Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 15, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT/IRAQ
TURKEY
ITALY
ROMANIA
INDIA
AFGHANISTAN/REGION
LIBYA
YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:09 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Good afternoon, everyone. That's actually a really cool new camera angle that we have now from the – focuses on Matt and then the rest of – everyone else is --
QUESTION: Oh, great.
MR TONER: (Laughter.) So we're watching you. Anyway, as apropos of nothing. Anyway, welcome to the State Department. Happy first day of Our Oceans conference.
QUESTION: Thursday.
MR TONER: And happy Thursday, as well. I don't have anything to lead off with, so over to you Matt.
QUESTION: Really? I thought you were going to start off with a long and very comprehensive review of what has happened so far at the ocean conference. But since you're not, let's start with --
MR TONER: No, it's – there's – was an exciting morning with the President here and everything and a great kickoff, but nothing to add.
QUESTION: Let's start with Syria.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Surprise, surprise.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So, it seems as though there continue to be violations and there continues to be no aid getting through to Aleppo, with various people making various accusations about who is responsible for that. And de Mistura coming out and basically saying there's a serious problem here. So what is the U.S. take of the situation? Why is this not working the way it's supposed to be working? Do you have any way or any plans to fix it and – well, let's start there.
MR TONER: Sure. So first of all, in answer to your first question, or first part of your question rather, levels of violence are still far below what we had been seeing prior to September 12th. We continue to receive reports of incidents from both sides. And by both sides I mean both sides – that includes the regime. And we continue --
QUESTION: And – so it includes the regime and the opposition --
MR TONER: And the opposition.
QUESTION: -- that you support.
MR TONER: That's correct. As I said, both sides. And obviously, both we and – both the United States and Russia have to do all we can do to further pressure or influence the respective parties to this cessation of hostility to reduce these incidents. But we still believe that, by and large, the cessation of hostilities is holding, it's not perfect. We expected a somewhat uneven start to this, but from what we've seen so far, and what I said yesterday is it's worth continuing.
QUESTION: Okay, but that --
MR TONER: Right, you also spoke about – sorry, the second part of your question. I apologize. The second part was about humanitarian assistance. And you're right, that is important element – an important element. We talked about if there's two pieces to this as we move towards the next step, which is the establishment of the Joint Implementation Center, you'd have to have the seven days, and then you also – of reduced violence – and then you also have to have the humanitarian assistance. And up 'til now, we have not seen the humanitarian assistance being delivered.
QUESTION: And – who --
MR TONER: It's a concern and --
QUESTION: Yeah, but who's – who is it that is responsible for that?
MR TONER: Well, so what we understand is that the UN is obviously prepared, poised to deliver humanitarian assistance to priorities – priority areas, including Aleppo – we've talked about that – as soon as it receives the necessary authorization from the Syrian authorities. So, again, it's incumbent on the regime and those with influence on the regime to ensure that all measures are in place so that these humanitarian supplies can be delivered.
QUESTION: All right, and then you just – you --
QUESTION: Could I just follow up on that quickly?
MR TONER: Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: So de Mistura has apparently said that the process for delivering humanitarian aid under the terms of the ceasefire is different from normally. Normally you would need formal letters of authorization, but under the ceasefire, it's just – it's not nearly as bureaucratic as that. Is that your understanding?
MR TONER: You know what, I don't have the detailed knowledge that – to say yes or no to that. My understanding is that there still needed to be some kind of authorization granted, so I don't want to speak incorrectly on this matter. But there does, I think, need to be some kind of understanding reached, obviously, for these convoys, or these aid convoys to get the access that they need. There needs to be some kind of --
QUESTION: And is that the main obstacle?
MR TONER: -- accordance with the regime to allow them to enter.
QUESTION: And that's the main obstacle. Is it?
MR TONER: That's what we've seen.
QUESTION: And any suggestion as to why three days – what's today, Thursday – four days into the ceasefire, this very key element of it, which seems sort of obvious to follow up on, is not being done?
MR TONER: I don't have much to add beyond what I just said, which is that it continues to be held up and the UN is indeed, as I said, poised to deliver this aid, but they need the necessary authorization to move forward. And absolutely right to say that it's a key element of this agreement moving forward.
QUESTION: I just wanted to --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: You used again that you – phrase that you have used since this deal took effect --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- four – three or four days ago, depending on how you're counting, and that is that you always expected there was going to be an uneven start to it. But we're now halfway towards what was supposed to be seven days of – when is it no longer an uneven start but rather a failure?
MR TONER: Well, certainly we're not there yet. I would just say that it has not been ideally – or clearly, the goal here is to reach 100 percent reduction in violence. We're not there and we're not claiming to be there. We've seen incidents. I know that there's been various reports about the numbers of incidents and violations that have been out there in the press. I'm not going to categorize or give a number to what we've seen except to say that we've seen incidents by both sides. And we need to do better, but it's our consideration, our assessment up till now that it's still continuing to hold largely and there's been what we would deem a significant reduction in the level of violence.
QUESTION: So you're comfortable with uneven as still the adjective to describe --
MR TONER: Well, we're not – I don't want to say – right. We're comfortable in that it's – in that there's – in saying – I'm comfortable in saying that that's the current state of play, that it's not perfect, it's not complete. But obviously I'm not comfortable with saying that that's the goal here. The goal is a complete and nationwide cease – cessation.
QUESTION: Understood. My – last one, please.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: What exactly are you doing on your side to get, for lack of a better word, your guys in line and complying with the agreement?
MR TONER: Well, we are continuing – excuse me – with very close outreach to the opposition forces on the ground, trying to get them to adhere to what they agreed to adhere to, which is to pull back – to pull back from their positions where they're in areas where Nusrah is operating. They need to pull out of those positions and they need to, obviously, abide by the cessation of hostilities. We're almost hourly contact with them to work on issues as they arise, and then we're going to continue to do that, because as I said before, that's on us. We need to – it's on us to convince the opposition, the moderate opposition to comply with the cessation.
QUESTION: Mark, I have a --
QUESTION: The use --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: You say that "we" have an understanding of the situation that the violence is down but not all disappeared. Is – do you still share the opinion of the Russians? Do you have the same outlook on this or have your views begun to diverge? We've seen complaints from the Russian military that you haven't done enough to rein in your rebels, as it were.
MR TONER: (Laughter.) No, I mean, look, we – two things. One is I want to be very clear that we've seen violations on both sides. Two, we also own that our responsibility in this agreement moving forward is to get the opposition to comply with it, just as we have been very clear that it is incumbent on Russia to convince the regime to comply with it. So far we haven't – we're not perfect on either side, so we want to get there, move towards it.
QUESTION: If the situation is like this in three days' time, will you form the JIC?
MR TONER: So we haven't seen the humanitarian access, and that's a piece of this as well. So I'm not going to put a – say we're at day two or day three on this. What I can say is that it continues to be our assessment, and I think Russia's assessment as well, although Secretary Kerry and Lavrov – and Foreign Minister Lavrov haven't spoken yet today – but it continues to be our assessment that this is worth pursuing, it's worth continuing, that it's – we've seen a significant reduction in violence. But we need to see the humanitarian access begin to take hold, because that's an integral part of this. And then, again, if we get to seven days, then we can move forward with the JIC.
QUESTION: If we get to seven days, but you can't tell us how far through seven days we are?
MR TONER: I don't want to give that today.
QUESTION: Okay. Now, the French foreign minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, complained today that the French haven't seen the detail of the document. Obviously we've asked for it here as well, and you've said that there are reasons why you don't want to give the detail of the document. Is there a reason why your allies can't see the document, and would you share it with them before an ISSG meeting so at least they know what they're talking about?
MR TONER: So, in answer to your second question first, certainly we'll be talking to all members of the ISSG who are in New York next week. I can't formally announce there's going to be an ISSG meeting next week yet, but certainly we'll be talking to the other members of the ISSG in New York next week. And the topic of that conversation will be in large part walking them through the arrangement and making sure that they understand clearly and have a good comprehension and grasp of the arrangement. In response to your first part of your question, look, this was a – the text as it was worked out was a bilateral U.S.-Russia arrangement. And as such, we haven't had the opportunity yet to fully share it with all members of the ISSG, but that's our intent to do it.
QUESTION: So Mark, you said you're going to be talking to all the members. That's not the same as sharing the document with them, which is what they're looking for.
MR TONER: I can't say that we'll share the full text of the document at this time, but we'll certainly, obviously, be there to answer all their questions and to walk them through in great detail.
QUESTION: Why don't you want to share the text with your allies? These are people that are --
MR TONER: I understand that.
QUESTION: Isn't – aren't they all part of the coalition against ISIS?
MR TONER: They are, they are. And I'm not ruling out that we won't, I just can't categorically say we will. But what I can categorically say is we'll be sitting down with them next week in some shape or form. I can't formally announce that the ISSG will be meeting yet, but we expect to be sitting down with each of them next week and walking them through in great detail the arrangement.
QUESTION: And Mark, on humanitarian aid.
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Is this a deliberate – do you think that this is a deliberate effort by the Syrian Government to stop the aid or do you think it's just the issue of this is a war, you're trying to get the message through to the different parts of the country? What is that you really --
MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, I honestly – I can't say with complete certainty. It may be a little bit of the fog of war, but again, it's – it needs to be dealt with and addressed before we can move on with the next stage of the agreement. And so it's day one, okay; day two, okay, but a little bit more serious concern; now we're in day three and we still haven't seen this access really begin, so it's of increasing concern.
QUESTION: Are you questioning whether the Russians really have that influence over the Syrian Government to persuade them to open up these corridors?
MR TONER: Corridors? Sorry, I didn't mean to finish your question for you.
QUESTION: No --
MR TONER: No, look, I mean, this agreement is based on our belief or our understanding that Russia is able to deliver with regard to the regime complying with the agreement, and that includes cessation of hostilities, but it also includes humanitarian assistance. I don't have a clear understanding why that second piece of it has become or is – has been so difficult. But we expect that the Russians will be able to convince the regime to comply, whether it's whatever logistical problems, fog of war – whatever it is, we need to see that assistance flow.
Yeah, Nick.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) just to go back to Lesley's question.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: I know Secretary Kerry had addressed this, but it still doesn't feel like we've gotten a complete answer. What is it about this agreement that makes you not want to share it? I mean, we had the U.S.-Israel agreement yesterday; you come out with a fact sheet that sort of gives blow by blow what's going on there. I know there are security issues to deal with, but it's just so strange that we have this really big, important agreement and you're not willing to share the text.
MR TONER: Well, a couple of things to say about that. One is that it's – it is a bilateral arrangement. It is – it does deal with sensitive issues that we believe, if made public, could potentially be misused or misinterpreted or used by – I know Secretary Kerry talked about the spoilers or would-be spoilers of this – but also could put some of these opposition groups, moderate opposition groups, at risk.
But all that said, we have done our best both with the media but also with the other members of the ISSG to talk them through and answer their questions about the agreement or the arrangement, and we're going to continue to do that. And at some point, we may very well make this thing public. It's just we're not at that point yet.
QUESTION: Do you regard --
QUESTION: Does that – does that --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) as a would-be spoiler or is an enemy to the moderate opposition?
MR TONER: You're talking about – I'm – I missed the first part.
QUESTION: The Government of France, is that a would-be spoiler?
MR TONER: No, of course not, of course not. And as I said, we'll --
QUESTION: So those two --
MR TONER: As I said --
QUESTION: -- explanations don't apply to --
MR TONER: I understand that.
QUESTION: -- to the question of the French foreign minister.
MR TONER: And I said that we're obviously going to be sitting down with other members of the ISSG next week in New York walking them through in painstaking detail and answering every question they may have about the agreement.
QUESTION: Does that mean --
QUESTION: Would you object if Russia shared it with more people?
MR TONER: I mean, that's ultimately a decision for Russia. I'm not going to speak on behalf of them.
QUESTION: But does that mean that you don't trust the other members of the ISSG to keep this confidential?
MR TONER: Not at all, not at all, not at all. I just think we're at a point now – and it's true as well with our engagement with the opposition – it's a complex agreement. We're trying to lay it out as clearly and as fully as we feel we can given the sensitivities of parts of it or elements of it. But we're working with the opposition and we're working with the other members of the ISSG. And frankly, it's in our interest that the other members of the ISSG understand – and we've been engaging with them on this – what this agreement's about, because it's – again, this hinges on their ability to convince the groups that they support within the moderate opposition.
QUESTION: Can you --
QUESTION: And just the last thing, does the --
MR TONER: Please, and I'll --
QUESTION: Do the spoilers include the U.S. Defense Department?
MR TONER: No, that's not at all what I meant and not at all what the Secretary meant.
QUESTION: Can you be – as generally as possible, what – because I know you – because to say it would give it away.
MR TONER: That's okay.
QUESTION: What --
MR TONER: What sensitive information --
QUESTION: What generally is the threat to the moderate opposition?
MR TONER: I think it has to do with what we talked about, within the designated area where some of these forces lie or where they're located at. And we've even talked about this in terms of even with the Russians that we've been not fully sharing information until we get to the point where we're setting up this Joint Implementation Center.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but this is the agreement beforehand, which the Russians already know. (Laughter.)
MR TONER: I understand that. I understand that.
QUESTION: Presumably they --
MR TONER: But I'm just saying that there's – I understand that, but what I --
QUESTION: Okay. So when it does come out – this is my pledge to you, Mark – when it does come out, because it will --
MR TONER: Yeah. Yes, it will.
QUESTION: -- we're going to go line by line through it. And I want to know, when we go through it line by line, what exactly was so sensitive --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- that posed a threat to the opposition or that could have been used by spoilers.
MR TONER: Okay, okay.
QUESTION: Just one other --
MR TONER: Understood. I think Kirby's briefing that day. (Laughter.) Sorry.
QUESTION: Have you – is there a deadline for this separation --
MR TONER: That's right, perfect.
QUESTION: -- of al-Nusrah from opposition? Have you said to the moderate opposition what – is there a deadline for that, or is the deadline when the areas have been designated and if they're not out of them, then they're targets?
MR TONER: Well, once we declare and stand up the JIC, then that's when, as we've laid out, that this joint coordination or joint effort to target Nusrah would begin. At that point, it's incumbent on the moderate opposition, if they haven't done so yet, to disengage with the – with areas – or the – from the areas where they're with Nusrah or cohabitating with Nusrah.
QUESTION: So essentially, the deadline is once the JIC is ready to go; then if the moderate opposition is in the designated areas, they – they'll be targeted.
MR TONER: Obviously, we want to see that sooner rather than in the eleventh hour for them to do that, but that would be the quote/unquote "deadline."
QUESTION: Just one last thing.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: So you talked about the – on the humanitarian aid front about --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- you don't know whether it's logistical problems or fog of war that's holding this stuff up, but surely you have to take into account the possibility that the government, the Syrian Government just simply doesn't want the aid to go through. And in that case, I mean, it sounds like – I mean, logistical reasons --
MR TONER: Well, in that case --
QUESTION: -- or fog of war seems like – seem like excuses.
MR TONER: No, but in that case – no, I'm not trying to deflect that in any way. In that case, that's an integral part to the agreement and that would be a --
QUESTION: I mean, they didn't sign on to it.
MR TONER: -- a possible deal breaker, but we're not there.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yes, but I'm going to go with you first since I've --
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Could you give us a readout on the meetings that Deputy Secretary of State Blinken is having in Erbil today?
MR TONER: Yep, sure thing. Hold on one moment.
So as you said, he is in the Iraqi Kurdistan – Deputy Secretary Antony Blinken, Tony Blinken, is in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region today. He did meet with President Barzani and other senior regional government officials, and they continued discussions on efforts to, obviously, degrade and defeat Daesh and also support for – ongoing support for the Peshmerga. And as well they talked about the response to the urgent humanitarian IDP crises in Iraq. And finally, they also addressed ongoing preparations and cooperation between Baghdad and Erbil ahead of the liberation of Mosul.
QUESTION: I know that the Kurdish report – press reports are saying that President Barzani raised the issue of a post-ISIS Mosul, how it's going to be politically governed and administered. Do you have any details on that?
MR TONER: I mean, I don't other than what we've said always all along, which is that whenever these cities, towns, regions are liberated, what we want to see as quickly as possible – obviously, we want to see the area made safe, and that's a huge challenge in many of these areas because there's land mines and ongoing threats to citizens or civilians who may be returning. But the other thing is we want to see is services restored, government – local government restored. We want to see as quickly as possible structures put back in place that will allow civilians, those who have been displaced or those who've endured living there under ISIL control, be able to resume normal lives. So local governance is what we want to see back in place.
QUESTION: An emphasis on what the local people want?
MR TONER: That's what I'm saying, yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR TONER: Turkey and then you. Sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: U.S. Ambassador John Bass has been under fire for his statement a couple days ago he issued regarding southeastern cities of Turkey recently taking from local government and giving to government-appointed trustees. And the U.S. ambassador issued a concerned statement. Do you have a comment regarding his situation in Turkey?
MR TONER: Regarding his situation in Turkey? Yeah. He remains our ambassador to Turkey, and I'd let his comments and statements speak for themselves. But obviously he enjoys the full confidence of the President and the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: So his statement regarding concern over these local government, most of them in southeastern of Turkey, taken as he is intervening Turkey's internal affairs. There are Turkish ministers who came out to condemn his remarks or statement, including foreign minister and other ministers. What's your response to this argument that he is intervening Turkey's internal matters?
MR TONER: We would disagree. And again, his comments stand. We support his comments. And as we've said all along in our relationship with Turkey, where we do – and we have a strong relationship with Turkey obviously across many aspects, but when we do have disagreements with regard to human rights or the state of Turkey's democracy, we feel we have a strong enough relationship to make those concerns public.
QUESTION: So you are saying this statement is not ambassador's personal initiative? This is your government's also?
MR TONER: Look, I mean, any time an ambassador speaks it's on behalf of the U.S. Government.
QUESTION: So can we stay with the U.S. ambassadors in uproar for – or causing uproar, furor?
MR TONER: Okay. (Laughter.) Where's that? Where's the next one?
QUESTION: There's two, actually; two others.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: Maybe you're not aware of them. Italy and Romania.
MR TONER: I believe I'm aware of --
QUESTION: Are you familiar with either of the situations?
MR TONER: Go ahead. I think I'm aware of the Italy --
QUESTION: I was going to ask this yesterday but we didn't have time.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So --
MR TONER: Why don't you ask me the question first?
QUESTION: Well, I just want to know what you have to say about the situation with the – your ambassadors in Italy who've been (inaudible) --
MR TONER: With regard to our ambassador to Italy, Ambassador Phillips – I think you're talking about comments he may have made about the – or he made, rather, about the referendum.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Well, I'm not going to parse his comments, which I understand were made at a think-tank event. But I will say that the United States solidly supports Italian efforts to streamline and modernize political institutions in Italy and put the country on a path to long-term political stability and economic growth.
QUESTION: All right. And you know – are you familiar with the issue in Romania, which is – yes?
MR TONER: Yes, I can go to that one next.
QUESTION: The flag, the photo.
MR TONER: Yeah, I do know what you're talking about of – yeah. So as our – I think our embassy has already put out a statement about this. But Ambassador Klemm is our ambassador to all of Romania. He regularly travels throughout the country meeting with diverse groups from all parts of Romanian society. And as an ally and strategic partner of Romania, the United States supports and applauds Romania's democracy and its efforts to consolidate democratic institutions with the full, equal participation of all segments of Romanian society.
QUESTION: So more broadly, that's three ambassadors we've just gone through here who have --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- who have been at the center of something. And then, of course, there is Ambassador Goldberg in the Philippines who was also recently the subject of a bit of controversy. Are you concerned at all that there seems to be a – I mean, this isn't two – this isn't the age-old saying two's a trend. This is four now.
MR TONER: No, look, Matt. I mean, it is – and I think the Secretary would agree that our ambassadors, wherever they serve, are our frontline diplomats. We want them to be as engaged on the issues that are in our interest and in the interest of human rights and the ideals that we hold dear as a nation as they can possibly be. And if that's being out there within the population or working with different segments of the societies or speaking on where they see or have concerns, speaking out about those concerns, we support them fully.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR TONER: Yep. In the back.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Oh, I'm sorry. Tejinder, I can go to you, I promise. Yeah, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Didn't mean to slight you, sir.
QUESTION: No --
MR TONER: Yeah, and we got – so 10 minutes. Go.
QUESTION: Okay. So the first question is – I have just two questions. One is the Senator Warner and along with another senator has written a letter to Secretary Kerry about the Guardian, this system, aircraft system sale to India. The question is: Has the Secretary received the letter? Has he responded? I know you won't talk about the sale and all that, but has he received the letter? Has he responded?
MR TONER: So I'm not sure – I can't confirm that he's received the letter. We will get an answer for you on that because we can do that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: But like any piece of congressional correspondence, once we do, we would obviously assess it and respond accordingly.
QUESTION: I was just wondering because it says here that – I have the copy of the letter, September 2nd, and today is 15.
MR TONER: I just can't --
QUESTION: So how long it takes to travel --
MR TONER: I'm sure it's a matter of days, if not a day, but I just don't have confirmation that we've received it and the Secretary has read it.
QUESTION: And the second question is I had earlier asked about – there's a delegation of Indian members of parliament visiting Washington, D.C. I had asked about their – if they are going to visit this – have a meeting with this building people. And nothing has come to date, so have you --
MR TONER: This is a – I'm sorry. I apologize. What is --
QUESTION: An Indian – a delegation from the Indian parliament, members of parliament, is in town. I was told that – there were two questions. Who is paying for it? That they clarified that U.S. is not paying. And the second: Was there meetings in this building?
MR TONER: Let me take that and get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: I have a question.
MR TONER: Just quickly, and then I'll get back --
QUESTION: Do you want to go ahead?
MR TONER: Yeah. Lalit, and then I'll get to you.
QUESTION: I have a few questions on Afghanistan. The president of Afghanistan is asking Pakistan to include India in the transit trade agreement. I am asking this question because this agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan was signed as a result of tough negotiations done by late Ambassador Holbrooke. At that time India was not included in the agreement. Now Afghanistan is asking that India should be included so that it can import --
MR TONER: So you're talking about – I apologize. You're talking about a meeting with – I'm sorry.
QUESTION: I'm talking about Afghanistan's – Afghanistan is asking about including India in the transit trade agreement it has with Pakistan.
MR TONER: With Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: And what our position is on that?
QUESTION: Yes. Yeah.
MR TONER: I would just say, speaking broadly, that we would support stronger trade relations within the region. And we've long said that it's a priority for the United States at least, but it should be a priority for the countries in the region to all work more cooperatively and constructively together. And a trade agreement would be part of that.
QUESTION: So do you – you support Afghanistan's viewpoint that India should be included in that --
MR TONER: I think we would encourage, as I said, stronger trade relations between all the countries of the region.
Nike.
QUESTION: At the same time, Afghanistan has also said that if India is not included, Pakistan denies (inaudible), it will deny Pakistan the right to transit its goods to Central Asia through Afghanistan. How --
MR TONER: Well, look, those are – I'm not going to weigh in on the negotiations between – bilateral negotiation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is a sovereign country and it has its own rights – it has rights to make its own decisions with regard to who it decides to allow trade relations with. But broadly speaking, again, it's in the interests of the region, it's been a consistent goal of ours strategically to promote stronger relations between all the countries.
Nike.
QUESTION: I have one more quickly. President of Afghanistan was in New Delhi meeting Prime Minister Modi this week, and India has announced 1 billion aid to Afghanistan. What do you say about that? Do you have any thoughts on it?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, this is something – we obviously support India's generosity and focus on Afghanistan and willingness to help Afghanistan become a stronger, independent country that has the stronger economic growth, certainly, but also has the capacity to defend itself and provide for the security of its people. The fact that India is willing to invest in that future we view as a very positive sign and we appreciate India's effort.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Please, Nike.
QUESTION: Quickly on Libya, do you have anything on the --
MR TONER: On --
QUESTION: Libya.
MR TONER: Libya, okay.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the report put together by a panel of British lawmakers in which it's saying that the military intervention by Britain in 2011 is based on, quote, "erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding?" First of all, I would like to get your take on that.
MR TONER: Well, so we've talked a little bit about this. I know that there was – our own President, President Obama, made some remarks in an interview he gave several months ago talking about how after the fall of Qadhafi, there wasn't enough done in the immediate aftermath of his downfall to help Libya become secure, to help it – a new government get on its feet, and those were errors, I guess, in the sense that we didn't do enough. And that obviously includes the United States but obviously other partners as well, including the UK – that we weren't there when – that immediate aftermath to provide Libya with the support that it needed at that juncture to deal with the continued security concerns it had and security situation that it had on the ground.
But let's look at where we are today and the effort that's been made to establish a political party and a government, a new government that is able to begin to build the institutions that will provide for Libya's security and provide economic prosperity to Libya. So I think we recognize that, again, in the immediate aftermath of Qadhafi's downfall, not enough was done to secure Libya and to help the new government stand on its feet. But since we've – since that time, there has been tremendous focus, and certainly Secretary Kerry has led many of these efforts in order to set up a new government – the GNA – but also to go after and help it cope with threats from ISIL and really consolidate power within Libya.
What we need to see more progress on is exactly that. We need to help the government stand alone as the legitimate government of Libya and we need all the various sects and parties to come together underneath that government. And only then can the GNA provide for Libya's long-term security.
QUESTION: Mark --
QUESTION: Because --
MR TONER: Yeah, I'll get – I promise. I promise --
QUESTION: Because U.S. also took part in the bombing. So are you saying that the report find – found by those British lawmakers are correct?
MR TONER: I'm not sure. I haven't read the full report. What I was told was that it pointed or had concerns about the fact that not enough was done in the immediate aftermath of Qadhafi's downfall to support Libya. Now, if that's my – if that's not correct, I'm not sure what else you're pointing to out of that report.
QUESTION: Are you seconding the finding that the intervention is based on erroneous assumptions and incomplete understanding?
MR TONER: The intervention that – to stop Qadhafi?
QUESTION: The intervention – yeah.
MR TONER: Not at all, and we've spoken very strongly about that. I mean, we had, at the time, statements that Qadhafi was making that he was going to go into various cities that were held by – or rebel-held cities, that he was going to hunt people down like dogs from house to house and kill them. Basically, he was predicting or pledging that he would carry out mass killings. And so based on that, we had every right, we believe – the international community – to do what we did, which was carry out airstrikes.
QUESTION: Mark, we --
QUESTION: Of course, Assad said the same thing.
MR TONER: Yes, he has essentially said – well, he's made many of the same threats, but --
QUESTION: And he actually carried them out.
MR TONER: Well, we acted before Qadhafi was able to carry those out, but --
QUESTION: Right. But you didn't act in Syria.
MR TONER: Well, we've got a plan in place for Syria that we're trying to – anyway, last question.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, Mark, we have a story on the wire saying that Tom Shannon met with a Houthi team in Oman this week with a proposal on Yemen. Can you confirm that, that he was actually in Muscat and presented a U.S. proposal to them and that they're going to go back to Sana'a with this proposal to discuss it?
MR TONER: Sure. What I can say is – and certainly Deputy Secretary Shannon is at the forefront of this. But these efforts to get a cessation of hostility in place in Yemen – and that does include, obviously, convincing the Houthis to abide by that cessation of hostilities as well as – and you saw we put out a statement about this I guess last week – that Saudi Arabia would also be on board, as long as the Houthis lived up to the same requirements or the same standards.
QUESTION: So was he there this week?
MR TONER: I can't confirm his travel. That's why my second part of my answer was --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: -- I can't confirm that this meeting actually took place, but we'll try to get you that confirmation.
QUESTION: And is this the same proposal that John Kerry was discussing with the Saudis a few weeks back?
MR TONER: It is part of the same effort.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Two things on this. Isn't it under secretary?
MR TONER: Did I say – I apologize. Under Secretary Tom Shannon.
QUESTION: And you can't confirm his travel, but can you confirm that he was, in fact, in this building yesterday signing the MOU with the Israelis?
MR TONER: Yes. Yes, he was, but she said last week.
QUESTION: I know, but --
MR TONER: Okay. Yeah, I can. Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:47 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
