taxpayers billions of dollars is in our national interest. And we stand by that.
Great.
QUESTION: Cool.
MR TONER: (Laughter.) Sorry. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I got a new subject.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I got two questions, Mark. One, if you have seen GPS, Mr. Fareed Zakaria, this Sunday on CNN, what he said again that "Why They Hate Us" means they were talking about jihadis or ISIL and all those people who kill innocent people, whatever their ideologies. But one thing what he said was that the reason is that somebody – means he said Saudis are financing some of these people, including some madrasas, where they teach hate and all these things. So are you – have you looked at – into the Saudis? Monies are still pouring into these madrasas and to these jihadis in the name of charities and among other things. So that's what he said – main thing is financing, and then training goes in through madrasas, including in Pakistan.
MR TONER: Well, look, we're aware of these allegations. We've talked about it before, spoken to – not just with respect to Saudi Arabia, but others in – where you see the financing of suspect organizations. And this is something we discuss with the Saudis, but we're also working with the Saudis, as we are with other countries and likeminded countries within the GCC, about ways to combat terrorism and work together on counterterrorism efforts. And those discussions and cooperation are ongoing.
QUESTION: And one more thing, going about Saudis, that they have no human rights and respect for the woman and still – those things are still continuing, that – have you ever talked about this, respect for the woman and the human rights and all those things --
MR TONER: We do.
QUESTION: -- when we talk about human rights, universal human rights, (inaudible) human rights.
MR TONER: We talk about human rights with the Saudis. And again, I would encourage you and anyone in this room to look at the – our annual Human Rights Report and what we say about Saudi Arabia. It's a concern, without a doubt. We raise these issues regularly with them, and we're going to continue to do so, in the context of, obviously, our broader bilateral and regional cooperation with Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: May I have one more on the region, please, quickly?
MR TONER: Quickly.
QUESTION: Including the Washington Post agreed and first – for the first time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he opened a Pandora on – in his independence day speech in India, that the time has come and world must look into this, what's going on in the occupied Pakistan Kashmir and also Balochistan. Because nobody knew before what's really happening or what the army is expressing those who stood and stand for freedom and for human rights and also for free and fair elections.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Washington Post also said that nobody knew before Prime Minister Modi spoke about this what's happening in the Kashmir in Pakistan. So have you --
MR TONER: Nobody knew – I'm sorry – about what was happening with --
QUESTION: In the occupied Kashmir in Pakistan. Because everybody been talking about only Kashmir in India, but nobody has ever spoken about Kashmir in Pakistan --
MR TONER: Well, I think we --
QUESTION: -- because that's what I've been saying for many, many years.
MR TONER: Sure. Well, I would respectfully beg to differ. We do have concerns about the human rights situation there, have reported it for several years in our Human Rights Report, and we've obviously – are always urging all parties in Pakistan to work out their differences peaceably and through a valid political process. And with respect to Kashmir, our policy there is well known.
Please.
QUESTION: Change topic, on Syria?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure --
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR TONER: You have Syria? Okay. Thanks. I'll get to you, Arshad.
QUESTION: In Nairobi, Secretary Kerry had mentioned that the U.S. and Russian teams were reaching the end of their discussions on the Syria issue and possible cooperation. Do you have any update on where those discussions stand and how things --
MR TONER: Yeah, no, obviously his remarks still stand. We are continuing those discussions. We – continuing to make headway. We're not quite there yet, but I don't have anything to really update on, I think, on the status of those talks, except that, as the Secretary said, we hope that they can be concluded and we can reach agreement soon.
QUESTION: Just --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- the Secretary said, if I'm not mistaken, was that you – he hoped to reach a conclusion one way or the other. When you said --
MR TONER: That's correct.
QUESTION: When you said we --
MR TONER: He said I wouldn't express optimism, I would express hope, is what he said, yes (inaudible).
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, but he also said one way or the other. And what you just said, though, is we continue to make headway; we're not quite there yet. That seems to me that you are tilting it in the direction of optimism or hopefulness that you will reach an agreement with the Russians. Is --
MR TONER: Well, look, I think, again, I don't want to lean into this too far for the obvious reason that anyone can see that there's still challenges that we need to overcome before we can reach any kind of agreement with Russia on the way forward in Syria. I think that the – what the Secretary said yesterday and holds true is that our teams have been meeting, continue to meet, will meet this week, and continue to look at those issues and see if we can overcome them in a way that's positive and constructive. Everyone gets the urgency here, so we can't look at the situation, especially around Aleppo, and not feel a sense of urgency. And I think the Secretary stated, as I said, his hope that we can get there.
QUESTION: So wait, just to make sure we're all operating from the same dictionary definition, when you say "headway," that – you mean there's been some progress? When you continue to make headway, it's not – it --
MR TONER: Well, again, I – by "headway," I mean – sure. I think we continue to hold these discussions with them with the clear objective of getting to an agreement. We're not there yet, obviously, but --
QUESTION: I understand, but when you say – this is basically trying to – I'm just trying to get a – draw a fine point on your answer to Arshad's question, which – I mean, you can continue to talk and just beat each other up and not make any progress. But when you say you continue to make headway, that suggests that at least there has been something to make you think that it is worthwhile continuing these talks.
MR TONER: Well, I don't – well, again, I don't think we'd be talking still if we didn't believe there was some --
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: Mark, on what agreement are you talking about or are you trying to reach?
MR TONER: We're talking about --
QUESTION: On the political situation, on the transition, on the future of Assad, on the cessation of hostilities?
MR TONER: All of the above. I mean, what we're talking is basically what came out of the meetings in Moscow. My calendar – internal calendar – is scrambled. I think it was a month or so ago – probably more than that – but when he held meetings in Moscow, and then out of that there were these subsequent meetings at the kind of working group level. Those continue. But again, the clear objective here is we want to reach a nationwide sustainable cessation of hostilities similar to what we had in place early on in February, I think. And then we also want to get, once that's in place, a political process started again in Geneva. And that remains the goal; that's what we're fixated on. Obviously, the situation in and around Aleppo over the past month or so has only, as I said, increased the urgency but also complicated those talks, of course. But we continue to hope – make progress.
QUESTION: Mark, on --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: There is a ceasefire that has just been implemented or announced in Hasakah in the fight between the Syrian regime and the Kurdish forces. First of all, do you have any comment on this recent ceasefire? Did you have – did you play a role in bringing it about? Do you think that the threat that the United States posed to the Syrian forces may have played into that? How – what is your comment?
MR TONER: Yeah, I don't have much. I mean, we've seen reports about the ceasefire around Hasakah, as you mentioned. In that certain area, and I think I said this yesterday, our forces haven't really been involved in that area. But obviously, anything that would allow the Syrian Democratic Forces to focus on the real enemy, which is the – ISIL and combatting and defeating ISIL would be welcome, but we don't have much to – more to comment on that.
QUESTION: So in this case, the United States was driven by an urgency of its Turkish – Kurdish allies being targeted by the Syrian regime, but you don't feel the same kind of urgency as far as the other opposition groups are concerned? Because we didn't see any movement of airplanes or any (inaudible) or anything.
MR TONER: I'm not sure I understand the exact question.
QUESTION: Well, my question is very simple --
MR TONER: Go ahead, please. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- that when the Kurdish forces were threatened by the – when the bombardment was going on by the Syrian forces, by the Syrian air force and so on, you moved and you threatened and you said these are our forces. Is it because your forces are there, because American personnel are in that area, or is it because you have a more solid alliance with the Kurdish forces than you do with other opposition forces?
MR TONER: Well, I think the Department of Defense spoke to this and were quite clear that wherever U.S. forces, without getting too specific about where those forces may be operating, but wherever they're in danger --
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: -- we're going to act accordingly to protect those forces. And I think in the case of Hasakah, it – it was in close proximity, some of those airstrikes, to where some of our forces were operating. But again, that's not to imply that we had involvement in that area itself. But as you know, our role in northern Syria of some of these forces is really train, advisement of these Syrian Democratic Forces, and that takes place in different locales.
QUESTION: So does that preclude the presence of American personnel in any other part of Syria?
MR TONER: We're not going to speak to that.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah, Nicolas.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MR TONER: Of course, sure. Are we done with Syria? Good, thanks. Sorry. You have a Syria question?
QUESTION: Yeah, Syria. So there are --
MR TONER: (Inaudible) get to you.
QUESTION: I'm late in the briefing. I don't know that this was going to be asked here or not. So there's a major shift in Turkey's policy about Syria. They just said that – they just gave the green light to President Assad for the peace settlement there. I hope you have seen those comments of the Turkish prime minister. So how you watching the situation? I mean, they are now considering Assad as a president. They are supporting him for the peace process now.
MR TONER: I mean, look, I'd refer you to the Turkish Government to speak to its intentions. But look, Turkey's been a valuable partner in the counter-ISIL coalition, remains so despite some of the internal crises that they've been dealing with post attempted coup. Vice President Biden was just there. This – now I think he's gone now, but was there and had good, fruitful meetings with the government and his counterparts.[1]
With regard to the future of Assad and the political process, Turkey's also a member of the ISSG, the International Syria Support Group. They're there for a reason. We consider them a stakeholder in Syria's future and we value their counsel on the way forward to reach a peaceful settlement. And I think that's what they have expressed as well. They understand the threat that they are under probably more than – well, not than any other country, but they're under a serious threat from ISIL, as we've seen from numerous terrorist attacks. They understand the threat that ISIL poses. They're part of the coalition. And then with regard to the political transition and a post-Assad government, they're also signed up to UN Security Council resolution 2254 and are a part of that transition as well and an active member of the ISSG.
QUESTION: Yeah --
QUESTION: On – on this one --
QUESTION: Related questions --
QUESTION: Sorry, on this issue, Turkish forces have bombed today Kurds and Arab forces in Manbij, who are supported by the U.S. Do you have anything on this?
MR TONER: Well, we're in contact with Turkish officials, as well as representatives of the Syrian Democratic Forces, on this incident. I would say that we're working to ensure that tensions don't escalate and to remind both sides or both parties that ISIL is the main enemy here and the common enemy that must be confronted, and that our efforts need to be geared towards ensuring that all of our partners remain focused on that goal.
QUESTION: Related on Iraq and ISIS?
MR TONER: Iraq and ISIS.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, two major figures complained publicly that political preparation for the liberation of Mosul is badly lacking. They include the Kurdish President Masoud Barzani as well as Iyad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister, very pro-American. I understand that Baghdad is in charge of this, but Allawi said, quote, "We do not see any serious steps by the Iraqi Government to coordinate and prepare the environment during the Mosul liberation and post-liberation." Is this something – this question of Mosul – that you are discussing with Baghdad? Are you assisting them in formulating a post-ISIS plan for Mosul?
MR TONER: Yes. And I think I spoke a little bit about this last week, and our Special Envoy Brett McGurk was just in the region and, in fact, held meetings with both sides or with Kurdistan officials as well as with – or Kurdish officials, rather, as well as Iraqi government officials on this very issue: looking forward towards what needs to be done next in terms of going after ISIL in Iraq and keeping the pressure on them.
We're regularly engaged with both the central government, as I said, and the regional government in Erbil about the necessary political and military steps that need to be taken to make sure that we're successful in liberating Mosul. And I can say yesterday that our ambassador there, Stuart Jones, held a press conference, where he also reaffirmed the United States commitment to provide assistance to the Iraqi campaign to defeat ISIL on the battlefield, but also – and we've talked about this a great deal – how to make sure that humanitarian assistance quickly follows and stabilizes these liberated areas.
So bottom line is we're aware of the tensions and the questions and the issues here. We're working closely with all the parties to try to remain – or try to, rather, maintain a consistent front that keeps the pressure on destroying and degrading ISIL in Iraq.
QUESTION: Can we stay in --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- Turkey, in the region?
QUESTION: Mark, please --
MR TONER: She had a question, and then I swear I'll get to you, Michel, okay?
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Afghanistan. What do you think about currently situation in Afghanistan?
MR TONER: Oh, can I just – do we have – were you on still – I apologize, but were you still on --
QUESTION: Turkey.
MR TONER: Or we've moved to – so you were on Turkey.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Let's do Afghanistan. No, let's do Afghanistan. I apologize. I just --
QUESTION: Yeah. Battle continue between Taliban and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, and upcoming conference – Brussels conference – also very close. What is your expectation from the donors? They will be in Brussels conference soon.
MR TONER: So I'm sorry, your last part of your question, I just want to make sure I heard it correctly --
QUESTION: Brussels conference also be very soon, and --
MR TONER: The Brussels conference, you said?
QUESTION: Brussels, Brussels.
QUESTION: Brussels.
MR TONER: Brussels. Okay, yeah.
QUESTION: For Afghanistan, yes. What's your expectation from the donors?
MR TONER: Well, look, I don't want to prejudge the outcome of a donors conference. I can just say that everyone is obviously committed to – who will attend that conference is committed to a successful, prosperous future for Afghanistan. We're aware this is fighting season; there's been some challenges. We've seen that certainly in Helmand province over the past – or recent weeks, where fighting has been quite intense. And our efforts, in terms of security, remain focused on working with Afghan forces, making sure that they are capable, equipped, and able to confront and defeat Taliban on the battlefield.
But obviously, as we've also talked about, we would like to see an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led peace process established between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban. And that remains our desire. And I think that the sooner we get there, the sooner we can have a settlement that's in the long-term interest of the Afghan people and indeed the region.
In terms of the political situation, we strongly support and continue to support the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. We understand that there's challenges, work to be done, but we've also seen some progress. We're going to encourage the government and its leadership to work through current tensions and to continue to work for the good of the country.
Good.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Thanks. Michel, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, on Turkey.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any readout on the U.S. delegation meetings in Turkey?
MR TONER: You're talking about for the Vice President?
QUESTION: No. The DOJ officials and the State Department --
MR TONER: Oh, yeah. No, I don't, unfortunately. I'll try to see if I can get more for you on that. I don't think I do. Let me check very, very quickly, but I don't think I have anything to read out at this point. Obviously, he's talking about the team from the Department of Justice that has gone to --
QUESTION: And State Department.
MR TONER: What's that?
QUESTION: And State Department, too.
MR TONER: And State Department. But I don't have any kind of a readout for you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: But this is something we had talked about, I think, previously, that these teams – we offered, in fact, to send these teams to cooperate with Turkish officials in the aftermath of the coup.
QUESTION: And staying in the region, Secretary Kerry has called his Egyptian – or his Egyptian counterparts. Any readout for the phone call?
MR TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR TONER: Turkey. Where – where's Turkey?
QUESTION: Turkey.
MR TONER: Turkey, go ahead.
QUESTION: So over the weekend, Turkish prime minister told reporters that if needed, Russia could use its air base at Incirlik to launch airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. Is the U.S. concerned that could actually happen? And if it did happen, how would the U.S. handle sharing a runway with Russia?
MR TONER: So I'm aware of those comments. And of course, we have in our private diplomatic conversations with Turkey sought clarity on what they're – what the implications of those might be. I don't have really anything to add other than that we continue to, obviously, use Incirlik, and we used it all through, as I said, the aftermath of the – well, the coup attempt and then the aftermath of the coup attempt, where Incirlik was affected without a doubt by those events. We deeply appreciate, frankly, Turkey allowing us to use Incirlik, because it allows us to carry out airstrikes in close proximity and support for the Syrian forces that are – or Syrian Democratic Forces that are fighting in northern Syria, and we want to continue that relationship.
I don't think we're there yet in terms of – I don't want to project what Turkey may be leaning towards with Russia. We – and we talked about this at the beginning of the briefing – are in conversations with Russia about a way forward in which we focus on combating exclusively ISIL and Daesh and airstrikes focused exclusively on ISIL and Daesh. But we haven't seen that completely realized yet, and Aleppo is a perfect example of that, where you still see strikes hitting civilian targets and certainly moderate opposition targets. And that is not helping the overall situation in Syria. And again, reaching – we're all at least trying to reach for the same goal here, which is a peaceful political transition and a credible cessation of hostilities. But I think that at least on our side, for our part, we're still not convinced we're there yet with the Russians. But we continue to work in that direction.
QUESTION: Do you have any indication that Russia and Turkey have been talking about using that air base?
MR TONER: Not specifically on that air base. There were, obviously – there has been a rapprochement, if you will, between Turkey and Russia in recent weeks. That's for the Turks and the Russians to speak to. They're both members, as I said, of the ISSG, the International Syria Support Group; both stakeholders in what happens in Syria, with regard to what happens in Syria. As much as we can have a better and more constructive relationship with Russia with regards to Syria, we would certainly want the same between Turkey and Russia. For our part, we're not there yet.
QUESTION: One more Turkey thing --
MR TONER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Fethullah Gulen. Is there any update on the extradition request by Turkey?
MR TONER: I don't have an update other than the fact that it was – at least a part of the conversation that was taking part for these working groups that are visiting Turkey, are in Turkey right now. I do have one slight update and one slight – not slight, but one additional point of clarity, because this came up with regards to the extradition request last week. So we can confirm now that Turkey has requested the extradition of Mr. Gulen, but I wouldn't characterize the request as relating to the coup attempt. In fact, they don't relate to the 2016 attempted coup. I don't have other further details to provide other than that, except to say that we have – as I said, we have received a formal extradition request, just not one pertaining to the coup attempt.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: In the – well, so we talked about the tranches of documents that we've received in the past several weeks, and I think once we assessed those documents and made a full assessment of those documents, we were able to make that determination.
QUESTION: So it's not that you received a new document --
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: -- it's that your assessment of the documents --
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: Why did it take so long?
MR TONER: I think we were (a) trying to work our way through the documents and (b) trying to work with – see if Turkey was going to add additional documents to that tranche.
QUESTION: Is that – is that new guidance from today or was it from before and your --
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: So it's new today? What --
MR TONER: No, I'm not – I mean, it's not today. I think – I think --
QUESTION: Do you know when the decision was made that it was a --
MR TONER: So I – that – well, the decision was made. I don't know when the decision was made that this – that this was a formal extradition request – that this constituted a formal extradition request. I think it's relatively new – like I said, in the past several days. But I do note that it was also mentioned, I believe, as part of the Vice President's visit, I think in one of the backgrounders that they gave in relation to that.
QUESTION: And --
QUESTION: If it's not related to the --
QUESTION: Yeah. If it's not related to the coup – exactly – what is it related to?
MR TONER: As I said, I don't have additional details to provide. It's obviously related to other reasons for which they want him extradited for, but I don't have the specifics on that. And I offered that – this information with some hesitation because we've talked about all along we don't talk about extradition requests or extradition processes. But --
QUESTION: And yet you just did. (Laughter.)
MR TONER: But – but we felt – I felt that we owed you an answer to that, because in the early days, we – the Secretary and others talked about the fact that there is an extradition treaty with Turkey, and once we do receive a formal extradition request, we would acknowledge that.
QUESTION: Well, can you say whether, then, the – what you have been doing up until the last couple of days has been related only to deciding whether the material the Turks submitted amounted to a formal extradition request or – in other words, are we now in the stage where you are actually considering the merits of the request?
MR TONER: My understanding is that we're considering – we're now in the stage where we're considering the merits of the request.
QUESTION: And prior to this point, you had only been determining whether or not the documents that they had submitted amounted to a formal extradition request under the treaty. Is that --
MR TONER: That's my understanding.
QUESTION: -- correct as well? So in other words, the process for deciding on whether or not to extradite him has now begun. And prior to – prior to you determining that it was an official extradition request, that – it hadn't – that was not what was being considered. Is that right?
MR TONER: Again, I don't want to necessarily wave a red flag that the process has started. I think that there was a period of assessment as they worked their way through this – the material that was presented. And I think in recent days/weeks that it was determined that these did constitute formal requests – or a formal request, but that it wasn't related to the 2016 coup – attempt, rather – coup attempt.
QUESTION: And Mark, why you intended to announce this today, and tomorrow the --
MR TONER: I apologize; I didn't hear what you said.
QUESTION: Why did you intend to announce this statement today, and tomorrow Vice President Biden will be in Turkey?
MR TONER: Well, again, I didn't. I just – she asked me the question about an update on Gulen's extradition, so I took advantage of the --
QUESTION: You took --
MR TONER: I did.
QUESTION: Just coincidentally?
MR TONER: I seized the opportunity – carpe diem. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR TONER: Yes, please.
QUESTION: When you said – again, when you said it's not related to the attempted coup, it mean that there is not a single word in the documents mentioning the coup or --
MR TONER: I haven't read through the documents. My understanding is that these requests do not relate to the 2016 attempted coup.
QUESTION: So the U.S. thinks that the – that Turkey does not connect Mr. Gulen to the attempted --
MR TONER: I don't know the --
QUESTION: -- attempted coup?
MR TONER: I don't – I can't say that we have made that assessment either. You've obviously seen Turkish politicians and authorities talk about or make allegations that he was connected. All I can say is that this request does not relate to his involvement in the 2016 – or alleged involvement in the 2016 attempted coup.
QUESTION: Can I move on?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Can we change topics?
MR TONER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we stay on the --
QUESTION: Sure, sure.
MR TONER: Or as many --
QUESTION: This – this extradition request, can they add to it if – in the future, or is this – is that it, basically, in terms of what you're expecting from the Turks?
MR TONER: That's a good question. I am not a lawyer and I'm not an extradition expert. I don't know if they would have to – if they could add to it, as you put it, or they would have to do another, separate request. And I can try to get that information for you. I just don't know the answer.
QUESTION: Mark, you said (inaudible) requests, I think, but it's just one request.
MR TONER: Yeah, yeah. Well, no, the – because in front of me it says "requests."
QUESTION: So they --
MR TONER: So I think – and we talked about this before – that we – we've received, for lack of a better word, tranches of documents or different sets of documents, materials, if you will. So again, I don't want to wade too deep into this because this is not a public process. But we're – we assessed those documents that we received, and we made that assessment that they do constitute an extradition request.
QUESTION: Why – I still don't understand why this took so long. I mean, it seems very, very silly to have had this debate, I think for more than a month in public, where the Turks are saying we've made an extradition request and where you guys are not able to say yeah, they've made an extradition request. I mean, the State Department has Turkish speakers. Presumably, they didn't bury their request in the middle of a thousand-page stack of papers. Why would this take so very long?
MR TONER: So for one thing, I don't – I haven't seen the amount of materials, so I'd have to get more specifics about whether this was several hundred pages of documents, thousands of pages of documents. I just don't know.
But I also think partly it's a deliberate legal process and they had to look at the evidence, weigh it and consider it, and figure out whether perhaps more was coming. And that speaks to his question as well as whether there was – whether we were waiting for additional materials to be provided. But I think at this point we've reached an assessment that they have made a formal request, just not relating to the 2016 attempted coup.
QUESTION: When was the --
QUESTION: And was the request – sorry.
MR TONER: That I don't know. I don't have an exact date certain on that. I don't.
QUESTION: Was the request – was whether or not what they submitted constituted a formal request in part contingent on the quantity or quality of the evidence they provided?
MR TONER: So again, I don't want to speak too much about the process, but there was an addition – there were some documents that we received addition – initially, sorry – initially that I think we talked about were not part of a formal extradition request and pertained to other legal processes that – or requests. And then there was an additional tranche of documents received after that.
Again, I'm not a legal expert. I'm not a lawyer. I think that, though, that there needed to be a sober, deliberate assessment of the materials to see whether they actually amounted to a formal extradition request. But I don't have – I apologize; I don't have a lot of detail to provide beyond that.
QUESTION: And there was only one additional tranche of documents, correct, or were there several?
MR TONER: We talked about, I think, several. But some of the initial tranches were not – as we determined, were not part of that – or extradition requests.
QUESTION: And do you have the dates on which you received the initial request, and then the subsequent tranches of documents?
MR TONER: I don't. I can try to get those for you.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: Can we now move on to the Middle East?
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Palestinian, Israeli issue?
MR TONER: Yep. Sure.
QUESTION: Mark, I wonder if you have any comment. The Israelis – according to the Israeli press, Israel is planning, for the first time in ten years, to expand the Jewish settlement in Hebron. First of all, are you aware of this report? And second, do you have a comment on this?
MR TONER: Well, we have seen those reports, Said, that the Israelis are considering – plan to build homes for Israeli settlers in a military compound in Hebron. Certainly if these reports are true, it would appear to be an effort to expand civilian Israeli settlement in the city of Hebron, and that would represent a deeply concerning step of settlement expansions – settlement expansion, rather, on land that is at least partially owned by the Palestinians. As you know, we strongly oppose all settlement activity, which is corrosive to the cause of peace. And we've said repeatedly such moves are not consistent with Israel's stated desire to achieve a two-state solution.
QUESTION: And I just – if I could follow up – also Israel issued orders also in Hebron, in the hills of Hebron, for the – to demolish seven homes and to throw out seven families and so on, in a town that is actually not – it's a small town under the – I think, under the authority of the Palestinian Authority. So do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: You're talking about, I think, Hebron hills.
QUESTION: Yes, the Hebron hills. Yes.
MR TONER: We're concerned by the accelerated rate of demolitions undertaken by Israeli authorities that continue, not just specifically in Hebron hills, but, frankly, throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And we raise those concerns with Israeli authorities.
QUESTION: And lastly, on the administrative detention, apparently Israel is re-arresting Palestinians who have been released and they just – under administrative detention. I wonder if you have any comment on that, considering that the UN is calling on Israel to end the practice of administrative detention.
MR TONER: Well, I think, in general, we obviously believe all individuals should be treated humanely and have their basic human rights respected and upheld. With regard to the UN's statement – I think it was about a hunger striker --
QUESTION: And also – this also.
MR TONER: Right. You know our concern about administrative detention has to do with, as I said, concerns about the fact that all prisoners, all individuals, should be treated humanely and have their basic human rights upheld. With regard to the resolution of any hunger strike, we'd like to see a resolution that does not result in the loss of life.
QUESTION: Okay. But I've asked this over the years --
MR TONER: I know.
QUESTION: -- on the issue of administrative detentions. What is the United States position on administrative detentions, especially that it goes on month after month, year after year, sometimes for decades, without prisoners being charged with anything?
MR TONER: Well, again, we respect Israel's right to provide for the security of its citizens and take steps in that regard, but I think with administrative detention, we always have concerns where we – or we always, I think, raise concerns that we may have regarding overly long administrative detentions, ones that don't seem to be resolved in any kind of expedient fashion, or, as I said, don't appear to respect – and when I say this I mean in terms of length, duration – but don't seem to respect the individual rights of those who are being detained.
QUESTION: China?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: According to Yonhap News Agency, three Chinese and military planes entered an overlapping Air Defense Identification Zone of China and South Korea last Thursday without prior notification. Can you confirm the report and do you have any comment?
MR TONER: You're talking about – sorry, three --
QUESTION: Chinese military planes flew into an overlapping air defense identification zone with South Korea.
MR TONER: I'm not aware of those reports. I'd – frankly, I'd refer you to the Department of Defense to speak to that.
QUESTION: On Pakistan, sir. One question.
MR TONER: Did you – I already spoke to you once. I'll – I want to get to them. I'll get back to you. Don't worry.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) All right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. We know that China, Japan, and South Korea foreign minister are holding a trilateral meeting in Tokyo today. So does United States – the United States have any comment about that?
MR TONER: Sure. We – you're talking, I think, about the foreign ministers' meeting in Tokyo on August 23rd, 24th. We believe in strong and constructive relationships – or relations, rather, among countries in the region promote peace and stability and are in the interests of the United States and in the interests, frankly, of the entire region. But not – nothing to add beyond that.
QUESTION: More on China?
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: The twin-city forum between Taipei and Shanghai is being held in Taipei, Taiwan, and China sent its highest-level official since Ms. – President Tsai took office. And this Chinese official attending the forum said, quote, "The development of cross-strait relations and cooperation should be based on a common political foundation – that is, the recognition of one China," unquote. Do you agree with his comment and do you have any comment?
MR TONER: Can you just – his comments one more time? I'm sorry, I don't --
QUESTION: He said, "The development of cross-strait relations and cooperation should be based on a common political foundation – that is, the recognition of one China."
MR TONER: Well, look, the United States has a strong and abiding interest in cross-strait stability. There's been no change in our policy, which is longstanding, and that is we maintain a "one China" policy based on three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. We also believe that cross-strait issues should be resolved peacefully and in a manner, pace, and scope that's acceptable to people on both sides of the strait.
QUESTION: Sir --
MR TONER: Oh, of course, sir. I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you very much (inaudible). Sir, yesterday, activist of a political party, MQM, in Pakistan attacked the ARY News TV head office – my organization head office – in Karachi. One person was killed; several others were injured. Sir, what are your views about the freedom of press in a country like Pakistan?
MR TONER: Well, we're – we've certainly seen the reports about these incidents. Pakistani Security Forces I think have arrested several members of the MQM, the Muttahidi – Muttahida, rather, Quami Movement. Some of these members – and also sealed their headquarters. We're also aware of yesterday's vandalism of an ARY News office in Karachi. Obviously, the Government of Pakistan would be the best source for further information on these events. I would just say in a democratic society, critical opinion should be encouraged, not silenced. We believe that democracies become stronger by allowing free expression from diverse voices within society, and we would certainly emphasize that any expression must be peaceful.
QUESTION: Sir, one last question. It's about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the CTBT. Sir, Pakistan proposed to conclude a bilateral arrangement on nuclear non-testing with India. Pakistan is saying that if India agreed, then test ban would immediately go in effect, creating a legally binding commitment without waiting for CTBT to enter into force. Do you believe such an arrangement will be consistent with object and purpose of the CTBT?
MR TONER: Well, look, we welcome this high-level dialogue between India and Pakistan, encourage both countries to engage in the dialogue and exercise restraint aimed at improving strategic stability. I think this proposal is something we would leave to India's consideration. It remains in our view – rather, it remains our view that the most practical way to achieve a legally binding commitment on nuclear explosive testing would be for both states to sign and ratify the CTBT.
QUESTION: Two quick ones --
MR TONER: Yeah, of course.
QUESTION: One is just a follow-up on the MQM report.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Do you have any concerns about the arrest of the five senior MQM leaders and the shutting down of their political headquarters? I mean, does that – are you worried that that might be sort of political – an effort to silence political – a political party, or do you think it's just part of normal kind of law enforcement after the incident --
MR TONER: Yeah. Sure, sorry.
QUESTION: -- at the broadcaster?
MR TONER: I mean, I think we're always concerned when members of a political party are detained or arrested. We obviously uphold the importance and believe in the importance of public assembly, freedom of speech, as long as it's peaceful. And we would emphasize that any kind of protest, any kind of demonstrations, would need to be conducted peacefully. So I think we're still assessing, gathering information about what took place. And we'll reserve further comment until that time.
QUESTION: Okay. And one other --
MR TONER: Please. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- quick one if I may. I don't know if you've seen the reports from – or the report from the South Korean Yonhap News Agency, saying that North Korea has laid new landmines near the Panmunjom so-called truce village in the DMZ. And I see that we have a – there's a comment from the UN – the U.S.-led UN command, expressing concern about the presence of any device or munition on or near the bridge. But aren't the North Koreans within their right to mine as heavily as they wish their side of the DMZ, just as the United States and South Korea have really vast numbers of mines on the other side?
MR TONER: I mean, I think the concern that you note was expressed – was directed at the safety of people on both sides of the MDL, the military demarcation line, and that includes obviously thousands of visitors who take part in educational tours of the DMZ there. Obviously, as you note, it would be in their rights to – on their side of the border – take these actions. But it just, I think, would – only further exacerbates tensions. And as I said, it does pose a safety risk.
Yes.
QUESTION: A very quick one on Ethiopia, related to the Olympics.
MR TONER: Yeah. Right.
QUESTION: Are you aware of this case of this Ethiopian marathon runner who earned a silver medal and who is apparently very scared of getting killed if he gets back to his country, and according to the BBC and the New York Times is seeking asylum in the U.S.?
MR TONER: So I'm very aware of the case, personally, because I did watch the marathon race and I saw his finish. We're obviously aware of the case. We would encourage all governments to respect the rights of individuals to peacefully express their opinions, and that's whether they're inside or outside their country of birth. I can't speak about – you mentioned asylum requests. We don't – we're not able to legally talk about asylum issues or asylum cases, and that is something that is handled by the Department of Homeland Security. But I think broadly speaking, we would urge any government to accept its returning Olympic athlete peacefully back into the country and to respect any individual's right to express their opinions, as I said, as long as it's peacefully done, and it was.
Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:06 p.m.)
[1] Vice President Biden will meet with Turkish officials on August 24, 2016.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
