Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 14, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SYRIA/REGION
BELARUS
ISRAEL
DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
1:21 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: All right, I don't have anything at the top. So I will turn myself to your questions.
QUESTION: Okay, Syria. Let's start with Syria.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Russians have today, once again, complained that the opposition is not respecting the cessation of hostilities and that you guys, meaning the Americans, and your partners are not doing enough to, one, stop them from firing; and two, to not doing enough to get the guys that you support to get away from Nusrah – well, what was Nusrah. So, I'm just curious how you respond to that.
MR TONER: Sure. Well, I can start off by saying that the Secretary did speak with Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier today. It was – I guess I would describe it as a signals check, where we stand in terms of the cessation of hostilities and the seven days that's required before we move to the next stage. And I think there was agreement between the two of them that as a whole, despite sporadic reports of violence, as a whole the arrangement is holding and violence is, I'd say, significantly lower in comparison to previous days and weeks.
I'm not – I can also just add that as part of their conversation, they agreed to discuss and agreed to extend the cessation for another 48 hours, obviously with the goal being that this would last seven days and then we would move, as I said, to the next step, which is the establishment of the JIC.
In response to your question on who's responsible and some of the comments we've seen out of Russia, I – we are not going to be in the habit of saying, this many, this many. We've seen violations by both sides. I'm not going to give a – attach a number to each side, but we've seen violations by both sides. And look, we've always been clear, just as we have said that Russia's responsibility is to exert influence or put pressure – however you want to put it – on the regime to abide by the cessation of hostilities, it is incumbent on us to persuade, convince the moderate opposition to also abide by the cessation of hostilities, and ultimately, that's a decision they're going to have to make.
So we're going to – we're continuing to monitor this very closely. We're continuing our outreach to the Syrian moderate opposition – that's been ongoing – and trying to explain the arrangement to them, answer their questions. And again, we've seen, as I said, sporadic reports of violence, but in large part we think it's holding.
QUESTION: Okay. So that means that you have not seen enough of – I don't know if "enough" is the right word. You haven't seen anything that would cause the clock to reset on the seven days?
MR TONER: Right. Right. We would say it's broadly holding --
QUESTION: So you're in --
MR TONER: -- and worth – and for the – and we want to see that continue, the status quo continue.
QUESTION: So we can say we're in day two now of the seven; is that right?
MR TONER: Well, I mean – so that's a completely fair question, and the answer I'm going to give you is probably not satisfying, but as we talked a little bit about yesterday, the other component we need to see and, frankly, we haven't seen yet, is the humanitarian assistance.
QUESTION: Right. And so then this may not be enough to count as day two what you have seen so far, right?
MR TONER: Right. So we continue – as I said, we continue to closely consult with the Russians to work towards and assess where we're at in terms of the cessation of hostilities. I think what I can say is that we agree that it's worth extending this and moving forward.
QUESTION: Is there a way to catch up, so to speak, on aid deliveries to make up for the fact that there wasn't unimpeded access yesterday and so far today?
MR TONER: Sure. I – and again, that's a good question as well. I think with – in terms of humanitarian access, we want to see obviously the absolute goal here is full, unimpeded access to all besieged areas. We don't – what we want to see over the next seven days is increasing access. We don't need to hit 100 percent – six days, sorry.
QUESTION: Wait, wait, can I follow up on this?
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Because this is something that I had raised with you last night and I don't feel like we've gotten a clear answer on it.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: You – having read what the Secretary said in Geneva carefully and then again released in Washington, if the standard for moving to set up the JIC is seven days of both reduced violence and increased humanitarian access, then as I understand it right now you're at day zero counting toward that goal, because there's been no significant increase in the humanitarian access. Correct?
MR TONER: I'd say we have yet to see a marked increase in humanitarian deliveries. And I think Staffan de Mistura spoke about this yesterday. It was a convoy of some 20 countries he mentioned that were unable to get access yet.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: So absolutely. So --
QUESTION: So you're at day zero?
MR TONER: Again, I don't – I apologize, but I don't want to get into "it's day zero, it's day one." We're about to go to day two. What I would say --
QUESTION: But you set these – but you set these markers, Mark. You set the markers. I think it's incumbent on you to explain to us --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- since you set the markers yourself to explain in a reasonable fashion what they are. I mean, what he said, assuming it's correct, is both increased – decreased violence and increased access.
MR TONER: So the markers --
QUESTION: You haven't had any increased access as I understand it. Right?
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: And last I heard that --
MR TONER: I just said that.
QUESTION: -- yeah, right. And the – right. So in fact, unless you're playing games here, I think you're at day zero. Right? Because you want both.
MR TONER: Again, I'm just not going to – I'm not going to say it's day zero, it's day one and a half, it's day one. What I am going to say – and I've said before – is – and you're absolutely right, it's a twofold deal here. We've got to see sustained reduction in violence and we have to see humanitarian access. We haven't seen the humanitarian access yet, so we're still continuing to assess this. We're talking to the Russians. We're looking at this. We're pressuring them to pressure the Assad regime. But at this point what I will say is from what we've seen thus far, it's worth continuing, it's worth extending this and moving forward.
QUESTION: I get that. One more.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is it correct that you need to see both for seven consecutive days, or not?
MR TONER: In terms of the reduction of violence, yes. In terms of the humanitarian access, I don't want to hold up that marker as full, complete humanitarian access. But what we want to see is increased humanitarian access over the course --
QUESTION: Over seven days.
MR TONER: -- over the course of the seven-day period. So I guess my answer to Matt's question, which he said "Can you catch up" – absolutely. We can make up that by allowing these trucks to get in to deliver foodstuff and humanitarian assistance to these besieged areas, and every day after that by increasing those deliveries. But we haven't seen it yet.
QUESTION: So it's not seven days then.
QUESTION: But now you just said over the course of seven days. So in other words, if all of a sudden, I don't know, every single aid delivery that had been held up during the course of the first six days, if every single one of those is delivered on the seventh day, then it would still be okay? Then you would create the JIC?
MR TONER: No. Again --
QUESTION: See, the problem is --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is that when you set out seven days as the deadline for two things to happen --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- I think that Arshad's right, that it's incumbent on you guys to say whether or not you have hit day one or day two, or – I mean, it sounds like you're not going to be prepared even on day five or the fifth day of this to say whether or not things have gone in. So in fact, it's not really a seven days where you need to see both, because one of them, the aid, could all happen on the last two days or the last day and it would be all right. Is that correct?
MR TONER: Again, I think I would just say, it's – what we're looking for is increased humanitarian access, not full-stop, complete, and nationwide, sustained humanitarian access, although that's the ultimate goal. And as I said at the start, I know that my answer in terms of where we are with regard to the seven days is going to be unsatisfying. But I think that's part of what we're trying to assess and continue to assess – working with Russia, getting input, looking at the number of violations and where these – any of these violations constitute one egregious enough to pause it or to reset the clock, as we talked about yesterday. Again, Secretary Kerry spoke with Lavrov this morning. They agreed that it's worth continuing. It's not necessarily a – I'd say a clean process in the terms of judging this. I think we're trying to look at all the variables here and assess this going forward. I hope at some point to be able to say, "Yeah, we're close or we're day five or we're day seven and we reached it," honestly, but I don't want to get into like a daily count.
QUESTION: But Mark --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- if you're – I mean, I understand – and you just said it's not necessarily a clean process, and I understand maybe you want to maintain some ambiguity about precisely what you want so that you can plant a flag and declare victory after seven days even if you haven't gotten seven days of both. But if that's the case, right – if you're willing to kind of bend or move the goalposts, right – what incentive do the people on the other side of the table have to actually meet what you really want? I mean, if you're not going to hold to it, if you're not going to say, "Yeah, we want seven days of reduced violence, yeah, we want seven days of increased humanitarian access, no, we're not catching up, we really want to see this," then what incentive do – does – why shouldn't the government and the Russians play games with you since you're not holding firm on what you said you wanted, which was seven days of both?
MR TONER: Sure. So a couple of thoughts, and that's a completely valid point to make, Arshad. One is that we always anticipated there'd be an uneven start to this, and we said as much and the Secretary said as much. And it has been – it has not been 100 percent reduction in violence, but it has been what we would deem or assess to be a significant reduction in violence, significant enough to keep this moving forward. In terms of what incentive is on – is there for the other side, if you will, to keep up with this, we have always said that at a certain point we're going to walk away from this if we don't feel that it's in our interests. Now, we're not there yet, but we're not going to keep letting them or let anyone move the goalposts on us.
And again, ultimately, this is a matter for not just the regime, although last time with the cessation of hostilities, as we said, it was mostly on the regime side – they were carrying out airstrikes that led to the deterioration of the cessation of hostilities – but it is incumbent on both sides; it's incumbent on the moderate opposition to live up to this too. So what we've seen the last 24 hours, a little bit more than 24 hours, a good, substantial reduction in violence and a period of calm. We want to see that move forward. We're continuing to talk to the Russians, assess it. We need to see much more in the terms of humanitarian assistance; we're not there yet.
So that's why I don't want to say, "Yeah, this is day one but not on the humanitarian assistance." I'll try to get a closer and a better read for you tomorrow, but we're just kind of – we – I understand that the two tracks are not moving concurrently in perfect --
QUESTION: And the problem is you don't --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: It's not that you're moving the – well, you could argue that you are moving the goalposts, but you're now not even willing to state what the goalposts are, that they are in fact seven days of both.
MR TONER: Well, again, I'd say we have been very clear that we wanted to see both a reduction in violence and increased access for humanitarian assistance.
QUESTION: For seven days?
MR TONER: Again, I think over a seven-day period we want to see that increase, but we certainly don't want to – we didn't expect, to be perfectly honest, to see full and unimpeded humanitarian access from day – from hour one.
QUESTION: Can I ask a couple just very simple things?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Have you seen airstrikes by the Syrian Government in the last --
MR TONER: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that was a question. Sorry, you caught me mid-gulp.
QUESTION: Have you seen airstrikes by the Syrian Government?
MR TONER: I'll say we've seen – what I can say is we've seen --
QUESTION: (Sneezing.)
MR TONER: God bless you, sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: We've seen violations on both sides.
QUESTION: Right, but that doesn't address whether the violations are airstrikes or something else.
MR TONER: I'll have to look into that. I don't know if I can clarify that there are airstrikes or not.
QUESTION: And then the last one for me on this --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: I want to see if I can understand what is the ultimate – Secretary Kerry said on Monday that the Syrian Government would not be obliged under the agreement to cease flying over defined agreed areas until joint U.S.-Russian strikes have begun – not until you began setting up the JIC, not until the JIC was up and running, but until there have actually been airstrikes, joint U.S.-Russian airstrikes. Is that correct?
MR TONER: Until – yes, until that – those – that coordinated airstrikes have begun.
QUESTION: Okay. So that means that the Syrian Government, as I understand it – and please correct me wrong – is free to – as of right now, it can strike Nusrah anywhere it wants, correct?
MR TONER: So the only caveat to that is exactly what we've just spent the last ten minutes talking about, which is we need to see a period of reduced violence.
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: And what we've seen consistently over the past weeks and months is that the regime airstrikes are hitting moderate opposition. Now, they claim to be going after Nusrah. So we need – we can't see that kind of – that would be – I think, on a steady basis that would be a, quote/unquote, "deal breaker."
QUESTION: But right now they're allowed to hit Nusrah. As long as they're not hitting the moderate opposition, they're allowed to hit Nusrah, correct?
MR TONER: That's my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: Yes. And so they are allowed to continue to hit al-Nusrah, to fly anywhere they want and to hit al-Nusrah, all the way up until the joint airstrikes start, which is when then they have to stop --
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: -- flying in the defined area --
MR TONER: In the designated area, yes.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Mark, a follow-up.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Yesterday the senior Administration official said that only Nusrah and ISIS were fair game for targeting and strikes and so on. What about the other 21 groups that said they will not abide by the ceasefire? Are they also fair game? Are they also – will they be targeted by either the JIC or by the Syrian regime --
MR TONER: Sure. Right now it's – right now it's Nusrah and ISIS. And thank you for – because I was a little bit fuzzy on that yesterday, so actually, just let me finish. So I said – somebody asked me – I can't remember who yesterday – is it just Nusrah who can be targeted by joint U.S. and – or coordinated U.S. and Russia strikes. I said I thought it was just Nusrah. That was incorrect. It's Nusrah and ISIL targets, so just for the record. For the record it's --
QUESTION: Nusrah and ISIS. But you also have 21 other groups that they said they don't recognize the hudna, the cessation --
MR TONER: Who said this? I'm sorry? You're quoting --
QUESTION: Twenty-one groups. Twenty-one groups. They issued a statement. There are 21 opposition groups that they said will – they will not abide by the – there are tens, dozens of groups. So they said they will not abide by the ceasefire, or hudna in Arabic; they will continue to strike against the regime; they will continue in their fight to bring whatever Islamic state into Syria. What about these groups? Are they to be targeted by the regime and it's fine if they do? Is it fine? Are we likely to see – in seven days or when your joint operations begin, are we likely to see those groups are being targeted? And who is the moderate opposition that you keep alluding to?
MR TONER: So, Said, to answer your questions to the best of my ability, right now the focus is on getting the moderate opposition – and you know who the designated moderate opposition is; we've talked about it before – to abide by the cessation of hostilities. Ultimately, this is self-selection and we've talked about this before as well. If the regime or the – certain groups within the moderate opposition don't comply with the cessation of hostilities, then they've identified themselves as not a part of it.
We're not there yet. What the focus is on right now is getting the sustained period to seven days, and then at that point setting up the JIC, the Joint Implementation Center, and then coordinating – and this will be done, I understand, pretty quickly. We talked about this yesterday but I got a little bit more clarity on this. It's not going to be a matter of days or weeks. They're going to begin this very quickly, realizing the urgency of the situation. But once those coordinated strikes begin, then the regime will have to abide by its obligation to not fly in that designated area.
Now, you talked about this large group of opposition who we said the other day we've not seen any opposition party say it would not abide by this agreement. I think there's a lot of rhetoric out there right now. I can tell you that our special envoy, Michael Ratney, who works very closely with the moderate Syrian opposition, is in touch with them and working very closely with them to explain the details of this and to convince them to support it. We understand that's our responsibility in this, just as we call on Russia to be – to exert its influence on the regime.
Likewise, within the ISSG we call on Turkey, we call on Saudi Arabia, other members of the ISSG to exert what influence they have on the various parties on the ground. It is, in a sense, incumbent on the stakeholders. This whole thing rests on our ability to exert that kind of influence on the various players on the ground. But we believe that all sides here recognize that this is, as imperfect as it is, an opportunity to get us to the next level.
QUESTION: Has there been any push by some of your allies to include al-Nusrah as part of the cessation of hostilities – your allies in the Gulf, maybe Saudi Arabia and so on?
MR TONER: No, not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: And my last question --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Regarding what the Secretary said today, he said that this is a last chance to keep Syria united. Could you elaborate on this? What does – he meant by that?
MR TONER: I mean, he also said, I think it was in an interview he did with --
QUESTION: NPR.
MR TONER: -- NPR, National Public Radio. I mean, he also spoke about the fact that this is – and he said this last week in Geneva – this is an opportunity. It's not a done deal. It's not a fait accompli. But the alternative is to allow the situation, the current situation, to worsen. You've got 450,000-some Syrian civilians who have been killed in the fighting. That's only going to grow exponentially, and Aleppo will continue to fester and be besieged and possibly be overrun. So, frankly, the alternatives – and that's something that we've made very clear to the moderate opposition – are not in anyone's favor, not the regimes favor and not the moderate opposition's favor and certainly not the Syrian people's favor.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR TONER: Please, Michel.
QUESTION: News reports talked about differences between --
MR TONER: Whose – I missed the first part of your question, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: News reports talked --
MR TONER: News reports, got it. Sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, talked about differences between the State Department and the Pentagon regarding this agreement and especially that the Pentagon refuses to coordinate with Russia. To what extent you are on the same page with the Pentagon on this agreement?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think – and the Secretary spoke about this yesterday – what really matters here is that the President of the United States supports this agreement, and our system of government works in such a way that everyone follows what the President says.
QUESTION: They don't have to be happy about it.
MR TONER: I think, though, that that's being --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Sorry, just to finish my question – or finish my response, though. I think also, though, I think maybe the interagency differences of opinion are being overplayed a little bit in the sense that I don't think that anyone in the U.S. Government is necessarily taking at face value Russia's or certainly not the Syrian regime's commitment to this arrangement. Just to the contrary, we've tried to work into this process signals checks and ways that we can monitor whether it's really being implemented in the way that we've agreed to implement it.
So it's not that the State Department is on one side and the Department of Defense on another. I also think some of the comments from the Department of Defense were just about speaking to the fact that there's logistical challenges of setting up the JIC and coordinating these joint or these – coordinating these airstrikes – not joint – and that's going to require additional effort and additional time. So I'll leave it there.
QUESTION: That means there are differences between the State Department and the Pentagon regarding this agreement?
MR TONER: Again, I don't want to – I think that's --
QUESTION: You say that the President agrees on this agreement. You didn't say that the Pentagon agreed on this agreement too.
MR TONER: I think there's – and I'll leave it here. I think there's, again, skepticism on the part of many people within the interagency and within the U.S. Government, but that's to be expected. What's important is that we continue to try to implement this agreement to the best of our ability. And part of the agreement is built on not just blind trust in the Russians' actions but on the fact that we expect to see the Russian and – Russia and the regime comply with the agreement.
QUESTION: My second and last question.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Russia has said today that they need to release the content of the agreement, and the Syrian opposition is asking the U.S. to release this agreement. Why are you still saying that you don't want to release it?
MR TONER: Sure. I mean, we're talking about that, and I said yesterday we're continuing to assess whether we're going to release it or whether we might release aspects of it or – not aspects of it, pieces of it or parts of it. We understand it's an extremely complex agreement and we've tried our best, even through doing a couple backgrounders with some of the senior Administration officials who have worked closely on this agreement – we're doing our best to explain what is, I think everyone agrees, is a very complex agreement. And we'll continue to look at whether it's in everyone's interest to release the agreement in full or partially redacted or however. We haven't made that decision yet.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Please, Nike.
QUESTION: Yes, can we move on quickly?
QUESTION: Can I ask one on Syria then follow --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Are there any plans to use the opportunity of UNGA to get an ISSG meeting together?
MR TONER: Looking at that, and that's under discussion. And certainly, as you note, it's an opportunity; everybody's there. So nothing formally to announce, but definitely looking at it.
QUESTION: Yeah, Belarus. After the --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Oh, I'm sorry, he's had – one more on Syria. I'll get to you, Nike. I promise.
QUESTION: Do you know if Jabhat al-Nusrah ever committed any terrorism against the United States? The Syrian Jabhat al-Nusrah, the branch of al-Qaida.
MR TONER: Sure. So Nusrah Front is obviously part of the al-Qaida umbrella terrorist organization. And while it has committed, obviously, to ousting Assad, it also is committed to expanding its reach globally and regionally, and that is consistent with al-Qaida's longstanding approach. So we've also seen that Nusrah Front leaders maintain the intent to conduct eventual attacks in and against the West, and there is increasing concern about their ability to conduct these kinds of external operations. And we would also note that they've had – in the past, they've held – kidnapped and held at least one American hostage. But, so in answer to your question is we believe their intent is to carry out eventually – if they're able to establish the ability to do so, to carry out attacks against the West.
QUESTION: You still make a distinction between the so-called Khorasan group and the bulk of Jabhat al-Nusrah. The Khorasan group has been targeted before and – by U.S. strikes and has been described as the Khorasan group, but other people regard it as part and parcel of al-Nusrah. Is that one of the reasons why you regard them as terrorists?
MR TONER: I'll have to check on whether we've changed our – I don't think we have. Yeah.
Please, Nike.
QUESTION: Quickly, Belarus: After the parliamentary election in – on September 11, the State Department issued a statement saying that strengthening the democracy in Belarus will pave the way for better relations between these two. Now, my question for you is: Is there any plan or any discussion to exchange ambassadors between Minsk and Washington? Because the president of Belarus is saying that both country have agreed to do so. Can you confirm that?
MR TONER: So to answer your last question first, I'm aware of some of those comments. We do have increased bilateral engagement with Belarus on a range of issues, but I don't have anything to announce in terms of re-establishing an ambassador there.
But more generally, taking a step back, we do welcome the peaceful conduct of their September 11th parliamentary elections, recognize – we recognize that there's been improvements – limited in scope, but improvements in the electoral process. And we also would note that we've seen alternative voices that will now be represented in the parliament for the first time in 12 years.
That was the pros. The cons are that elections still fell short of Belarus's international obligations and commitments to free and fair elections, and that was detailed in the OSCE/ODIHR report or statement, as well as, I think, Council of Europe also had an observation mission there on the ground.
So we're reviewing the entire process, including pre-election or the run-up to the election, election day, and the post-election period, to assess how it will affect our bilateral relations going forward.
So I guess to cut to the chase, we've seen some improvements, and that always allows us to increase incrementally our bilateral engagement with Belarus, but we're not quite there yet. But we continue to see positive signs.
QUESTION: So I guess is there any implication one way or the other on the 2006 sanction regime? Any discussion to review that?
MR TONER: Well, so those sanctions – that sanctions regime are tied to issues of democracy and human rights in Belarus, and if Belarus does take what we assess to be significant steps in those areas, the U.S. will look at providing additional sanctions relief. Again, I don't have anything – announced today, but if – conversely, if Belarus takes actions contrary to its international obligations and commitments, then we also retain the flexibility to increase those sanctions or to revoke sanctions relief.
So I think we're continuing to assess this day by day, week by week. The parliamentary elections we believe showed some promise, but we need to see more.
QUESTION: Final question --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- before the 2 o'clock signing MOU, could you address some criticisms from the Congress for one Senator Graham, who told VOA that the MOU is not binding on Congress and that he is planning to introduce legislation that would have a supplemental appropriation for Israel? Could you address some of the criticism?
MR TONER: Well, I certainly can't speak to what Congress may or may not do in terms of the MOU, and I can't say a lot about the MOU signing because there's going to, as you alluded to or you mentioned in your question, there's going to be a ceremony at 2:00 p.m., so we actually – we should probably wrap this up. But we did announce, as you all saw yesterday, that the United States has concluded a new 10-year memorandum of understanding with Israel on security assistance, and that'll span Fiscal Years 2019 I think through 2028. This is a sign of our unshakeable, ongoing commitment to Israel's security, and it constitutes the single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in U.S. history and includes both foreign military financing, as well as an unprecedented multiyear commitment of missile defense funding. So this is no small matter here; this is a significant pledge to ongoing security cooperation to the state of Israel. But I'm not going to get into – there's going to be others speaking momentarily about the upcoming event.
QUESTION: Iraq? Iraq?
QUESTION: Really quick, just follow-up – a really quick follow-up.
MR TONER: Really quick follow-up and then David.
QUESTION: Yeah, quick follow-up on that.
MR TONER: Yeah, quick.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it really necessary at this time to give Israel almost $40 billion worth of arms when it's really prosperous, the state is prosperous; it is not threatened by anyone; it is more powerful, has military superiority over any combination and so on, at a time when these funds could go, let's say, to infrastructures that are crumbling and so on, on the principle of it? I mean, Israel has an arms industry – an export arms industry that is very healthy and very viable and so on. Why is it necessary at this particular juncture to give Israel $40 billion worth of arms at a time when it does not need it?
MR TONER: I think it speaks to our unshakeable commitment to Israel's long-term security in a region where we assess and Israel certainly assesses that it continues to be under threat. And again, others will speak to this momentarily more articulately and eloquently than I could, but our relationship with Israel is based on many issues and many areas of common cause, but one of those is a commitment to Israel's security.
Please, David.
QUESTION: Could I please --
QUESTION: This sum comes out of foreign military financing, which is a --
MR TONER: That's right.
QUESTION: -- which is a fixed envelope. So given that this is going to be bigger than it was before, who's losing out?
MR TONER: What do you mean? For who's not in the – who's getting --
QUESTION: Given that a greater proportion of this fixed envelope --
MR TONER: Who are we taking from Peter to pay Paul is what you're actually asking me.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: I don't have specifics on that. I'll take the question.
QUESTION: That was a very nice biblical reference.
MR TONER: Thanks, guys. I really do have to cut it off because it's at two.
QUESTION: Could I ask just one question? I've been sitting here.
QUESTION: Do you know what the oceans conference costs?
MR TONER: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Do you know what the oceans conference costs?
MR TONER: Oh, I don't, and I will get you – I'll get you an answer for that, or I'll try to. But we looked into that, and part of the problem is – couple quick points to make, and then I know we've got to step down. So one of this is – this is – this conference, Our Oceans conference, is back to back with the AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act conference, so in a sense they're sharing some of the physical facilities for both conferences. So we're trying to disaggregate and get a clean assessment of what one or the other costs.
But the other thing is that – the other couple points I could make and Catherine Novelli, Cathy Novelli, Under Secretary Novelli spoke to is there's been a lot of cost sharing that's gone into this. We are in fact doing it on site here at the Harry S. Truman Building, so that's a money-saving thing, but also there's a lot of public and private partnerships involved in this. For example, we're doing an event in Georgetown, National Geographic's heavily involved. So there's a lot of, again, private enterprises or private companies, organizations stepping in to also host events.
And then the other thing is – worth mentioning is the billions of dollars that this has – that these conferences, now the third one, have engendered on the part of the nations and governments participating in them.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) in what it costs and how much comes out of --
MR TONER: Yeah, I get it. (Laughter.) Sorry, that was an overly long answer to your question.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:58 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
