• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 6, 2016

Share
Index for Today's Briefing

AFGHANISTAN
RUSSIA
SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY
AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN/REGION
PAKISTAN/INDIA
PHILIPPINES
CHINA
PHILIPPINES
CHINA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
DEPARTMENT
EGYPT
SOUTH KOREA/REGION
UKRAINE
GABON
IRAN
BAHRAIN
TURKEY

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Welcome, everyone, to the State Department. Happy Tuesday. I'll wait a moment for Arshad to join us here. Hey, welcome.

QUESTION: Thanks. Sorry I'm late.

MR TONER: No, no. No worries. I'm not even teasing. Anyway, welcome, everyone, to the State Department. A couple things at the top, and then I'll open it up to your questions.

First of all, we strongly condemn the Taliban attacks on the ministry of defense yesterday in Afghanistan as well as today's attack against CARE International, which is an institution dedicated to helping Afghans build a better future. We commend the courageous actions that were taken by the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces in the aftermath of these attacks. They responded quickly and decisively to the incidents. And we'll – we're going to stand strong with our Afghan partners as they strive to improve citizen safety and security and work towards building a lasting peace in that nation.

Also, just wanted to briefly express the fact that we are deeply troubled by the Russian Government's decision to designate the Levada Center as a so-called "foreign agent." The Levada Center is an internationally respected public opinion and polling organization known for the rigor and quality of its work. Polling is, as we all know here in the U.S., is an important tool in any country that seeks to live by democratic standards of openness, accountability in government, and freedom of scientific inquiry. These are principles Russia should seek to promote, we believe, and not silence.

The Russian Government has designated now 141 organizations as so-called "foreign agents." They've targeted nongovernmental and business associations working to protect the environment, fight the spread of HIV, and promote transparency, good governance, and freedom of expression. These organizations are essential for Russians to achieve transparent and accountable government – governance, rather, equal treatment under the law, and the ability to exercise their rights without fear of retribution.

With that, I will open it to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Welcome back.

MR TONER: Thanks, Matt.

QUESTION: I wanted to start with Syria --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but since you brought – raised the Levada Center first, let me just – so is your issue with the designation of this specific group, or is it with the foreign agent law in particular?

MR TONER: Well, we've expressed our view and our concern at multiple levels about the foreign agent law, and I spoke to, a little bit at the end of – we're obviously believe that the action taken against the Levada Center is unwarranted, given their function, but more broadly we're concerned about the scope of a law that seems to put at risk NGOs and other democratically minded civic organizations within Russia.

QUESTION: So it's both that --

MR TONER: It's both.

QUESTION: -- you have an issue with. Because, I mean, you don't – do you take issue with the designation's claim that they are – they would be, given their sources of funding, that they would be required under the law to be registered as a --

MR TONER: Well, no. I mean, I – look, I mean, it's our understanding, first of all, that the Levada Center is, in fact, independent and it's self-sufficient.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: But I mean, we have worked with the Levada Center, as have other governments and organizations. It has an excellent reputation. We're just worried about the – more broadly, the scope of a law that, again, appears to target many of these civic and NGO groups that, frankly, we believe are in the long-term interests of Russia's democracy.

QUESTION: And I got – just to tie --

MR TONER: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- this up, then, in a bow.

MR TONER: Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: I mean, you were – you expressed concerns about a similar law in Israel --

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: -- not so long ago. But both people in Israel and in Russia say – make the argument that these laws are very similar, if not identical, to FARA laws here in the U.S. You don't agree with that?

MR TONER: We don't. And again, we – our concern is based in part on the fact that what we've seen, and particularly Russia, as I just mentioned, which is it seems that many groups that we consider to be very worthwhile in terms of the work they're doing on the ground in Russia to have been targeted.

QUESTION: So just to understand --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- your objection is not to the law itself, but to the fact that this law is being applied to this particular organization? I don't understand.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: Didn't he just answer that by saying both?

MR TONER: I did.

QUESTION: I'm trying to understand that.

MR TONER: So what our concerns are – and we've spoken, as Matt said, about similar laws elsewhere – is that they're being used as a pretext or as a way to target NGOs – international NGOs, many of them, but nongovernmental organizations that are, in fact, playing what we believe to be a very constructive role in the civil society of many of these countries. I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: So can we move to Syria, unless there's more on --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: I just --

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Kind of a philosophical follow-up on that one.

MR TONER: I'm very jetlagged. I don't know if I can get philosophical with you.

QUESTION: I can't --

QUESTION: The (inaudible) answer.

MR TONER: No, go ahead. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Yes. Is there not a danger that you stand at the podium and defend Levada, that that will reinforce the Russian administration's opposition to it?

MR TONER: Point taken, but I don't think so. I mean, look, we, the United States, are adamant about belief in the integrity of civil society and the fact that it's a cornerstone for any democracy. So – and you know where we stand on the value of democracy as a political system. And so we believe that it's in Russia's long-term interest, if it is trying to build a strong democracy, to support these kinds of organizations and the work that they do.

QUESTION: Do you believe Russia is trying to build a strong democracy?

MR TONER: Well, that's for Russia for answer, but the Russian people, we believe, deserve one.

QUESTION: On Syria?

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So what happened over the weekend? It seemed when --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- on Friday that things were looking up, that the deal might be within reach. And then all of the sudden – poof. What happened?

MR TONER: Well, so I'm not going to get into the details of what happened, except to say that we continue to have this discussion with Russia on how to put in place a stronger nationwide cessation of hostilities that will allow humanitarian aid to access all besieged areas and to get a political process back up and running in Geneva. These are all steps, as we all know in this room, that we believe we have to get to in order to get to what the common goal, at least what we believe the common goal to be, which is a political transition in Syria.

We continue to work at that with Russia. There were ongoing talks between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in China over the weekend. But we're not there yet. We're not resolved. And I would just say that we continue to feel like we're making progress and believe we're making progress on some of the remaining issues, but we're not going to settle. And we feel like, given – or we believe, rather, that given the importance of this arrangement that we're seeking and the impact of this arrangement that we're seeking, we believe it's absolutely essential that we get a clear understanding of the way forward.

QUESTION: Sorry. You're not going to settle for what?

MR TONER: We're not going to settle for a less-than-ideal deal or –

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: What are you – what's confusing --

QUESTION: People always settle for less than the ideal. It's the risk of sacrificing the good for the perfect if the perfect is kind of – is impossible. So --

MR TONER: Well, I understand that. I mean, in any kind of diplomatic give-and-take, of course there's --

QUESTION: Yeah, but the ideal – that ideal is perfection, right? So --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: But that doesn't mean you settle for something that we don't believe is going to get us to where we need to go.

QUESTION: Which --

MR TONER: Which again is a nationwide cessation of hostilities, a clear understanding of who's part of that cessation of hostilities --

QUESTION: Let me just make sure I understand right.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: From Geneva, where we all were last weekend or the weekend before last --

MR TONER: Weekend before.

QUESTION: -- until China, this weekend, you're saying that there was progress made during that week? Because it sounded as is there – what progress that had been claimed to have been made in Geneva or at the time of the Geneva meeting was either eroded or if not wiped out completely.

MR TONER: I just – and again, I mean, it's important to understand that this has been a discussion that we've been having over the course of several months now with Russia. We continue to make progress overall, but we're not there yet. And I think that there's still work to be done, and particularly about how we would go about implementing any agreement that we did reach. And I think that clearly what happened in China and Secretary Kerry's meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov is – we weren't quite to the finish line on this, so we need to go back and – to capitals and do more work. And hopefully we'll reach an agreement, but no promises.

QUESTION: Well, that seemed to – and I'll stop after this, but --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: With this going back to capitals thing, the capitals were all in Hangzhou.

MR TONER: No. But, Matt, what I'm talking about is there are --

QUESTION: So what's the next – so what --

MR TONER: But to be clear --

QUESTION: So this is a long way of getting at: What's the next step here?

MR TONER: No. To be clear, I understand your point about the capitals all being in Hangzhou. But some of these questions are at a very detailed tactical level. And that requires, frankly, some of the groups that have been working on this out of Geneva, many of them, but others who have a certain expertise to settle some of these remaining issues.

In terms of next steps, the President spoke to it yesterday. We're going to – he said that Secretary Kerry is going to continue to work with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and the expectation is that they'll meet again very soon, but we don't have a specific time or place to --

QUESTION: Are the technical teams meeting today anywhere, Geneva?

MR TONER: They are continuing to work, yes, out these – again, I mean that's a given that coming out of the meetings over the weekend that these technical teams are looking at the remaining issues and trying to resolve them.

QUESTION: In Geneva?

MR TONER: And then we're working – I believe in Geneva, yes.

QUESTION: When – so when you say they're working --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- are they actually meeting or are they just working separately and not actually meeting?

MR TONER: I believe both, is what my understanding is.

QUESTION: And can you – when you said the expectation is that they will meet very soon – that is, Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov – do you expect them to meet this week?

MR TONER: I just can't say definitively. And I think part of that is just we're waiting to hear back from some of the work that these technical groups are doing and we're waiting to hear back from the Russians about where they are on their work, just to make sure that we're at a place where it's beneficial for foreign minister – for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov to get together again.

QUESTION: Can you shed any light on what were the couple of sticking points?

MR TONER: I can't, and I apologize for that, but we've been very disciplined, I think, about not oversharing the details about this arrangement that we're pursuing with them for a lot of reasons, but these are delicate diplomatic conversations that we're having and we believe at this point in time it's best to keep those discussions in large part confidential.

Let me – but we all know – again, I mean, I'm not – I know I said this in response to Matt, but we know the – what the basic architecture is, which is how do we stop the fighting, how do we get back in place a cessation of hostilities that's sustainable in what has become, as an understatement, a very complex battlespace. I mean, it's – there's different groups and factions fighting in and around Aleppo, including the regime and with Russia's support. So it is extremely delicate, extremely sensitive, but we wouldn't still be in this conversation if we didn't think it was still worthwhile.

QUESTION: You said that you weren't going to settle for anything less than an ideal outcome.

MR TONER: I --

QUESTION: Although it's very hard to imagine what that would look like in Syria right now.

MR TONER: No, no, that's okay. I – let me – let me just go back to that. What I was trying to say, and I'm sorry if I didn't convey that properly – what we're looking for is not, obviously, the perfect, but we definitely want to make sure that we have a clear understanding on the way forward, how to implement this arrangement if we do come to agreement on it, what the clear steps are going forward to implement it, and to make sure that it's in our interests and in the interests of the Syrian opposition as well as the Syrian people. And that's a vital element too, is the fact that – I mean, we talk about it all the time, but the ongoing suffering of the Syrian people and the inability to get humanitarian assistance in to them is a key part of this.

QUESTION: So on – I realize you're kind of backing away from the word "ideal," and I understand that --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but you emphasized right at the outset the desire to restore the cessation of hostilities. Are you willing to accept anything that doesn't start with, as a principle, a nationwide cessation of hostilities? Are you willing to start with localized cessation of hostilities, for example, and hope that it builds, or do you really feel like if you're not going to settle, you need to have an agreement on a nationwide cessation of hostilities?

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, it's a fair question. What we need – and I'll answer it somewhat vaguely and I apologize again for doing that, but I don't want to get into the details of what we're talking about with the Russians – but I think what we're looking at is certainly a clear path forward to a nationwide cessation of hostilities. Now, whether that's going to happen overnight or whether that's going to happen over a period of days, that's a question to be resolved.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: The UN Security Council voted for the --

MR TONER: I'll get to you.

QUESTION: -- to endorse the cessation of hostilities on February 27th. So even if you do get a deal, it's a step back from a cessation that was already declared and hailed.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, to some extent, we don't argue that. I mean, we did have a cessation of hostilities in place that saved lives and that did bring a brief period of calm to Syria. We want to get back to that point, because that allowed us to do a lot of valuable things like get humanitarian assistance to those places that need it and it allowed us to get at least talks going in Geneva that have now since stalled for obvious reasons.

QUESTION: But if the stall continues, is there a point where there's no point going on? Or the costs – diplomatic costs in keeping Russia's profile so high outweigh the potential future benefits?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think that we're obviously always trying to be clear-eyed in our assessment of the prospects of an agreement and a way forward that is in our interests but also in the interests of the region and in the interests of the Syrian people. We've talked before about what happens if this – we don't get there in a political process, and frankly, it's not – the prospects aren't good. There's – we've said all along there's no military solution to this, and what – the last thing we want to see is Syria to slide into even more horrific warfare.

QUESTION: Mark, just so I understand.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: So what you're – the deal you're looking at now is a cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access to the besieged communities, no more than that? Because before the weekend, one expected that there – a grand deal – I mean, really ideal deal --

MR TONER: Well, we've – I mean, we've talked beyond – look, I mean --

QUESTION: -- was in the offing.

MR TONER: I can lay out all the elements that we've talked about, and we all, I think, have a grasp of what's the ideal way forward: cessation of hostilities nationwide; talks to begin again in Geneva under the auspices of the UN and Staffan de Mistura; humanitarian assistance access to all besieged areas, administered by the UN; and then what we've talked about, if we get these steps along the way – we have talked about the possibility of working in some fashion with Russia to carry out strikes specifically targeting Nusrah and Daesh, who are – we have a common understanding who are the clear enemy that we share in Syria.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, two weeks from today, the debates at UNGA, the United Nations General Assembly, begin.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: Do you expect to arrive at this deal together with the Russians by then? Do you expect that?

MR TONER: We're working to make progress --

QUESTION: Taking into consideration the --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- the President's statement and statements by --

MR TONER: I mean, I'm not going to predict because that's a dangerous thing to do in foreign policy and diplomacy, but we're working full-stop to try to get there.

QUESTION: Okay. I want to ask you about the two airplanes today, P8-A – American airplanes – Poseidon, that were over a Russian base in Syria. Can you confirm that?

MR TONER: I cannot. I'd have to refer you to the Department of Defense. First time I'm hearing about it.

QUESTION: Okay. And my final question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: You said that Nusrah and ISIS are still the fair game, but they've changed their name since then and you have been accused time and again that ever since they changed names, you have not targeted them.

MR TONER: We've been accused of that? I would argue just the opposite.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Well, the Russians are saying that --

MR TONER: I would say just the opposite. Sure.

QUESTION: -- ever since they became Fateh al-Sham, that you guys have ceased targeting them.

MR TONER: Have ceased targeting them? No, I would argue just the opposite. We've spoken from this podium. I've said – look, they may try to rebrand themselves, but we still view them as the same.

QUESTION: Mark, on Syria?

MR TONER: Are we – stay on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Okay. I'm sorry – Michel, and then I'll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: A couple of questions.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Foreign minister – Saudi foreign minister has said today that Syria ceasefire deal could be agreed within 24 hours. Do you share the same statement?

MR TONER: Again, I just don't want to be overly optimistic. We're working to get there with them.

One more?

QUESTION: Second thing: There is a meeting in London tomorrow for Friends of Syria --

MR TONER: That's correct.

QUESTION: -- foreign ministers. Will the Secretary participate at this meeting?

MR TONER: I'm not sure what his involvement will be. I mean, he's certainly not – doesn't plan to be there in person, but he --

QUESTION: Who will be there?

MR TONER: -- but he may join in some fashion. Who will be there? I think Michael Ratney will be there.

QUESTION: He may join in some – you mean like video?

MR TONER: I think so, but it's not confirmed. I just understand that's what may happen.

QUESTION: And my third question is: News reports coming from Syria saying that the government dropped suspected chlorine bombs Tuesday on a crowded neighborhood in Aleppo. Do you have anything on this? Can you confirm?

MR TONER: No. I mean, we're – obviously we've seen the reports, Michel. It's terrible. We condemn these kinds of attacks. We're looking into it, investigating the incident, but I can't confirm who was behind it. Obviously, we've seen the government, the regime carry out these kind of attacks before. It just speaks to the horror of what's continuing to happen there.

QUESTION: Will there be any consequences?

MR TONER: Well, again, we're looking into it and trying to assess who's responsible.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. Over the weekend, I believe Ambassador McGurk was again in Kobani and some reports also say he visited Qamishli as well. Is there any way you can tell us how were the meetings and the reason of the meeting?

MR TONER: Sure. I don't want to give you a travel log, but very quickly: So he went to Germany, he went to Syria, and also went to Turkey – broadly to speak about our efforts to defeat ISIL; specifically, the focus of the trip was on disrupting and destroying ISIL's external operations and its networks. But obviously, given the timing, it was also an opportunity for him to – both in Turkey, as well as in Syria – to talk to our partners on the ground who are carrying out attacks and assaults on Daesh or ISIL on the ground.

In Turkey – or rather in Germany, he did meet with senior German officials. He also met with Interpol Secretary-General Jurgen Stock to talk about ways we can collaborate better – again, talking about ISIL's external networks, ways we can collaborate better with Interpol in detecting the movement of foreign fighters.

In Syria, he met with a diverse group of Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF leaders; talked about the – and frankly welcomed the recent liberation of Manbij from ISIL. He also ensured ongoing U.S. support for the SDF in their fight against ISIL and he also emphasized the need for strict adherence to prior commitments made by the SDF. But in all of his meetings he encouraged unity of effort and de-confliction.

In Turkey he met with Senior Turkish officials to discuss U.S. support for ongoing efforts to clear the border region between Syria and Turkey. And they also discussed and welcomed progress to date in that regard, and then talked about – a little about the planning for the Mosul campaign, for the campaign to eventually, to liberate Mosul in Iraq, and more broadly about closer cooperation with Turkey on anti-ISIL.

QUESTION: President Erdogan, after the G20 meeting, said that since the Syrian Kurdish force left Manbij now that Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army's forces can go and get into Manbij. Is this your understanding? Do you think these Turkey-backed FSA forces now may proceed to go in Manbij?

MR TONER: Well, look, I – I mean, to your first question, we do believe that Kurdish elements within the SDF that took part in the Manbij operation have lived up to their commitments and have moved back to the east of the Euphrates River. Speaking more broadly about who should be in Manbij – look, what we've talked about all along here is the fact that, as quickly as possible, we want local authorities and local government to re-establish control of these cities and towns that are liberated from ISIL, because the ultimate goal here is to get the people who have been displaced, or the people who are there and living under ISIL's terror, back up and running as a functioning city.

QUESTION: Related question to that.

QUESTION: But is the FSA – is the FSA --

QUESTION: Related question to that, please. These Turkey-backed forces in Syria are saying that for any safe zone, not only does the United States and Russia need to have an agreement, but also Turkey. How much of a complicating factor is that going to be?

MR TONER: Steve, I've seen those reports. I don't have much to say about them, except that Turkey is always a part of the conversation. Of course they are. They're part of the ISSG, the International Syria Support Group. As I said – just said, Brett McGurk was just there consulting with them on operations. So nothing is going to be done without Turkey's awareness and consent.

QUESTION: But the Turks seem to have their own set of rebels, the FSA, which they've brought into Manbij, and they want to say that these are representing the local people. How do you decide who's representing the local people?

MR TONER: Well, we have a sense of who's representative of the local people. I mean some of these – and we've talked about this quite a bit as these operations have continued through northern Syria, that local fighting forces have been frankly some of the most effective groups to fight and take on and defeat ISIL. It's Syrian Arabs in some cases; it's Syrian Kurds in other cases. What we have always stressed, though, is that no one should try to use this as a pretext for holding and gaining territory; that we need to get local forces, local populations – or rather, local governance back up in place in these places that are liberated so that those who have been displaced by the fighting, or those who live in those cities through the fighting, can get back up and resume their normal lives.

QUESTION: It seems that the Manbij - -

MR TONER: But there's – but there's always – sorry, I didn't mean to – but I mean, the President spoke about this the other day at the G20. It is a complex, to say the least, array of forces that are fighting in northern Syria. Different groups are in common cause, if you will, to defeat ISIL and dislodge them and destroy them. We recognize that. We're working with those groups, but it is a difficult process to manage going forward. But that's what we're aiming to do, is how do we harness the efforts of these groups in common cause. And that to some extent also includes Turkey and its efforts to clear its border. We've got to all work, and we talked about this – sorry, just to finish, (inaudible) – talked about this last week when there was reports of conflict between Turkish forces and some of the Syrian Kurds, that we need to de-conflict, we need – there needs to be an awareness within that space of who is where and that, again, prior commitments need to be honored.

QUESTION: Correct me if I misunderstand, but it seems what happened – because since last week, U.S. officials, yourself and the Pentagon, both been saying the SDF left Manbij as promised and there was this military council established. It seems that the Turkish Government did not like the idea of having a – an element in Manbij running the place that was sympathetic to the SDF, so it pushed them out and came in with its own set of rebels. Is that a reasonable understanding of things?

MR TONER: Look, I would just leave it at the fact that the goal of the Manbij operation was to expel ISIL and to return the city to the control and the governance of the local population. That is what we're working towards.

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- news coming out of Ankara says that there is a delegation from the Justice and Development Party coming over to Washington to talk or discuss the extradition of Fethullah Gulen. Are you aware of that?

MR TONER: First time I'm hearing about it, so if we get any details of it --

QUESTION: They're en route.

MR TONER: Yeah. I just don't – I don't have a reaction. I'll look at the reports and see if we have anything to get back to you.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject, please?

QUESTION: Can I finish Turkey?

MR TONER: We'll finish Turkey/Syria – it's kind of – and then I swear I'll get to you.

QUESTION: Thank you. President Erdogan spokesman Ibrahim Kalin said that there were two meetings between President Erdogan and President Obama at the G20. Do you have any readout about the second meeting spokesman talking about?

MR TONER: I do not. I'm aware of the – obviously the meeting that they had yesterday, but we in fact had already gone wheels up. We'd already left before that meeting ever – while that meeting was starting, so I don't have any readout. It might have been a pull-aside, what they call a pull-aside. They may have briefly met. I just – I would refer you to the White House.

QUESTION: Final question on Turkey: Both the Vice President Biden – his visit to Ankara two weeks ago, and a couple days ago President Obama – when they met with President Erdogan, they did not talk about the journalists that – in jail that you have been telling from this podium that you really care deeply about, and many other human right abuses. I was wondering what the Turkish people should understand that both the Vice President and President Obama not mentioning any of these human rights problems in Turkey when they meet with President Erdogan.

MR TONER: Well, I would want the Turkish people to understand that we don't shy away from talking about human rights concerns and the protection of journalists. As you know and as you mentioned, I speak about it often from this podium. We do it on a bilateral – through our bilateral relations with our ambassador there, Ambassador John Bass. We raise these issues consistently and often when we do have concerns, and we have had concerns about the treatment of some journalists in Turkey.

QUESTION: But if you have concerns, why would President Erdogan not talk about this when he meets with the President? Doesn't it give the impression that you don't really care about it, although you have been saying that you care about it?

MR TONER: Not at all. And again, I'm not going to speak to – it's really for the White House to speak to what the President discussed with President Erdogan – President Obama has discussed with President Erdogan. But there should be no impression taken that we somehow don't take these issues seriously.

You had your – and then I'll --

QUESTION: Yes, thank you. As you mentioned, so many people has been killed in Afghanistan this two, three days. It's really, really tragic and very bad, and Afghan people has a high expectation from the U.S., and they wants the U.S. bring more pressure to Pakistan to change their policy towards Afghanistan.

Number two, UN General Assembly is very close. Do you think that U.S. has any roles to Afghanistan or Pakistan policy to take an action against Pakistan?

MR TONER: Well – and I would point you to his remarks – Secretary Kerry spoke to this during his trip to the region, to his trip to Bangladesh and India last week, that we have had very frank conversations with Pakistan's leadership and military leadership about the need to focus more efforts on those terrorist groups – all the terrorist groups, rather – that are operating from within Pakistani soil – or territory, rather. We continue to have that discussion with them. We have seen some efforts to make progress in that regard. We're going to continue to have those conversations with them as we move forward. And it's in Pakistan's interest, it's in Afghanistan's interest to go after these terrorist groups, to root them out, and to destroy them. The ultimate goal is we want to see peace and stability in the region, and so that's going to involve efforts on Pakistan's part, as well as the ability of Afghanistan and the Afghan Government to provide the stability and security to its own people. And that's what our efforts are focused on.

QUESTION: And the UN, do you think --

MR TONER: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. Look, absolutely, it'll be a topic of discussion in terms of what's going on, the continued insecurity that plagues Afghanistan. As yesterday's terrible attacks showed, we still have to work to go after those entities on the ground – Taliban and other – and root them out if they're going to continue to carry out these kinds of attacks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can I follow again?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: The former U.S. ambassador to the UN and Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said that – has recently said that since Pakistan is not taking enough action against these terrorist network at this time, that the U.S. should consider taking some kind of sanctions against Pakistan. What is the State Department view? Is that an option for the State Department?

MR TONER: I don't think we're even at that point. I mean, we continue to have, as I said, conversations with the highest level of the Government of Pakistan. And our basic point in all of these conversations is that Pakistan must target all militant groups, including those that target Pakistan's neighbors, and eliminate all safe havens. And that's what I was trying to convey to you, as well.

What we've received in terms of response from Pakistanis – from Pakistan authorities is that they've assured us of their intentions to do so. We have been encouraged by some of the steps they've taken, some of their recent counterterrorism operations along the border of the Afghan – Afghanistan. And we're going to continue to work with them to increase those efforts and apply more pressure on these groups.

But the suggestion of any kind of sanctions, we're not there.

QUESTION: I have one more question on Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: About the Loya Jirga, you know when it was – it was due to Secretary Kerry that President Ghani and CEO Abdullah had an agreement on a unity government.

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: And as part of this agreement, within two years, they used – there should have been a Loya Jirga to approve that agreement between the two. That hasn't happened yet. What is Secretary Kerry's view on it?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, we continue – there's been challenges, obviously, to the new government. We continue to work closely. We believe in the current power-sharing arrangement that exists in Afghanistan. I don't have a specific comment on the delay in having a Loya Jirga, except to say that we continue to support the Afghan Government as it seeks to both enact certain reforms – economic and other reforms, but also to increase the capability of the security forces.

QUESTION: And one more on Secretary Kerry's remarks?

MR TONER: One more. Okay. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah. I hope you had a nice trip in Delhi – extended nice trip --

MR TONER: Thank you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry's remarks on terrorism in Pakistan – he said that he spoke to Prime Minister Sharif and General Raheel Sharif on these issues. When is the last time he spoke to them?

MR TONER: Let me see if I can get that for you. I don't have a specific date.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Nicolas and then you, I promise. Nicolas.

QUESTION: Staying on Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Staying on --

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR TONER: -- Afghanistan or India?

QUESTION: Pakistan.

MR TONER: Okay, Pakistan. Split the difference.

QUESTION: (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry – and this is more important because you were there – that he mentioned the highest level you just mentioned, we are meeting, talking on highest levels and all, and we are not at that point. So he mentioned about his bringing U.S. efforts to bring to justice Mumbai attackers, where are six Americans were also killed.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So after that point, where – what is the next point where the U.S. has engaged Pakistan? (Inaudible) just that statement? It was a one-sided statement from Secretary Kerry.

MR TONER: You're talking about his statement during this trip?

QUESTION: Yes, during the visit that – and then after that, he said – you said that – saying that it's not at this point. When will be – it's 2008, it's 2016 – when will be at that point when --

MR TONER: Oh, you're talking about --

QUESTION: -- seeing some evidence --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, okay. Sorry, I'm trying to get what your question is here. I apologize. Look, I mean, we've been very clear that we want to see accountability and justice in the case of the Mumbai attacks, and as you noted, there were American citizens who lost their lives in that – those terrible attacks. We've long encouraged and pushed for greater counterterrorism cooperation, and that includes the sharing of intelligence between India and Pakistan in that regard. That continues; those efforts continue. As I said, we want to see full accountability for these terrible attacks.

QUESTION: But if the same six Americans were killed in any other country, we would have had sanctions, we would have – talk more tougher. Why aren't we doing that with Pakistan? There's – where is the talk? Where is the – it's only the statements from the podiums.

MR TONER: Well, again, you're asking me – and the question was whether we're looking at sanctioning Pakistan. No. The answer is that we're working with Pakistan, we're making our concerns clear that they need to go after all the terrorist groups that are operating or seeking safe haven on their soil. And that's been our clear objective for a long time now. We've seen progress, but we need to see more.

You, Nicolas, sorry. I lost you.

QUESTION: A few words about the Philippines.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You would probably refer us to the White House, but could you tell us whether there will be consequences for the Philippines, whose president is – I mean, keeps insulting the United States?

MR TONER: I mean, Nicolas, what I could say is the consequence is that the decision was clearly made that they couldn't have a productive and constructive conversation, so there was no meeting between the President and President Duterte. That's a consequence. We value our relations with the Philippines. They are a – I mean, it's one of our most important relationships in the Asia Pacific region. They're a treaty ally of ours. It's a significant and important relationship, and so the fact that our two leaders now don't have the possibility of meeting is unfortunate. I'm not going to say more than that.

QUESTION: But there won't be any consequences on the military aid or on the alliance you have with this country? Is there a point (inaudible) --

MR TONER: I don't have anything – no, I mean, I don't have anything to announce in that regard. I think we continue – and the President said this – fighting that kind of drug war that they're fighting right now is difficult. It's a significant burden. And that's just not for the Philippines but in places around the world. But we're going to continue to say that there must be due process, there must be ways to fight against drugs that are consistent with international standards and norms. And that's going to consistently be our message going forward. And of course, with any assistance and any cooperation that we have with Philippines in that regard, we're always going to keep an eye on assessing that, whether they're living up to that obligation.

QUESTION: Do you know, was the State Department involved in any follow-up conversation with Philippines officials about the comments?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, Matt.

QUESTION: So it was all handled – all of that, as far as you know, was handled --

MR TONER: I can't rule it out; I just don't know.

QUESTION: And does the State Department believe that the Philippines shares the U.S. view that the United States and the Philippines are strong and great allies?

MR TONER: I was in Manila I guess now months --

QUESTION: So was I.

MR TONER: -- a couple months – that's right, you were. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. And that was --

MR TONER: And there was --

QUESTION: And it's interesting that you mention that – go ahead.

MR TONER: No – and it was – the – Secretary Kerry did have a productive initial meeting with President Duterte over lunch, and they talked about all these issues and talked about the importance of the relationship. But clearly there has been a tone in some of the rhetoric coming out of the Philippine Government that has raised questions, as I said, of whether we can have a productive conversation with them on many of these issues where we have long shared strong cooperation, among – rather, on the security sphere, counterterrorism, as well as drug trafficking.

QUESTION: Okay. So trying to unpack that --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- long – you are not 100 percent certain that the Philippines shares your view of the strength of – and the resilience of the relationship?

MR TONER: I mean, it's for – it's for the Government of the Philippines to show that.

QUESTION: I know that. I'm not --

MR TONER: And to illustrate that.

QUESTION: And they have not, or at least the president has not. Because you brought up – is that correct? You --

MR TONER: I'm not going to pass judgment. I'm not going to make a pronouncement today. But as I said, words matter, and we want to see an atmosphere that's cordial and open to strong cooperation.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: I'll leave it at that.

QUESTION: And then you mentioned how the Secretary was just in the Philippines. And shortly after that trip, though, President Duterte had some rather insulting comments for Ambassador Goldberg as well --

MR TONER: Unfortunate – yeah – comments. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- for which you sought clarification. I'm just wondering if – did you ever get that clarification? And if you did, what was it? And is it acceptable? I mean, the President was, until these latest comments, ready to meet with him, and then he didn't.

MR TONER: So Matt, what I'll say about it is – and I'm not sure what we, in fact, received from – the response was from the Government of the Philippines. I'd just have to look into it. I don't have the answer in front of me. But what's clear is that there has a been a pattern here or a couple of incidents that, again, speak to the tenor of the new administration that, frankly, raise concerns. But that doesn't undermine the fact that we have had 70 years of strong bilateral relations with the Philippines and we want to see that continue.

QUESTION: Yeah. But do you think that the president is a responsible leader?

MR TONER: He was elected by the Filipino people. We believe he's got to live up to their mandate. It's for them to decide whether he's a responsible leader or not. What we want to have is a constructive engagement with the Philippines, of the kind that we've had for the past 70 years.

QUESTION: Which you don't have at the moment, correct?

MR TONER: Well, again, I don't want to overplay this or over-amplify this, but it's clear that he's made some unfortunate comments --

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: -- whether about our ambassador or about our president.

QUESTION: All right. And then just related to this trip and another little incident that happened, I'm just wondering if there was any State Department follow-up on the issue of the stairs in Air Force One on the plane?

MR TONER: No, not that I'm aware of. And I don't think we also want to over-amplify that. I mean, there was some misunderstandings on the ground about some of the press movements. I'll let the White House speak to that. And about – as to the stairs, I'll let the Chinese speak to that as well. Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, I get that it's a White House thing, but I want to know if anyone from this building or this – from the department or the embassy was asked to follow up with the Chinese on this.

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MR TONER: Can we move on from – China? I guess we're in China now.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) China.

MR TONER: Sorry. I'll get to you. I promise.

QUESTION: President of Philippines, he actually just apologized for his remark. I wonder if you --

MR TONER: Well, I don't know. I've seen the comments that the Duterte administration statement supporting the U.S.-Philippines relationship. And that's helpful. I don't know that he has specifically apologized. I haven't seen those reports.

QUESTION: He said he regret.

MR TONER: Hmm?

QUESTION: He regret too.

MR TONER: Okay. Well --

QUESTION: So another question related to Philippine is: To maintain the constructive relationship just talking – you just talked about, will you, in the future, soften your tone regarding your criticism of abuse of human rights and drug issues?

MR TONER: Soften our criticism about human rights concerns? I think if we have concerns about human rights we're going to state those concerns. That's a conversation that we're willing to have. President Duterte may disagree with us strongly on that, and that's part of the conversation of – between allies and partners that take place on – with a number of countries around the world. That's normal. So that's part of what we believe to be a healthy bilateral relationship, where we can express those kind of concerns, as we do with countries around the world and governments where we believe there are credible reports of human rights abuses.

QUESTION: And the last question on China. Do you have the evaluation on the summit between President Obama and President Xi? On one hand, we have the incident Matt just mentioned at Hangzhou Airport. On the other hand, two leader just reached the agreement, both joined the climate change agreement. So is that summit a success?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, yes, it was. And the small incidents that took place on the periphery or – shouldn't be indicative of the strong cooperation that we've had with China on a number of fronts over the past several years of this administration, whether it's climate change, as you mentioned, but also on – in terms of cooperation and concern over North Korea's actions in the region and as well as with Iran's nuclear program. So China has been a strong partner in many issues, and we want to seek to strengthen that partnership where we can. We also have areas of disagreement with China, and going back to what I just said, those are the issues that we're also going to keep talking with China about. We can't shy away from those. But overall, it was a very successful summit.

QUESTION: Can we move to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR TONER: I'll get to him and then I promise I'll get to you.

QUESTION: Can I bring this thing home?

MR TONER: Back home to the U.S.?

QUESTION: Here to the U.S. Yes.

MR TONER: Let me just say he really was next. I promise I'll get to you. I promise. I'm sorry.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Very quickly --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- I just want to move to the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: First of all, are you aware of some airstrikes that the Israelis have conducted in Gaza today?

MR TONER: In Gaza today? I'm not, frankly. No.

QUESTION: Okay. Then let me ask you – the Israelis shut down a Palestinian radio station in Hebron.

MR TONER: I'm aware of that.

QUESTION: I believe that it is financed by the U.S. Are you aware of that? Do you anything --

MR TONER: I'll have to look into it whether we finance the radio station, but obviously --

QUESTION: I may be wrong, but I --

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean --

QUESTION: I heard that it's --

MR TONER: Sure, I'm sorry --

QUESTION: -- subsidized by USAID.

MR TONER: But any – we'd – we would always be concerned about – about any effort to violate the free speech of Palestinians.

QUESTION: And my second one is the EU over the weekend condemned the approval of 463 housing units and Israeli settlements across the West Bank. I wonder if you have a similar statement or have a position on the --

MR TONER: Well, we saw the – yeah, we saw the EU statement. I think we talked about it last week, but we remain deeply concerned about ongoing Israeli settlement activity. The expansion or significant expansion, even, of settlement enterprise poses a serious and growing threat to the prospects and even the viability of a two-state solution. And that's a position that was reflected in the Quartet report and it's a position we've held for some time now.

QUESTION: And finally --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: -- there was talk that President Putin of Russia might host a meeting between Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Are you aware of that? Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I mean, we're following it closely. We're obviously in regular touch with the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Russians on this. It's up to the parties to decide if and where they want to do this meeting, but we would be supportive of any kind of effort to get the parties together to talks through some of the issues.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Now your turn. Sorry.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: Thanks. Yeah, sorry about that.

QUESTION: There were 13 devices used by Secretary Clinton while she was secretary of state that are now unaccounted for. What is the department's policy for the retention of devices used for government business and is this in conflict with the current regulations?

MR TONER: Well, so I can't really speak to how many devices she may or may not have had in her possession. What I would say is, and we've said this before, is that she never had or possessed or was provided with a State Department BlackBerry. But as to what personal devices she used, I'm going to have to refer you to her or her staff to speak to that. We just don't have --

QUESTION: But if those devices were used for business that were secretary-of-state related – if they're missing, is that a potential security risk?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that it's something for her and her staff to answer. All we can say is that she was never provided with a State Department BlackBerry. But of course, we always take these kinds of reports seriously, we always take security, obviously, very seriously, but I just don't have any more information to share about what may or may not have been contained on those personal devices.

QUESTION: And then you worked with her while she was here. Since almost every network had a story about her coughing fit, would you have any reason to worry or wonder about her health? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I could only speak from my personal experience with her and she seemed very vital and dynamic and a healthy person.

QUESTION: Mark, on Egypt.

MR TONER: Please. I'll get to you in a second.

QUESTION: A video has been circulated on social media showing one of Egypt president guards asking Secretary Kerry at office meeting with President al-Sisi in India if he had a phone with a camera. Are you aware of this fact?

MR TONER: I think I've heard about the question, but I mean, he went into the meeting and they had a very productive meeting.

QUESTION: But what about the phone? Was the Secretary surprised by – by this question?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, he meets with an array of world leaders and all of them have their – or their teams rather have specific security concerns. I would let the Egyptians to speak to what theirs are, but I don't think it – it wasn't a disruption and they certainly had a good, productive meeting talking about a range of issues.

QUESTION: And was there any request from the Egyptians for Secretary Kerry not to carry on a mobile phone or a camera?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: And do you consider this as a breach of protocol or respectful?

MR TONER: Not at all. I wouldn't read too much into it. Sometimes security staff can be overzealous. Maybe that's the case here.

QUESTION: Yes, Mark.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: I was wondering if there were any discussions between this building and your counterparts, either in South Korea or Japan, about concerns over a possible nuclear no-first-use policy recently?

MR TONER: Well, I think the White House spoke a little bit about this in – and I would refer you to some of the comments made I think on background about that. And we've been very clear that the security guarantees we have in the region are ironclad, and that hasn't changed. And he – President Obama met with President Park I think today and indicated again that we always – or we continue to embrace the concept of extended deterrence as it relates to the region and certainly to the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: Mark, on Ukraine.

MR TONER: Ukraine and then I – yes, sir.

QUESTION: Just two short questions about the Ukraine.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Firstly, speaking about this continuous dialogue between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov, you mentioned Syria a couple of times. I perfectly understand they will speak about the Syria, but what about Ukraine? Will Ukraine be topic of the discussion or they will concentrate on Syria only?

MR TONER: Not at all. Ukraine was brought up in the conversation yesterday, and I think it was read out after the meeting that they did talk about Ukraine. I think that it was also discussed in the meeting that was held between the U.S., Germany, and France on the sidelines of the G20 as well. And essentially, what was conveyed in both meetings was the need for all sides to move forward in implementing Minsk and that that offers the best way to quell the violence and to bring stability and peace back to the region. And so I think that the priority going forward is how quickly we can move on implementing the remaining Minsk commitments on both sides. And we're working close with, as I said, France and Germany – part of the Normandy Group – but also with – directly with the Russians as well and, obviously, with Ukraine.

QUESTION: And secondly, have you seen the reports from Kyiv, where this Sunday the news office of the largest Ukrainian television channel was burned, a number – numerous of staff persons got smoke intoxication. Any comments on this?

MR TONER: Well, we are – we would urge the office of the prosecutor general to conduct a full and transparent investigation of what happened and hopefully bring those who carried out this attack to justice. We're always concerned when we see a media outlet targeted in this way.

QUESTION: Gabon?

MR TONER: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, you issued a statement earlier today expressing continuing concern about the situation in Gabon since the election.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Around about the same time, the European Union observers announced that there was a – they discovered what they described as an anomaly in the results from – with the provisional results from the election. It seems like they're not endorsing them as a free and fair poll. Is – has the United States got – I don't know if you're – you've received the EU observer's report or if you have your own concerns.

MR TONER: Well, I think we're very concerned right now about just the overall situation in Gabon and would call on all parties to refrain from violence, as well as their supporters, and that includes escalatory or inflammatory language as well as other aggressive actions. We want to see all sides, and that includes security forces, exercise restraint and respect for international standards.

I know that the African Union has expressed a willingness to send a delegation to assist the parties in Gabon in their efforts to – toward a constitutional resolution in the post-election situation – on – to the post-election situation. And we strongly support that initiative and call on the Government of Gabon to work with the AU to arrange the visit of such a delegation as soon as possible.

QUESTION: But do you have any concerns about the provisional results themselves?

MR TONER: I don't. I mean, I – I mean, we – look, I mean, we've called on the government to release the results for each individual polling station so that the Gabonese people can assess the credibility of the vote tallies. And we would urge anybody attest – rather, contesting or challenging the results to do so peacefully. But we don't have any – we haven't reached any conclusion about the results themselves at this point.

QUESTION: Mark, can you look into --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the particular question of the – one of the things that the EU mission's report highlighted was results from the upper O-G-O-O-U-E province, where Bongo officially won 95 percent of the votes amid a 99 percent voter turnout. Can you check to see if – and the opposition has claimed that the vote tallies in that province were vastly inflated. Can you check on whether you guys have specific concerns about that?

MR TONER: Sure, I can look into it.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: I think that's the anomaly the EU are referring to.

MR TONER: Yeah, yeah. No, look, I mean – but to go back to what I just said is it just – what the EU has found is just – obviously underscores the importance of full transparency in the process. People should be willing to challenge the results, but they just need to do so peacefully.

Yeah, Matt, do you have --

QUESTION: I've got a couple on Iran and one on Bahrain. Which one do you want to go – which one do you want first?

MR TONER: Can I pass? (Laughter.) Iran.

QUESTION: Iran?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Is that going in reverse alphabetically or --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- do you think they're going to be quicker answers?

MR TONER: I have no idea.

QUESTION: Your colleagues at the Pentagon have talked about yet another incident with Iranian ships. This is really – they're picking up pace, happening with a lot more frequency than they ever had before, and this is at a time when you guys have hailed, or in the months since you have hailed the idea that you have a new – a direct conversation – conversational route with the Iranians. Is that being used at all or does the Secretary plan to raise this with Foreign Minister Zarif or does he think that Foreign Minister Zarif, this is not really his area? I mean, the reason I ask that --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- is because when the sailors were taken, that was the communication channel that was used and everyone talked about how wonderful it was. So I presume it's still an open channel, and if it is, is he going to use it?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, we're just getting reports about this latest incident, and clearly, these kinds of actions and incidents are of concern. And as you note, they can unnecessarily escalate tensions between Iran and the U.S. and escalate tensions in the region. As to whether he will raise this, I mean, I don't know when he's planning next to talk to – speak with Foreign Minister Zarif. I can't exclude that it won't be a topic of conversation put within the larger context that we want to see and we believe that Iran has an opportunity to change its behavior and play a more constructive role in the region. We never – I don't think we ever said anything other than that they have an opportunity to do so, and we've never said that they necessarily are.

Up till now, we've seen it's been a mixed bag, and I could see it possibly coming up. I just can't predict that he'll definitively raise it or that he'll have a chance to speak to Foreign Minister Zarif.

QUESTION: It's been a mixed bag? That means some good, some bad. What can you --

MR TONER: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: We know what the bad is. What's the good?

MR TONER: No, I mean, look, I mean, Iran did join the ISSG and they're a part of that process. The stated goal of that group is to bring about a peaceful political transition to the situation in Syria. But we've not – we've seen very little positive behavior in other areas and other --

QUESTION: I mean, I think you could say that the ISSG has not produced much of anything positive in the way of – not so far.

MR TONER: Let's not open up that argument.

QUESTION: I mean, I just --

QUESTION: On the ISSG front, there are photographs today of Qasem Soleimani in Aleppo. Does that come under the ISSG's – Iran's cooperation with the ISSG --

MR TONER: Well, look, we know that Iran is actively supporting the Syrian regime. It's no secret. I don't know about these photos, but again, this is all part of why the ISSG is what it is, which is the – all the stakeholders with regard to Syria.

QUESTION: So does that --

QUESTION: And then --

QUESTION: Hold on, I got more on Iran.

MR TONER: Oh, sure.

QUESTION: Two more. One is that in light of this regional – this opportunity that they have to play a more constructive role in the region, have you been watching, and if you have, how – with any concern this rather sharp escalation in rhetoric between the Iranians and the Saudis?

MR TONER: We are obviously watching it, and we're always concerned by escalations in rhetoric between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean this is – the Iranians accusing the Saudis of treason, of murdering – intentionally murdering the Hajj --

MR TONER: You're talking about – you're talking about the comments regarding the Hajj.

QUESTION: Yeah, but then the ones that have come after that as well. I mean, they're both attacking each other for being --

MR TONER: Those are the only ones that I'm --

QUESTION: -- un-Islamic and – anyway, could you see if --

MR TONER: I mean, I'll look into it. I mean, look, I mean --

QUESTION: -- there's any concern about that?

MR TONER: But I can – what I can say is that obviously any escalation in the tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia are of serious concern to us. So --

QUESTION: And then --

QUESTION: Can I ask you on the boats, the – is – do you think that's --

MR TONER: On the what? I apologize, I didn't hear --

QUESTION: On the incident with the U.S. ship.

MR TONER: Oh, okay.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that Iran is doing this deliberately? Are these deliberate provocations?

MR TONER: It's unclear, and I would, frankly, refer you to the Department of Defense to speak more definitively about what they've seen in these incidents, but they're very dangerous.

QUESTION: So there's been some discussion in Iran and some opposition to the potential for them to do a deal with the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force. Have you – that would basically help them along the way to getting removed from their money-laundering blacklist. Do you know anything about that? Have you been watching it?

MR TONER: I don't. I'll look into it.

QUESTION: All right. And then a last one, moving to your second choice --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Bahrain. You will have seen over the weekend – well, maybe you didn't because you were in China --

MR TONER: No --

QUESTION: -- and then trying to watch football, but this letter that was published in The New York Times, this op-ed piece by Nabeel Rajab.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, so the Bahrainis now have charged him with an additional crime or additional crimes, plural, because of this letter. What do you make of that?

MR TONER: Well, we're very concerned both about his ongoing detention and about the new charges filed against him, and we call on the Government of Bahrain to release him immediately. We have concerns about the state of human rights in general in Behran – Behran --

QUESTION: Bahrain.

MR TONER: I'm sorry – Bahrain. I'm sorry – Bahrain. This is what happens when you --

QUESTION: Well, it may be Behran – (laughter).

MR TONER: Sorry.

QUESTION: That was --

MR TONER: Did I remind you that I'm – changed like eight time zones yesterday? Bahrain --

QUESTION: So we can get a clean clip, can you stop – start at the top?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, we're obviously concerned about Nabeel Rajab detention and the charges filed against him, and we call on the Government of Bahrain to release him. We have concerns about the state of human rights in general in Bahrain, and we're engaging with the Government of Bahrain on all of these issues.

QUESTION: Did you say --

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: -- they needed to release him the first time?

MR TONER: I did.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark, very quickly on Syria, Turkey-backed forces now moving to Al-Bab. Is the coalition forces giving any air cover to this Turkey-backed --

MR TONER: I don't know. I'd refer you to the Department of Defense on that.

QUESTION: And on the same issue about the President Obama not mentioning about any of the human rights issues, given fact that this is the final – most likely the final meeting between the President Obama and President Erdogan. I get – I got so many harsh reactions now on social media, that you said you don't shy away from mentioning these issues, yet you just shied away. Can you tell me one reason why Turkish democrats should feel that you did not sell out Turkish democrats in this final meeting by not mentioning 115 journalists are sitting in Turkish jails across Turkey now?

MR TONER: Look, I think the President spoke to this, or spoke to the situation in Turkey – the post-coup-attempt situation in Turkey – and about our concerns about some of the actions that have been taken on the part of the Turkish Government in response to that. We've been very clear from this podium for the --

QUESTION: Not at the meeting.

MR TONER: I'm talking about – but you're trying to get me to specifically talk about the President's meeting with President Erdogan. I'm going to refer you to the White House to speak to what they discussed in that meeting. But I can be very clear that we don't shy away from discussing concerns about freedom of the press in Turkey when we have those concerns.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: That's it. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:20 p.m.)

DPB # 154