Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 16, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
IRAQ
INDIA
PAKISTAN
JAPAN
ISRAEL
NORTH KOREA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
TRANSCRIPT:
2:13 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello. Happy Friday.
MR KIRBY: Yes, it is Friday, Friday before the UN General Assembly.
So, just a couple of things at the top. I want to say that the department is thrilled with the success of the Secretary's Our Ocean conference so far. As you know, it's still going on today. More than 90 countries have participated. More than 3.4 million square kilometers of ocean has been newly designated now as protected. And while the conference isn't over yet, already just during this conference alone, more than $5 billion has been committed for ocean conservation efforts, and earlier this morning, $1 billion was put forward by philanthropic leaders over the course of a single panel discussion.
So we applaud those contributions. We're grateful for those as well. We applaud everyone for coming and participating so actively. We also applaud our Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science who helped put this conference together, assembled it, developed the agenda, worked it so hard, as well as our major events and conferences staff, who have done such a marvelous job. So not over yet, still more work to do, but a very successful conference indeed and we're delighted to see that.
On a sadder note, I'd like to, on behalf of the department, would like to note the passing of a career Foreign Service Officer by the name of John Buzbee. Some of you may know John. He joined the Foreign Service in May of 1998, was part of the 87th A-100 class. A former journalist, he brought a reporter's curiosity to the Foreign Service and the ability to create imagery out of words. He was fascinated by the Middle East and all of the issues there, and he served across the region, including in Iraq and in Egypt, and in various positions here at headquarters inside the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. We mourn his loss. We pray for his family and we wish them our deepest condolences. And I know I can speak for everybody here at the State Department when I say that he truly will be missed.
Matt.
QUESTION: Thank you. And thank you for those kind words. Let's start with Syria. I'll bet you weren't expecting that, were you?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: So the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov had another call this morning.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Your readout of it said that – essentially the Secretary said, look, if you don't get Assad to start allowing aid into Aleppo, you're not – we're not going to move ahead with the JIC. The Russian version of it, I guess, is slightly different in tone. And one of the things that the Russian version said was that Foreign Minister Lavrov once again implored Secretary Kerry to make the deal that they had – that they reached a week ago today in Geneva public so that everyone can see and know what the – what it is and what the baselines are for success or failure. So did that, in fact, come up in the call? And if it did, what did the Secretary say? Because Foreign Minister Lavrov isn't the only one who is saying publicly that this should be put out there.
MR KIRBY: I don't have any more detail to read out than the one I provided. So I'm not in a position to say one way or the other whether that particular topic was raised. I'll tell you what, though. I'll take the question just to make sure. I don't want to just guess about the degree to which they spoke on that. So let me find out.
What I can tell you is our view hasn't changed, and I think Mark talked about this yesterday, but our view on that issue hasn't changed.
QUESTION: And that means that you're not prepared to make it public? Because there's a meeting this afternoon of the Security Council on this and the – I think that some of your fellow members of the Security Council, I mean, apart from the Russians, obviously, who know what's in it already, want to know what's in it. So are you guys prepared to at least show it, give the document to the other members of the Council?
MR KIRBY: Well, what I can tell you is – and I think, again, Mark addressed this yesterday – we certainly have and will continue to brief our partners on it. There's no problem with doing that. But our position with respect to making it public and whole at this time has not changed.
QUESTION: At the – your colleague at the White House was asked about the leverage that you have in trying to get the Russians to come through and press Assad to allow the aid into Aleppo and other areas, and he said – and it was more than a suggestion – he said, well, our leverage is that if they don't do it, we're not going to form this JIC. Can you – I don't understand how that is leverage. Can you explain that?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think what he was referring to was the degree to which the Russian side very much wants to see the Joint Implementation Center established. I mean, this was something that they – I mean, as you know, Matt, I mean, they've been stressing for many months now a desire to have a deeper level of cooperation with the United States military and the JIC was conceived with that objective in mind. So they're very much interested in seeing that established. And as the Secretary said in the call this morning, as – it was in my readout that unless we see the arrangement with respect to humanitarian access and with respect to reduced violence implemented, there will be no establishment of the JIC.
QUESTION: Right. But they have been – there is no JIC now.
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: There has never been a JIC or anything close to it. There has only been this kind of de-confliction discussion.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: And the absence or the lack of a JIC, or a whatever you want to call it, has not stopped the Russians at all from pursuing their – what they've been doing for almost a year. I remember it was at the General Assembly last year when this whole thing began.
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So I don't get why it is that you think that that's some kind of stick that you're able to use as leverage.
MR KIRBY: I don't know that I would describe it as a stick, and that's certainly not the way the Secretary would describe it. You asked me why would we think the establishment of the JIC would be conceived by the Russians at leverage, and my answer was because we know they want it, and they have wanted a deeper level of cooperation with the U.S. military for quite some time, but that is not – it wasn't conceived in the arrangement, it wasn't designed to be a stick, as you described it. It was designed – and we support the establishment of the Joint Implementation Center – it was designed to better focus Russia's military efforts against Daesh and against al-Qaida in Syria. That's the whole purpose. So we have something to gain in the establishment of a JIC as well.
I think, though, to your broader question, if I could, I mean, this arrangement isn't about carrots and sticks. Yes, it is a transactional arrangement. I'm not going to dispute that. We want to see reduced violence, we want to see humanitarian access, and then when we see that to everyone's satisfaction, we'll establish the Joint Implementation Center. And we want to see – as a result after that, we want to see, obviously, Assad's air forces not flying in those areas.
But as we've said all along – we said in Geneva and we said since Geneva – if we don't get there, if we don't get to the arrangement being fulfilled, then there'll be no arrangement, there'll be no JIC, and what we agreed to in Geneva won't happen. So it's not about carrots and sticks. It's not about forcing Russia one way or another. Russia has – they have decisions to make about the influence that they have on Assad and the degree to which they're going to use it or not. And if they choose not to use that influence or if they apply it and it has no effect, then the arrangement doesn't come into being, and we're back to, regrettably, where we have so long been, which is innocent civilians being barrel bombed and gassed.
QUESTION: But John, let me just follow up on the humanitarian aid. Now, UN sources say that these trucks have no UN markings, for instance – that the UN has hired many drivers that have no licenses, no IDs, no passports, that there are – they're refusing to sort of delineate which trucks are which, which are – really carry humanitarian aid and so on. I wonder if you have a response to that. Because this seems to be what is holding the aid from going through. I mean, of course, there are some – there's violence going on, but also these logistics are not taken care of. If they are not, why not?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen reports that we don't have driver's licenses on these guys, Said. The Secretary spoke to Staffan de Mistura today and we know that there are trucks that are waiting to go in --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and the UN is supervising that process. I won't speak for the UN in terms of accreditation of drivers and vehicles. That's them for – to speak to. But we know those trucks are ready, they're loaded up, and they're ready to go. And even if we weren't talking about the arrangement, which obviously called for sustained humanitarian access – let's just for a second pretend we weren't talking about that. There's – those trucks should be going in --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and that aid should be getting delivered with or without the arrangement that was arrived at in Geneva. And it's the regime that is blocking that movement – the regime – and again, that was one of the reasons why it was important --
QUESTION: Forgive me, but it's not only the regime.
MR KIRBY: -- for the Secretary to talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov.
QUESTION: Sorry, but it's not only the regime, but the local committee, the local council – there is something called the local council in eastern Aleppo that is also preventing or not agreeing to these trucks going through.
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: What I'm aware of is that these trucks – you talk about going through. They're not even in the country, Said.
QUESTION: No, I understand. They are – they are in this --
MR KIRBY: They're not even in the country.
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: And it is the regime that's blocking that.
QUESTION: They have not consented. Let's put it this way --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I don't have that report.
QUESTION: -- they have not consented.
MR KIRBY: I'm not disputing it. I just don't have that report.
QUESTION: Let me just – let me just follow up.
MR KIRBY: I do know, however --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- that those trucks are being prevented entry into the country from the regime.
QUESTION: Okay. But let me follow up on a couple of things on the Castello Road, because it has historically been the main artery for supplies to the rebel forces in terms of arms and so on, foreign fighters going through and so on. So the regime has always had sort of – a bit of a suspicion on that. Do you feel that the Syrian Government has some sort of a right in saying that we want to ensure that no foreign fighters, no equipment is going through, these trucks and so on? From their point of view, do they have that right?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, rather than say they have the right or they don't, the – part of the arrangement that dealt with Castello Road – because we agree it is a main artery --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- of sustenance to Aleppo. And because it is a main artery, it has been used by one side or the other for other purposes than getting food, water, and medicine to the Syrian people. That is why, as part of the arrangement, parameters were set about opening up that road, properly – putting a mechanism into place to properly monitor traffic so that people who wanted to leave could leave safely; food, water, or medicine that needed to get in could get in. And again, I mean, I've seen press reporting about bulldozers on the road today and then regime troops moving in, moving out. And I'm not going to get into a tactical blow-by-blow of what the road looks like right now, because whatever I say is probably not going to be correct in a little bit of time.
So all I can tell you is we want to see the agreements regarding Castello Road, the ones that both Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Secretary talked about in Geneva – we want to see that put in place.
QUESTION: And lastly – my last one on this – do you have any information on the Syrian army pulling back like two kilometers yesterday and then going back --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I just said – I – in my answer to you, I've seen those --
QUESTION: So you confirmed that they did --
MR KIRBY: No, I cannot. I said I've seen press reports about that, but I'm not in a position to confirm tactical movements by small units. I wouldn't even do that for the U.S. military; I'm certainly not going to do that to try to characterize what Syrian regime – or regime forces are doing. Again, what we want to see is we want to see the proper amount of access to get the food, water, and medicine to the people in Aleppo and for those that want to be able to leave and leave safely so that they can do that.
QUESTION: What the Russians are also saying is that the reason that these purported moves happened with the Syrian troops was because the U.S.-backed rebels have been violating the ceasefire and that most of the violations of the ceasefire are because of these moderates, and that it's the responsibility of the U.S. to get them to lay down the arms. What's your assessment?
MR KIRBY: I don't think we need to be reminded of our responsibilities with respect to the opposition. We know very well, and the Secretary has spoken to that. And as I think my colleague said here even as – yesterday, we acknowledge that there have been – over the last several days there have been acts of violence committed by all sides here. We acknowledge that. In fact, even in Geneva, before the arrangement technically kicked off, the Secretary acknowledged that there were going to be things happening that we didn't want to see. Obviously, the – we'd love to see no violence. But we recognized even before that there would be some. And as I said, we've acknowledged that all sides here have – probably not in full – committed to no violence, and we want to see all sides continue – or we want to see all sides comply with it and to keep the levels down.
QUESTION: And do you have anything on this Reuters report quoting Western diplomats that the UN had come to the conclusion that the Syrian military had been responsible for the dropping of chlorine that came out a couple hours ago?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the press report, but I'm not going to – I can't speak to the veracity of it. That said, we've talked about this before, about the regime's use of chlorine as a weapon of war, an industrial agent that can be weaponized by dropping it from aircraft in barrels, and the damage that the gas does. We've said that a long – we've known that for a long time that they have proven willing to do that. No, I got you. I got you. Don't worry.
But – and I think we saw recently – what, a couple weeks ago – a report from OPCW saying the same thing, which had reinforced what we had long believed and what we'd been long saying. I can't speak to this specific new one.
QUESTION: You've got nothing on it today. Okay.
MR KIRBY: I just – as you noted, it's a recent press report, only a couple hours old. And I'm just not in a position to confirm the veracity of it.
QUESTION: Is it – every day this week you have said that you and the Russians felt that it was worth continuing the ceasefire even though the cessation of hostilities – even though it was imperfect and even though humanitarian aid had yet begun to flow. Is it the U.S. Government's point of view that it's worth doing that ad infinitum? If you never get a perfect ceasefire and if you never get humanitarian access, are you willing to continue with this just because the significant reduction in the violence is worth it in and of itself?
MR KIRBY: No. No. And I think the Secretary has been very honest about what we're doing and the ultimate goal, and that our patience here isn't infinite. This arrangement, I think it's important to remember, was designed to get the levels of violence down, the humanitarian access up to such a degree that we could revitalize a cessation of hostilities and create the conditions necessary to get the political talks back on track, which we all know hasn't happened. That's what this was designed to do, because of – but – largely, but not solely – largely because of the siege of Aleppo, which still remains sort of the centerpiece here. But the – and that's a long answer to your question, but I didn't want to answer it glibly. But the real short answer to your question is no.
QUESTION: So what do you then do?
MR KIRBY: What do we then do --
QUESTION: When your patience runs out.
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't know, Arshad, and I don't know that it would be valuable to try to speculate about that. I think in terms of this arrangement, as I answered to Matt, if we don't see the humanitarian access, if we don't see reduced violence of a continuous nature, then there will be no establishment of a Joint Implementation Center, therefore there will be no sharing of information of a targeting nature with the Russian military and we will be back where we were before this arrangement was put into place, which is obviously not a place any of us want to be. But I don't think it's helpful while we're in the middle of trying to get this to continue to move forward to speculate or talk to outcomes if it doesn't. I mean, our focus – and it's, frankly, the purpose for the phone call this morning with Foreign Minister Lavrov – is to see it succeed, is to get it to work so that we can get Staffan de Mistura back at the table.
QUESTION: If one week you – the Secretary in Geneva set and the agreement sets seven days as the period of time after which you would begin to establish the JIC if there had been the – the reduced violence and the increased humanitarian access. If seven days was a sufficient period to judge whether the arrangement was working, is seven days a sufficient period to judge that the arrangement has failed to work?
MR KIRBY: I think we're going to have to make those kinds of decisions if and when we get there. What we are looking for is the seven days of reduced violence, but it also says that we need to see sustained humanitarian access. Both conditions have to be met and both are not being met right now. We continue to see reduced violence. I'm not saying we're content with the violence we have seen, but we jointly agree that the violence has been reduced thus far. But the humanitarian access hasn't been had, and so we have to see both. And I couldn't begin to tell you what that's going to look like on a calendar, but it's something that we're going to have to continue to work at and to discuss with our Russian counterparts, and we're literally taking this day by day. I --
QUESTION: You said "if and when we get there," though. I just want to make sure – I mean, Monday is going to come whether this agreement is working or not, so are you suggesting that if we get – when we get to Monday that there will be a judgment made that, okay, we haven't had the seven days, let's try it again for another seven days?
MR KIRBY: Well, remember – I used if and when quite deliberately, because there's no guarantee that the JIC is going to be established. There are two things that are important to get to the establishment of the JIC.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: There is the seven days of reduced violence and there is the sustained humanitarian access. Now, I couldn't --
QUESTION: For seven days as well – both are seven days. But I'm – my question is, look, Monday is going to come.
QUESTION: If that (inaudible) over seven days --
QUESTION: There's no way you can stop this coming Monday from happening. It's just – it's going to – and my question is: Are you going to make a judgment on Monday that either yes, the conditions have been met and we're going to go ahead and set up the JIC; no, they haven't been met, so no JIC ever; or let's try it for another seven days?
MR KIRBY: Well, your question assumes that by Monday --
QUESTION: My question only assumes that Monday is actually going to come, that there is going --
MR KIRBY: – that Monday we will have – yes, Monday will come.
QUESTION: Yes, it --
MR KIRBY: It always does. I know that, Matt. I'm well aware of the --
QUESTION: It will, so – that's the only assumption – that is the only assumption --
MR KIRBY: I'm well aware of the flow of the week. What I'm trying to tell you is --
QUESTION: (Laughter.) That is the only assumption that is in my question, though, that Monday is going to show up. Okay?
MR KIRBY: And you know something?
QUESTION: And everything else --
MR KIRBY: You know something?
QUESTION: What?
MR KIRBY: It's our assumption too. Monday is going to come, but we're going to – and we are going to – but I can't tell you – (laughter) – I can't tell you – I mean, but look, we're taking this literally day by day. And we're not going to get into a daily grade or assessment here. I know what you're getting at. I don't know the answer to your question. I think we have to continue to watch this and work this hard.
And look, if we weren't concerned about – I mean, obviously – so we see reduced violence so far, and that's – it's not perfect, but it's better than what it was before. What we haven't seen is the sustained humanitarian access, and that's why they spoke this morning. That's why the Secretary wanted to talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov, because that is a key component of this arrangement and it has not moved at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So is the answer to my question then you don't know whether – if it hasn't – if it is judged on Monday that you haven't – the conditions haven't been met, you don't know yet whether you're just going to say all right, the hell with it, that's it; it's done and there's not going to be a JIC, or let's give it another seven days or another X amount of time?
MR KIRBY: Let me put it this way, and maybe this will answer it. If by Monday we have continued to see reduced violence and no humanitarian access, there will be no Joint Implementation Center.
QUESTION: Ever?
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: That's it.
MR KIRBY: Not --
QUESTION: I mean under this agreement. It's done?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to make – call the end here. I'm just saying that if we haven't seen both --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- there is not going to be a Joint Implementation Center. And I think this gets to Arshad's question, I mean, how long. I'm not prepared to say how long we're going to continue to evaluate this. But obviously, we didn't enter into this arrangement that it would go on – how did you say it – ad infinitum? Is that how you say that? That wasn't – that certainly wasn't the intention of it.
Yes.
QUESTION: The – sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: The Twittersphere was reporting with video and now it's in the British press as well that Turkish-backed FSA forces have chased U.S. Special Forces out of the Syrian town of al-Rai. Do you have any concern that the forces that Syria is – that the forces that Turkey is supporting in Syria may not be so moderate?
MR KIRBY: Do I have concern that the forces they Turkey is supporting in their --
QUESTION: These are rebels that accompanied Turkish forces into Syria to have, like, Turkish influence in certain parts, on the border towns in Syria. And this is the town of al-Rai and they had some issue with the U.S. Special Forces that were with them. They chased them out very dramatically, shouting Islamic slogans, calling them dogs, pigs, American agents. So it raises the question of just what kind of people, what kind of rebels, is Turkey supporting. Are these guys truly moderate or people you want to see in control in Syria?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, on the incident itself I'd refer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department. I've not seen this video and I certainly wouldn't speak to what is so clearly a defense issue. So I can't confirm the video that you're referring to so – and that means I also don't know of the slurs that you're saying were uttered. Obviously, if that's true, that would be concerning, of course.
But what we said before about the work that Turkish forces have done along that border, which was work, with the exception, of course, of the clashes that were had over a period of several days with Kurdish forces – what I'm talking about is the reason for Turkish forces to be there was one that the coalition was in favor of and was supportive of, which was to help clear that stretch of border – not clear it, but secure that stretch of border against the flow of foreign fighters' support and supplies to Daesh. And we knew all along that as they did that that they would be teaming up with some opposition forces, and they have been successful in largely doing exactly that. So let's keep in mind the greater goal here, which was to choke off that stretch of border so that Daesh can't use it to sustain itself and to support its terrorist activities.
And we recognize – broadly speaking, we recognize that the opposition forces fighting Daesh in Syria are not a monolith, and some of them have more extreme views than others. And even amongst – even inside certain groups you're not always going to find a coherent view about the fight that they're engaged in. So we've always recognized that. But again, what we've said before is that that stretch of border was important. We support Turkey's efforts to secure that stretch of border, and thus far we believe it's been successful.
QUESTION: And you're not concerned about this business of cursing these Special Forces and calling them American agents, dogs and pigs?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, again, I haven't seen the video, so I can't say with certainty – I just don't – I'm not in a position to confirm the veracity of that video or that report and I'd refer you to DOD. But I mean, if you're asking me as an American and a veteran myself if I'm – if this is true, if I'm comfortable with it, of course not – if it's true; I don't know that it's true – especially when – my discomfort exists especially, if it's true, because we all should be focused on the common threat and the common enemy, and that's Daesh.
QUESTION: But we don't want to be replacing Daesh with some other anti-American, anti-Western group, do we?
MR KIRBY: I think what we are concerned about is degrading and defeating Daesh and removing their capability to operate effectively, as they have proven to do so in the past, although I will say, we have made progress against this group. And it's not about replacing them. We want them degraded and defeated, period.
Yes.
QUESTION: I mean, in addition to this incident in the al-Rai* there's also a report from NBC saying that U.S. Special Forces were actually fired on by these opposition forces. And I just want to go over some of the phrases that are attributed to these forces are, "Get out you pigs, dogs, agents of America." "Go away you coalition of crusaders." What message are these forces trying to send?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can't confirm the reports about this, but let me be clear: If it's true, obviously that kind of rhetoric is not acceptable as part of what should be a coalition designed to go after a common enemy, which is Daesh. And we certainly wouldn't condone that kind of bombastic and pugilistic rhetoric against, frankly, our forces or anybody else that is designed – or, I'm sorry, engaged in the fight against Daesh. I just don't know, not seen it, and I would refer you DOD to speak to the specifics of the actual video.
QUESTION: And this is a change in tone for the Syrian opposition? They don't normally talk this way?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. You'd have to talk to the Syrian opposition about the way they talk.
QUESTION: Okay, and --
MR KIRBY: But I – as I said before, this is – let's not talk about the opposition as a monolith, okay. It's not one organization with one worldview or even one perspective and point of view about the fight going on in Syria. And we have long acknowledged that there are groups that are more moderate than others. I mean, that is – that's not a new idea.
QUESTION: And is --
MR KIRBY: But look, if it's true, obviously it's reprehensible language.
QUESTION: And is it in the interest of the United States to align with such forces?
MR KIRBY: It is in the interest of the United States to continue to press the fight against Daesh in Syria, and there's a coalition now of 66 countries that are doing just that. And we will continue to support the – those moderate opposition forces – those moderate forces, I should say, because they're not – it's not just about opposition – it's not really about the opposition to Assad, it's about the fight against Daesh. So we're going to continue to support those forces in Syria that are able and willing to press the fight against Daesh.
QUESTION: And if the Syrian Government were to fall, forces with that kind of perspective would get a lot stronger, wouldn't they?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I don't want to engage in hypotheticals here. And you have to understand you're – now, we're talking – we're starting – you're starting to blur here a little bit. The – we don't believe that there's a military solution to the civil war, and that is why we're working so hard to get the political talks back on track. Against Daesh, obviously, military efforts have and will continue to be used. And there are forces arrayed against Daesh in Syria that we will continue to support as they continue to prove to be willing and able to do that. But that is a – that fight is separate from the diplomatic track that we're trying to pursue, in terms of bringing about the end of the civil war in Syria. Okay, is that --
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Not to beat a dead horse, but the – this very group --
MR KIRBY: But you're gonna.
QUESTION: -- is – the Free Syrian Army, which you have touted all along as the moderate or the model of the moderates and so on. And not only are they saying no Americans and they call them all these pejoratives and so on. They also are saying no Christians in Syria. And these are – could they at least be the groups that you are trying to sort of disallow, either the regime or the Russians and so on from bombing in and around Aleppo, because they are unable to delineate the delineate themselves from Nusrah?
MR KIRBY: Again, let's not – let's not mix it here. We're talking about – look, I haven't seen this video. I can't confirm that this incident even happened. I've already said that if it's true that these slurs were thrown at American troops or, frankly, any nation's troops that are in there trying to degrade and defeat Daesh, that that's unacceptable and it's reprehensible. But I can't confirm that it happened. And, yes, there has been coalition support for free Syrian armies as they fight against Daesh. And as I've also said, we constantly review and evaluate the situation in Syria, and the fight that's being waged against Daesh, and the coalition supports it appropriately, especially in support of groups that are proving to be capable fighters at going against Daesh.
But what we would – what I would say here is what I've said many times before: We want everybody that's involved in this effort, whether it's a nation state in the coalition or it's groups in Syria that are engaged against Daesh and are not designated by the UN as foreign terrorist organizations, we want that focus to be squarely put against that group. We all have – the coalition against Daesh has a common purpose, has a common enemy, has a common end in sight with respect to that group. And that's where we'd like to see the energies directed, not at one another or other members of the coalition. That's counterproductive to the effort writ large.
QUESTION: John.
QUESTION: John, when the U.S. forces work with Syrian forces, they're vetted forces that, to the best of your ability, you people have decided are helpful in the fight and moderate enough to work with. These forces that we're talking about today in the video you haven't seen were vetted by the Turks, who are your ally, and you support the Turkish operations that part of the border. Are you happy with the Turks vetting their own allies or do – does everything have to come through you to be counted as part of the coalition?
MR KIRBY: Well I don't know the specific answer there, Dave. I think it's a better question for my colleagues at the Defense Department to speak to. As I said, we were in support of this operation that the Turks were going to conduct, we're mindful that they were going to do this with some local opposition forces, and again, we were supportive of that effort; but on specific vetting procedures, that is – that's really beyond me to speak to. I'm afraid I just can't.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: Wait, are we will still on Syria?
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: You're not.
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: No? You're going to be asking me a Syria question, Janne? I would love to see that. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Maybe similar.
MR KIRBY: I don't think so. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. So, about the visit by Tony Blinken to repeal, to you have a readout of his meetings?
MR KIRBY: About the visit of --
QUESTION: Deputy Secretary of State, Tony Blinken.
MR KIRBY: Oh, Tony Blinken. I'm sorry, I didn't --
QUESTION: And McGurk to Erbil. Do you have any readout of the meetings with Barzani and other officials there?
MR KIRBY: Let me see. I don't know that I do. Do I? I do, I do. She says I do.
QUESTION: Good. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I've just got to find it here. Hang on a second. Oh, look at that. It's on page one. I'm going to put my glasses on because the font is not big enough. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Yesterday the deputy secretary was in the Iraqi-Kurdistan region, where he met with President Barzani and other senior regional government officials to continue discussions on efforts to degrade and defeat Daesh, support for the Peshmerga, as well as the response to the urgent humanitarian internally displaced person crisis in Iraq. Those discussions also addressed Baghdad-Erbil cooperation ahead of the liberation of Mosul. Okay?
QUESTION: Brett McGurk tweets that apparently some other issues were discussed as well. He encourages unity between the two ruling parties, KDP and PUK, in one of his tweets. I want to know that – what the assessment of the United States is to – about the unity or disunity among Iraqi Kurds at the moment.
MR KIRBY: Well I'm not going to get ahead of the deputy secretary here. I think, look, we've long been talking about our desire to see the parties working together for the betterment of Iraq. But I'm not going to get any more detailed than what I just gave you.
QUESTION: But are you concerned that they are disunited to a degree that could be problematic for the broader goals you have in --
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't want to – I mean, I could tell you what we want to see, and that hasn't changed. And I don't think it's helpful to try to speculate about that not happening. I mean, that's the reason for our constant engagement with leaders there. We want to see Baghdad and Erbil continue to work out issues for the betterment of the country and for all Iraqis everywhere. But I'm not – I wouldn't begin to speculate about it not happening. I mean, that – I think what we can say broadly is that disunity is not going to be productive to that end. It's not going to be helpful, and that's why, again, we continue to stress unity.
QUESTION: Staying on the subject of readouts, do you have any – (laughter) --
MR KIRBY: Whoa, whoa, hang on a second. (Laughter.) When was the topic readouts? Because I don't think – I don't think that's how the table of contents of the briefing is going to go. Syria, Iraq, readouts. (Laughter.) But I think Arshad's right; that was a deft play. And I'm still going to give you the question. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Assistant secretary met with some visiting Indian officials. Do you have any readout?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. Elizabeth, do I have a readout of that too? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Which assistant secretary?
QUESTION: Nisha.
QUESTION: There are several assistant secretaries.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, there's a lot of them. The font's better here. Yes, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Nisha Biswal hosted a meeting with the delegation from the Indian state of Gujarat – did I say that right?
QUESTION: Yeah, correct.
MR KIRBY: -- led by resident commissioner Bharat Lal and accompanied by the Indian charge d'affaires Ambassador Taranjit Singh Sandhu on the 15th of September. The assistant secretary praised the resident commissioner for his efforts to make the state of Gujarat a model of innovation and sustainable economic growth and reform for India. She also announced the United States intent to participate as a partner country in the 2017 Vibrant Gujarat Global Summit, the government of Gujarat's biannual investors' summit that brings together global business leaders, investors, corporations, thought leaders, and policy makers.
How's that for a readout?
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Is that good? All right.
QUESTION: Japan, Okinawa.
QUESTION: I have one on --
MR KIRBY: Japan? Japan. Go ahead.
QUESTION: And India?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'll tell you what. He wants to talk India. That's kind of the same region and the same folder here. (Laughter.) It'll kind of keep me in the same --
QUESTION: Kind of? It is – it's the same country.
MR KIRBY: That's what I mean. Kind of the same thing. It keeps me in the same – it keeps me in the same part of the book. Go ahead, Goyal.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. Madam Hillary Clinton was meeting and greeting and speaking on U.S.-Indian relations at Silicon Valley recently, where she said that U.S. and India should fight against the evil of terrorism, violence, and poverty which is creating a – killing thousands of people. What I'm asking you is also Mr. Rajnath Singh, who is the home minister of India, will be in Washington soon – next week, I believe – where he will be talking the same issue of U.S.-India fighting against terrorism. What I'm asking you is also next week of course the UN will be meeting, global leaders will be meeting at the UN. They will be also fighting about – or talking about terrorism.
So where do we stand now as far as U.S.-India is on the fighting against terrorism?
MR KIRBY: The same place that we've been, which is that we recognize that it's a common threat not just to India and to the United States, but to all the nations there in the region. And we're going to continue to work closely with India to address that. And I – you're right. I mean, counterterrorism will be a significant agenda item at the UN General Assembly next week. The Secretary looks forward to going and to having meaningful discussions about how together the international community can continue to combat that threat.
QUESTION: And what do you think home minister's visit to Washington that his mission will be only because against – terrorism against India across the border? So what message you think you have for him before he comes to Washington, or what two countries will be talking about?
MR KIRBY: Well, let me not get ahead of another foreign dignitary's travel. That's for them to speak to. What I would say broadly is, as we will do next week in every opportunity that we have to talk to Indian counterparts, the challenges of counterterrorism in the region remain front and center, and they will next week. And I am sure that in every engagement we have with Indian leaders, whether they're here or they're there, we will always continue to press the case for deeper cooperation, better information sharing, and better capabilities.
QUESTION: And, sir, finally, as far as India's membership to the United Nations is concerned, where do we stand now, because before this Administration goes away, you think this issue will be solved at the United Nations, which U.S. had supported --
MR KIRBY: You're talking about the Nuclear Suppliers Group?
QUESTION: Nuclear Suppliers and also UN membership –
QUESTION: The Security Council.
MR KIRBY: Oh, the Security Council. Is that --
QUESTION: Security Council membership and also --
MR KIRBY: You said their membership at the UN, and I kind of thought that they already were.
QUESTION: Both issues.
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: Both issues and even Nuclear Suppliers Group.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Look, our positions are long known and I know of absolutely no change to those.
QUESTION: Japan?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Japan? Japan. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. A question about Okinawa? Okinawa.
MR KIRBY: You didn't have your hand up before.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry that you guys are learning how my book is built. Go ahead.
QUESTION: We missed you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah?
QUESTION: I have a few questions on Pakistan. First is about the situation in Karachi where several leaders from MQM have been arrested, detained, and they're saying that the Pakistani forces are indulging in extrajudicial killings, human rights violation against them. Their offices are being demolished by the forces. What's your assessment of the situation in Karachi?
MR KIRBY: We're monitoring those events very closely. We're aware that Pakistan security forces – Pakistani security forces, excuse me, have arrested some MQM members allegedly involved in violent protests and that these operations have included the closure and the demolition of offices deemed to have been illegally constructed. But I'm going to refer you to the Government of Pakistan for the latest information about these events.
QUESTION: Have some members of the MQM offices in U.S. approached the State Department with their concerns?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that there has been specific concerns relayed to us by members of the MQM.
QUESTION: But have you spoken to the Pakistani officials on this?
MR KIRBY: We routinely communicate with our Pakistani counterparts about issues like this.
QUESTION: I have one more on Pakistan itself. As you know, Pakistan is --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: It's okay. It's all right. All right, we'll get there. This is your last one, though, because I think Janne's getting upset so we've got to move on.
QUESTION: Okay. I promise this is my last one.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: As you know, Pakistan is your ally, ally of the U.S., and Pakistan prime minister recently said that they want to raise the issue of Kashmir at the United Nations. Your policy on Kashmir is that it's for India and Pakistan to decide on the pace and scope of --
MR KIRBY: It's for the --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: It's for the sides to do that.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: So do you support – how do you view Pakistan effort to raise this issue on international forums?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, that's for them to speak to. What we've said – nothing's changed about our view that we want to see India and Pakistan work this out bilaterally.
QUESTION: Recently, Pakistan prime minister appointed several Kashmiri envoys --
MR KIRBY: I thought you said that was your last one.
QUESTION: It's part --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: You're done. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Question on Okinawa. And thank you. Japanese court ruled Friday that Okinawa Governor Onaga's revocation of the landfill permit for U.S. military base on Okinawa was illegal. That decision is (inaudible) to the Japanese central government plan to go ahead. So – but Okinawa say it will be upheld at high court ruling to the supreme court. Do you – are you welcome to this decision? And also, I need your own United States comment. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Yes, I'm aware of this ruling. What I would say is this: The United States and Japan remain committed to the plan to construct – excuse me – the Futenma replacement facility at the Camp Schwab Henoko area and adjacent waters. Construction of the FRF is the only solution that addresses operational, political, financial, and strategic concerns; permits the operational readiness of our forward-positioned Marine forces; and avoids the continued use of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. We remain in close communication with officials from the Government of Japan. That will not change. But as for further comment about this specific decision, I'd refer you to the Government of Japan.
QUESTION: Are you encouraged that with this – this was sort of the main obstacle for the FRF moving forward. Aren't you encouraged that now it can move forward?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm not going to weigh into local judicial decisions there in Japan. That wouldn't be appropriate. Our position on the importance of the FRF, the Futenma Replacement Facility, has not changed. We still believe, as I just said, that it's the right decision, it's the right move forward. We have remained in close contact with the – with Tokyo on this and will stay so, but I'm not going to weigh into making a characterization or an assessment one way or another of a specific judicial decision there.
QUESTION: Have you discussed with Tokyo specifically about this ruling and what that means?
MR KIRBY: We are – broadly speaking, we're in constant communication with our counterparts, both from a diplomatic and a military perspective, in Tokyo about the importance of moving the FRF forward. Okay?
QUESTION: Okay. So an email has recently come to light, an exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in which he acknowledges that Israel has, quote – has – he says 200 nuclear weapons. And the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty has not been signed by Israel. Under U.S. law, the United States should cut off support to Israel because it's a nuclear power that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty according to Colin Powell. Correct?
MR KIRBY: Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I'm not going to speak to this particular traffic and I'm certainly not going to discuss --
QUESTION: So you're saying Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons?
MR KIRBY: I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the podium and I'm not – I have no comment on that.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, the email says, "The boys in Tehran know Israel has 200, all targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands." I mean, that seems to indicate that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make U.S. aid to Israel illegal.
MR KIRBY: I think I've answered your question.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me ask: Is that – am I – do I have the correct understanding of U.S. law, that we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?
MR KIRBY: Look, we obviously support the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it and I am certainly not going to speak about the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not going to do it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, Josh. Oh, I'm sorry. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Josh?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: I thought it's the White House. Sorry. Next --
MR KIRBY: I take it as a compliment. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry about that. Thank you, John – because I just come over from White House. That's why I thought Josh.
MR KIRBY: No, no apology necessary.
QUESTION: Well, on --
MR KIRBY: He's smarter and better looking.
QUESTION: On North Korea, United – U.S. take strong sanctions to North Korea. Is these sanctions included humanitarian aid to North Korea?
MR KIRBY: What sanctions, Janne? I didn't quite understand.
QUESTION: These tough sanctions you got after fifth nuclear test – U.S. --
MR KIRBY: Well – after this most recent one?
QUESTION: Yes, most recent.
MR KIRBY: As I said, we're in discussions with our UN counterparts about the potential for additional sanctions. I'm certainly not aware that any have been enacted, and therefore I wouldn't get into speculating about, if there are additional sanctions, what they would look like and what they would entail.
QUESTION: Did North Korea ask United States humanitarian – for the humanitarian assistance – their country for --
MR KIRBY: For the --
QUESTION: Flood.
MR KIRBY: For the flooding?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: No, there's been no request for assistance from the United States.
QUESTION: If North Korea asked the United States, how will the U.S. --
MR KIRBY: I simply couldn't speculate one way or another. I can tell you we don't foresee a request coming.
QUESTION: Okay. One more on North Korea.
QUESTION: You don't?
QUESTION: Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho --
QUESTION: You have reason to think there won't be one?
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: Other than the fact that there hasn't been one yet?
MR KIRBY: There's never been one ever and this is a regime --
QUESTION: Well, there has been. They have asked for assistance in the past.
MR KIRBY: -- hasn't – I'm not aware --
QUESTION: But you're not --
MR KIRBY: I'm not – there's no request for assistance.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speculate about what we would do if there were one. We aren't expecting one. Okay? Let me just be clear about that.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho said that North Korea have completed the attack on United States.
MR KIRBY: They've said what? That --
QUESTION: Completed – they completed the --
MR KIRBY: They completed?
QUESTION: Yeah, the attack to U.S.
MR KIRBY: An attack on the U.S?
QUESTION: And also he said that – he mentioned that there's three more nuclear test until the end of this year. What are your comments?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments. I'm – obviously, I wouldn't speak to intelligence matters one way or another in terms of the potential for future tests. I would simply say what we've said before, that this provocative activity needs to stop for the betterment of the peninsula, for the betterment of the region, and that the United States takes all the threats seriously and will continue to engage with our partners in the region to increase the pressure on the regime. And I didn't understand the other one about completed an attack on --
QUESTION: Yeah, they already have completed attack to United States and --
MR KIRBY: I'm not --
QUESTION: -- are ready to – whatever time they're going to attack the United States (inaudible).
MR KIRBY: I don't have any information on that, I'm afraid.
QUESTION: You don't have that? (Inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: No, I – sorry.
QUESTION: Follow-up on North Korea?
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Follow-up on North Korea? So there are sanctions imposed on North Korea in response to their nuclear proliferation. There were sanctions put on Iran in response to allegations of nuclear proliferation. And now we have this email from Colin Powell saying that Israel has 200 nuclear weapons. Why is Israel not facing any consequence for this?
MR KIRBY: That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question.
Said.
QUESTION: Can I just ask: You are familiar with this email, right?
MR KIRBY: I'm not.
QUESTION: Oh.
MR KIRBY: I have not seen it. I'm not – I can't speak to it, the email, and frankly, even if I had seen it, sir, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.
QUESTION: Can I stay on Israel/Palestine for a minute? First of all, could you confirm that you – well, you issued a statement, but could you tell us why you designated Fathi Ahmad Mohammad Hammad, a Hamas official, an international terrorist? Was he planning anything against the United States of America in Gaza?
MR KIRBY: The State Department designated Fathi Ahmad Mohammad Hammad under section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, which targets foreign persons and groups committing or posing a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism. The consequences of this designation include a prohibition against U.S. persons engaging in transactions with Hammad and the freezing of all of his properties and interests in property in the United States or which come within the United States or the possession or control of U.S. persons. We took this action in consultation, obviously, with the Justice Department and the Treasury Department.
So why was he designated? He was engaged in terrorist activity while serving as a senior member of Hamas, a U.S. State Department designated --
QUESTION: Against the United States?
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Against the United States?
MR KIRBY: Let me get through this part. He was engaged in terrorist activity while serving as a senior member of Hamas, a U.S. State Department Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization and Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization. Hammad has served as Hamas's interior minister where he was responsible for security within Gaza – a position he used to coordinate terrorist cells. He established al-Aqsa TV, which was designated in March 2010 by the Treasury Department as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under the executive order – same executive order – 13224. Al-Aqsa TV is a primary Hamas media outlet that airs programs designed to recruit children to become Hamas armed fighters and suicide bombers upon reaching adulthood.
QUESTION: Let me follow up with a couple of other quick questions. There is a small fleet of two vessels – all women – to break the siege of Gaza, including an American woman and a former colonel in the United States Army. One, do you advise them not to go? And second, what will the United States do if, let's say, Israel had a repeat of what they did back in May of 2010, which is board the vessels and inflict some fatalities?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not – let me not speculate and get ahead of something that hasn't happened yet, Said.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: We're aware of the reports of these boats. In general, while we underscore the need for international support for Gaza's recovery and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, we remain of the view that assistance and goods destined for Gaza should be transmitted through legitimate crossings and through established channels.
QUESTION: And there is – the Israeli forces forced the Palestinians in East Jerusalem – evicted them, made them homeless and so on. Do you have any comment on that? Are you aware of the report first of all?
MR KIRBY: I have. Yes, I'm aware of it. And again, in general we're concerned by forcible evictions, which have the potential, as we've said many times before, to further increase the already heightened tensions in Jerusalem and elsewhere, and we continue to urge all parties to take affirmative steps to maintain calm.
QUESTION: And more broadly, today marked the 34th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Three days ago marked the 22nd – the 23rd anniversary of the Oslo Accords that called for a Palestinian state. Do you think the time has come for the United States, which holds the ultimate moral and political and economic authority and power, to really put its leverage behind creating a Palestinian state and ending this occupation that has gone on for 50 years?
MR KIRBY: Said, I think – I would – I can say affirmatively that the United States continues to very strongly be in favor of reaching a two-state solution, a viable two-state solution. And that is why the Secretary will continue to work on this very, very hard right up until the moment he is no longer Secretary of State. Your question implies that we're not interested in it or we're not – we're not pursuing it with energy, and that's just not the case.
Now, there was a time – and the Secretary is – talked about this candidly. There was a time earlier, not long ago, when it was clear that the sides were not interested at all and there was no – there was no possibility for movement where the United States allowed for some breathing space, if you will. But we have clearly been engaged on this topic and I can assure you will be right up to the end.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I've got to go, guys. Thanks.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
