• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 6, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

HURRICANE MATTHEW
SYRIA/RUSSIA
IRAQ
SYRIA
INDIA/PAKISTAN/REGION
PHILIPPINES
SOUTH KOREA
MEXICO
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
ETHIOPIA

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay, just quickly if I could on the hurricane: As you all are I'm sure seeing, it continues to move through the Caribbean, with the brunt of the storm today hitting the Bahamas. At this time, we're not aware of any deaths or injuries to U.S. citizens overseas as a result of the storm. But of course, we're monitoring the situation as closely as we can and we stand ready to provide all consular – all possible consular assistance.

As the storm passes through the region, some of our embassies remain closed for routine services while others have reopened. We're going to post updates on the status of operations on our website, travel.state.gov. I encourage you to check that out, as it's a very dynamic environment and the information on there changes throughout the day. So please do go there first if you want the latest.

I would stress, however, that even if closed for routine services, we have been and we will continue to provide emergency consular services to U.S. citizens that are in need, drawing on both embassy staff in the affected countries and support staff here at the department. So we recognize the need to keep our people safe, obviously, and to keep them out of harm's way. But that doesn't mitigate our obligations to U.S. citizens overseas, and we'll do everything we can to staff those needs as best as possible.

We're going to continue, obviously, to watch what happens here over the next several days, and we're going to stay actively in touch with governments in the region to provide assistance and humanitarian relief. I think you know that the USAID – the Agency for International Development – has requested the unique capabilities of DOD to help support their efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to communities that are cut off by the storm, especially in the hard-hit southwestern peninsula of Haiti. As a result, the U.S. military deployed a joint task force from U.S. Southern Command to support USAID's disaster relief efforts by providing logistics and airlift capacity to deliver critical supplies and humanitarian personnel. USAID has deployed a Disaster Assistance Response Team, an elite team of disaster experts, to Haiti, Jamaica, and the Bahamas. And yesterday, USAID conducted an aerial assessment mission aboard a U.S. Coast Guard plane over the southwest region of Haiti in particular.

As you know, we remain committed to working with governments and partners in the region to provide lifesaving assistance as the Caribbean continues to recover from the hurricane. As I said, we'll stay very much on top of this.

Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you. But you don't have anything new in terms of money, USAID activity to announce for today, no?

MR KIRBY: I don't, no.

QUESTION: Okay, let's start with Syria.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: First of all, I'm curious to know if there is any update on the suspended yet ongoing bilateral engagement with Russia on this issue. Has there been a new non-communication between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MR KIRBY: No, there's not been any communication between the Secretary and the foreign minister since yesterday. And I would remind that bilateral cooperation between the United States and Russia with respect to the cessation of hostilities remains suspended, and a phone call doesn't mitigate that.

QUESTION: Okay. And there hasn't been – as far as you know, there hasn't been any other – any – even though they haven't spoken person-to-person, minister-to-minister, there hasn't been any other engagement?

MR KIRBY: Between the United States and Russia on this? No.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. So where – where does that leave us now? Is --

QUESTION: Can I clarify one thing on that?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Because it wasn't 100 percent clear to me given what your colleague, Josh Earnest, said this morning. Was the topic of Syria broached at all in that conversation yesterday?

MR KIRBY: Of course it was.

QUESTION: Okay. So your point is just that it was not in the context of bilateral cooperation, but – right? Or have – because if it was broached but you've suspended the bilateral cooperation, then I want to understand kind of what – how exactly it came up yesterday.

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I think – and I think Mark walked you through this – there were three principal topics that they discussed. One was Syria; one was Ukraine; and the other, of course, was DPRK and our work inside the UN to pursue additional sanctions on the regime. The discussion on Syria focused on two things principally. One was the situation in Aleppo and the Secretary's obvious and deep concern about the continued siege there and also about the potential to continue multilateral efforts to discuss the way ahead. And that's – and that's basically it. We certainly, when we said we were suspending U.S.-Russia bilateral engagement on the cessation of hostilities and the work to that end in Syria, there was never any expectation that the two foreign ministers wouldn't speak about Syria again. And certainly, if we're going to continue multilateral efforts, which we fully intend to do, whether it's with the ISSG or other partners or through the UN, there's no way you can do that without including Russia in that discussion.

QUESTION: So and just – so are you trying to set up a meeting, for example? I mean, you're talking about bilateral discussions. Are you trying to set up a meeting with other countries including Russia on this?

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything on the schedule to speak to today, but I certainly wouldn't rule out the fact that there will be attempts and efforts through multi – through a multilateral fora to meet again and to try to work through this. I certainly wouldn't rule that out.

QUESTION: And just one other one. Given the failure of the previous efforts and given the main thing that you guys argued was that the carrot or the leverage you had was Russia's eagerness for intelligence-sharing cooperation, et cetera, the JIC, what makes you think they're going to be any more likely to work to halt or reduce the violence in a multilateral context absent those incentives than they were when they had the incentives on the table?

MR KIRBY: We don't know. We don't know. That's a call for them to make if they're interested or willing in participating in a multilateral discussion or not. But speaking for Secretary Kerry, I can tell you that he fully intends to use multilateral efforts available to him, whether it's the ISSG or the UN or something separate and distinct. Tom Shannon was in Berlin at the invitation of the German Government just yesterday to – a smaller but still multilateral discussion about Syria. The Secretary has every intent to continue to use those vehicles as best he can.

But we don't know whether Russia will come to those sessions. We don't know whether they will do so --

QUESTION: They weren't (inaudible) yesterday.

MR KIRBY: -- in a constructive and productive way.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. And is there anything that you are doing to try to stop Aleppo from falling to the government, the Russian-backed government offensive, or have you kind of written it off?

MR KIRBY: Nobody is writing off Aleppo. I think everybody's deeply troubled and concerned about what appears to be a very continued, concerted, and if – and increased effort by the regime to conduct a siege and to take Aleppo. But --

QUESTION: Yeah. Are you doing anything to stop it?

MR KIRBY: Well, we obviously are continuing – another reason why, as I said, they – Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Secretary spoke yesterday was the Secretary was expressing our concerns about what's going on in Aleppo. We're not turning a blind eye to that. And we still want – the short answer to your question is we're still interested in pursuing a cessation of hostilities that can endure nationwide, and certainly in Aleppo. It's just that now we're going to have to pursue that goal through a multilateral effort and not any longer solely through a bilateral effort with Russia.

QUESTION: And are you willing to prefer those same incentives that you offered the Russians before?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of discussions inside the multilateral effort that we're now going to have to rely on.

QUESTION: So I'm trying to get to my – the second part of my question, which was the famous menu of options that the Administration is now considering. Just briefly on two potential ones – one is the military option, an option that presumably would involve some kind of actual – kinetic military activity, as you like to call it. You will have seen that the Russians warned you guys today not to do that. And I'm just wondering, is there any – do they have good reason to issue such a warning? Do you take such a warning seriously? Do you think that if that option is taken, that it could lead to an overt U.S.-Russia military confrontation?

MR KIRBY: Well, nobody wants to see an escalation in violence or tensions between the United States and Russia on this issue. And as we've said many times, we still don't believe a military solution is the right approach, that --

QUESTION: Doesn't necessarily have to be a solution, but it could be just a move to get towards what the solution might be.

MR KIRBY: What I would tell you, Matt, is we continue to have an active discussion in the United States Government about options before us in Syria. And as I said, I think a week or so ago, not all of those options revolve around diplomacy. And that remains the case today. And I've seen the comments out of Moscow. Those comments notwithstanding, that conversation inside the U.S. Government continues.

QUESTION: All right. And then on the second – or one of the other options, which is that there's – even they're in recess, Congress seems to be – at least some in Congress seem to be chomping at the bit to put new sanctions on people who are – on countries that are supporting the Assad regime. And my question is this: Does the Administration support that kind of legislation, or even if – and even if you do, do you think that it's unnecessary because you already have the tools through previous executive orders and previous legislation to do it?

MR KIRBY: I don't want to get ahead of the decision-making process or the discussions that are being had. I would simply go back and say that a robust discussion of alternatives and options continues to be had inside the government. That hasn't changed. And there's many different tools, many different alternatives that can and should be discussed. I don't want to speculate about any one in particular. I would just tell you that the Commander-in-Chief, the President remains open to hearing all ideas and to having a fair and honest discussion about the potential for those ideas. But again, I think it's – so again, I'm not going to get ahead of those discussions or decisions and we'll continue --

QUESTION: Okay. I think you misunderstood my question.

MR KIRBY: We will continue to stay in touch with members of Congress as appropriate here in terms of the way forward. But we still believe – this is an important point – we still believe that a diplomatic approach and a diplomatic solution is the best way forward.

QUESTION: Okay. I think you misunderstood my question. My question is not what option are you going to take. My question is whether you think, in considering the option of sanctions, which I presume you wouldn't – you're not going to take off the table right now – so if – when you consider or when the people who are doing the considering consider that option, do they go into it, that consideration, of the opinion that no new legislation or no new authorities are necessary, that you can go ahead and do that? Or do you think – would you welcome a move by Congress to pass new legislation?

MR KIRBY: I don't know that the discussions have advanced to a level where we have answers to all those questions right now. We're – we certainly share the concerns by many members of Congress about what's going on, and we're going to stay in close contact with them and dialogue with them going forward. But I just don't want to get ahead of where we are in the process right now.

QUESTION: Let me just follow up on the statement made by Brigadier General Konashenkov, the spokesman for the ministry of defense. He said that they have the 300 and the 400 and it'll come out surprisingly and so on. Does that give you pause in contemplating a military option?

MR KIRBY: Again, Said, I don't want to – I think it's safe to assume that we're looking at a full range of options here. And those comments notwithstanding, we still have a responsibility as a government to consider all those options. What we've also said is that none of the other options that we've talked about to date are any better or can lead – we don't believe will lead to a better outcome than what we're trying to pursue through diplomacy. And we're still trying. Even though we're suspending bilateral cooperation with Russia, we're still trying to pursue diplomatic solutions here. And so I just don't want to – I don't think it's useful or helpful for me to speculate one way or the other about these comments and the threats that they might embody. We have a responsibility to the Syrian people, to our allies and partners, and we take that responsibility seriously. And we're approaching this conversation inside the government with that in mind.

QUESTION: Do you consider those comments to be belligerent or provocative?

MR KIRBY: I just – I don't think – comments like that are certainly – we don't find them helpful to moving forward to reach some sort of diplomatic solution here, but the Russians should speak for themselves and why they're saying that kind of thing.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of things on what de Mistura said today. He appealed to the Syrians and the Russians to halt attacks, to halt advancement and attacks in exchange for al-Nusrah pulling out of eastern Aleppo. First of all, is – can that be done? I mean, could anyone sort of press upon al-Nusrah – Jabhat al-Nusrah to pull out of eastern Aleppo? And second, I mean, then what? What if it happens? Would Nusrah remain as a fair game, in terms of being a target?

MR KIRBY: So a couple of thoughts here.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: First of all, I can't speak for al-Nusrah and what they're willing to do or able to do. That's – what I can say is they have been a spoiler here.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: They have been an obstacle to peace in Syria.

QUESTION: Besides (inaudible) you have been targeting them.

MR KIRBY: And there's no question about that and they still remain --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- because they're – they are al-Qaida in Syria and remain outside the cessation of hostilities from the time it was conceived until today. So they're absolutely not going – they're not part of any effort that we would endeavor to achieve a cessation of hostilities. But I'm not going to – I can't possibly answer a hypothetical about whether they would go and under what conditions they would go and whether or not they would – what force might be a raid against them. They remain outside the cessation of hostilities, and I see no change to that, one way or another, based on their status as a UN-designated foreign terrorist organization.

QUESTION: Now, let me ask you – you don't like hypotheticals, but let me ask you a hypothetical question. (Laughter.) I'm sorry. I know --

MR KIRBY: It's okay. They're easy to answer.

QUESTION: In the event that a strike is decided upon and you take out certain, let's say, runways or military facilities and so on, it would be just a punishment or would it be a la Desert Fox back in 1998 in Iraq? Or would it be something that is sustained to basically – like Libya, to overthrow the regime?

MR KIRBY: Said, you're well ahead of any decisions, at least that have been made to date here, on the U.S. side. I can't even begin to entertain that question. We still believe a diplomatic approach is the best one. Yes, inside the government, we continue to have conversations about options. Not all of those options, as I've said, revolve around diplomacy. It would be irresponsible for us not to think about other tools available to us to change the situation on the ground in Syria.

But we've also said that military options, whether they're a no-fly zones, a safe zone, whatever you want to call them, they bear risk. They expend resources. And they're certainly, just by dint of the fact that they're military, are going to not de-escalate the tension, not going to bring down the violence necessarily. That doesn't mean they're off the table. It just means that, in consideration of them, we have to factor all of that in. But your question gets well, well ahead of where we are right now, and I couldn't possibly answer it.

QUESTION: So you said in response to one of the earlier questions that we have a responsibility to the Syrian people. Is that – what kind of responsibility is that? That's a moral responsibility or does the Administration believe it's got some – does the Administration have some other --

MR KIRBY: No, I was talking about obviously a moral responsibility --

QUESTION: -- a humanitarian responsibility?

MR KIRBY: -- and when you have a half a million people killed and gassed by their own government --

QUESTION: Okay. No, I just wanted to know if you were talking about something else.

MR KIRBY: I wasn't trying to be a lawyer, no.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. Human Rights Watch has made public a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi and they say there that, quote, "Any armed forces implicated in laws of war violations," unquote, particularly the Hashd al-Shaabi, should not participate in the battle for – to liberate Mosul. Is anything being done to address their concerns?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think that's a, first of all, question better put to the Abadi government. And I don't want to speak for Prime Minister Abadi, but I think it's fair to go back and talk about how – what he has said, and how we have publicly supported what he said, that these popular militia units – these Popular Mobilization Forces, excuse me – they have been useful in helping expel Daesh from areas of Iraq and they will continue to be useful. But we've long said that they need to be part of Iraqi organizational command structure, and they have been to a degree that satisfies Prime Minister Abadi, because this is his country. And we fully expect that they will have a role to play going forward.

Now, I think he's also said – he's been very clear about what role they won't play in terms of Mosul, but I – again, I don't want to get ahead of campaign planning here.

QUESTION: In terms of the role they're playing, is it that they're not going to enter Mosul but might be --

MR KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to – the Mosul campaign plan is an Iraqi campaign plan, and Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government should speak to how they're going to implement that campaign plan. It's theirs. I'm not – certainly, you know I don't like talking about military operations, and I certainly don't like to talk about future military operations. They have – the PMF have played a role in Iraq. I suspect that they will continue to play a role. Exactly what that role is going forward in Mosul is not for me to say; it's not for Prime Minister Abadi to describe.

QUESTION: Maybe I can formulate the question more State Department-like.

MR KIRBY: You can try. You'll probably get the same answer, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Have you raised with the Abadi government the problem of these abuses that the Hashd al-Shaabi have committed and preventing them in the future?

MR KIRBY: We have – the short answer is yes, but that doesn't mean that our hand was forced to do it. Prime Minister Abadi himself has expressed deep concerns about reports and allegations of violations of human rights in the conduct of operations in Iraq. In fact, he – I think this report was referring to allegations revolving around the operations in Fallujah, and the prime minister has talked about those exact allegations. And they have launched an investigation and they've been very honest and open about that. So of course, we've discussed it with the prime minister and his government, but it's not like we had to bring it up. I mean, he was aware of these allegations on his own and launched an investigation on his own.

Yeah.

QUESTION: If we can go back to Syria – and sorry, this is from a little bit earlier in the week, and so I apologize if it's already been addressed. But I was wondering if you had a response to the Russian Government blaming – putting blame on the U.S. for the shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus.

MR KIRBY: I don't know if it's been addressed or not. There's no truth to it. Okay?

Goyal.

QUESTION: India. Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, a team of Pakistani officials have been going around town defending that Pakistan is not behind attacks in India and also nuclear issues. And among other things, it's a kind of propaganda against each other countries, I would say, and they had yesterday at Atlantic, today at the Stimson Center, and among others.

My question is here that in recent days, starting actually – going back to General Musharraf, when he said that Pakistan's nuclear bomb is not a wedding gift but it will be used against India, now same – other officials after him are repeating the same thing, that nuclear bomb will be – we will use the nuclear bomb against India. My question here is, one, if Pakistan nuclear bomb is safe from the terrorists because those terrorists also talking the same language and attacking India.

And second, there is a issue now, what they are saying core issue is only Kashmir, but nothing. My question is: Which Kashmir are we talking about – Kashmir in India, Kashmir occupied by Pakistan, or Kashmir occupied by China? Second question.

MR KIRBY: All right. Well, on the first one, I think we've said before we're confident that Pakistan has the security controls they need to have in place on their arsenal, and I'd let them speak to that more specifically. I wouldn't get into that.

And on the Kashmir issue, our position has not changed. We want this to be worked out between both sides, the issue of Kashmir. And generally, generally speaking, I mean, we obviously want to see the tensions that exist right now be brought down and for dialogue to take its place – meaningful dialogue to try to address these issues bilaterally between the countries. Okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: One more, I'm sorry.

MR KIRBY: One more? You said two.

QUESTION: Sorry. There is a bill going on in the U.S. Congress and also petition online that U.S. should declare Pakistan a terrorist state, because it also happened during President Clinton in the '90s – same thing – the Congress. So if there is this bill because of these ongoing terrorist activities and all those – so if you are aware of this or – would you support this?

MR KIRBY: I have not seen anything specifically about the – such a bill, and obviously we don't – I'm not going to comment on whatever pending legislation may be coming in that regard. What we – what I would say is common threat, common challenge in the region, and we're going to continue to work with Pakistan, with Afghanistan, and the Secretary just came back from Brussels and the Afghanistan conference in Brussels. We're going to continue to work with – and obviously it's a threat to the Indian people as well.

So we're going to continue to work with the governments in the region to try to address these common threats and challenges, and we've always said that more can be done about the safe havens and that's – we're going to, again, try to work as cooperatively as we can to that end.

QUESTION: Can I just make a question – comment – that is: As far as this conflict between India and Pakistan, my view personal for the last 25, 30 years, that there is a shop open in both countries by the politicians in India and military – by the military in Pakistan. They do not want to resolve and solve this issue, because they have sent their children overseas – UK, U.S., and other – so they don't worry about their children or family will be killed and they want to let the innocent people get killed in both countries.

MR KIRBY: Well, Goyal, I don't have your long history and – with the region. I didn't grow up there. So I'm not going to – I mean, I respect that that's your view, but I would respectfully, and I mean respectfully, offer a different one from our perspective.

There have been Indian children and Pakistani children and Afghan children that have been maimed and murdered at the hands of terrorists for many, many years – not just the last 15, but going well before that. But let's just talk about the last 15 years. There's a heck of a lot of women without soldier husbands anymore, and widowers without wives anymore. The killing has gone on for long enough and I just absolutely disagree – I fundamentally, with all respect to you, disagree that leaders in those countries don't care because they're sending their children outside the country. Maybe some of them do. They want them to get educations outside the country; that's not unusual. But that's a far cry from saying that they don't care about the children of their countries and their families and their society, because that is just not our view in talking to leaders across the spectrum of both governments. That they actually – they do care.

Now, obviously there are still differences of opinion that exist between them; and as I said earlier, we want them to work through those differences. We have differences with many countries too, and we continue to try to work through them to the best we – the best we're able to. And that's all we're asking, that's all we're hoping, that's all we're expecting for leaders in India and Pakistan to do as well. But I – we don't think for a minute – we don't believe for a minute that they don't take the challenges before them seriously or the lives and security of their children.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Nike.

QUESTION: John, can we stay in Asia? Philippines.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: So your favorite person, Duterte. He --

MR KIRBY: My favorite person is Mark Toner. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: What the hell was that big (inaudible)?

MR KIRBY: My least favorite.

QUESTION: You should not --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: You should never, never, never admit to who your favorites are. "One of."

MR KIRBY: Sorry. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: It was funny, though.

MR KIRBY: It was funny. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Right, so he – today he said, if the United States is going to withdraw their assistance, quote, "Go ahead, we will not beg for it."

First of all, I would like to get your comments on that. And then, is there any discussion within the – within this building to suspend the assistance to Philippines?

MR KIRBY: So look, we've seen these comments and I have spoken to this rhetoric before. It obviously – we believe, frankly, is at odds with the very close relationship that the United States continues to enjoy with the Philippines and the American people continue to enjoy with the Filipino people. And I can only speak for our side of this and tell you that we remain committed to that relationship and to our very real commitments on a security perspective to – to the Philippines. What we're focused on now are the assistance efforts that are in place and ensuring that they best – sorry – that they best benefit the Philippine people and are compliant with U.S. laws and regulations. We continue to focus on our broad relationship with the Philippines and we'll work together in the many areas of mutual interest.

QUESTION: So am I right to read as there's no discussion to suspend the assistance?

MR KIRBY: As I told you, we're focused on the assistance that we're providing now. And look, in Fiscal Year '17 alone that assistance totals about $180 million, and that's this fiscal year coming, and we're committed to that. That's – I think that's the best way I can answer the question.

QUESTION: How does the United States ensure that the $180 million for – part of it is used for law enforcement – will not be used for – in their hand for extrajudicial killing?

MR KIRBY: Well, because there's a law called the Leahy Law that requires us to routinely and regularly vet security forces that are getting aid and assistance to make sure that any units that violate international law in that regard do not get aid and assistance. That's a very robust program. We – it's a law – obviously, we follow the law. It's a law we strongly believe in. And whether it's in the Philippines or anywhere around the world, that review process is near continuous and it will remain so.

QUESTION: Senator Leahy --

QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up on the Philippines?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Just – are you dismayed to see the comments not by President Duterte, but by the Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay, who said that the country was compelled to realign Philippine foreign policy and not to submit to U.S. demands and interests? And he also referred to Duterte's desire to liberate the country from what the foreign secretary called a, quote, "shackling dependency," close quote, on the United States. Are you concerned that comments that are not perhaps helpful to the relationship are now emanating from significant lower-level officials?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think we're mindful of the rhetoric, but we believe that it is at odds with the kind of cooperation that we have right now and which we're focusing on and implementing now. And it certainly isn't – those kinds of comments aren't in keeping with what we see every day as the strong relationship between our two countries and between the American people and the Philippine people, and we're focused on that continuing.

So, I mean, I'm – as I try to do elsewhere in other areas, I'm not going to – I don't know that it's useful to parse every bit of nuance – or, I'm sorry, every bit of rhetoric that comes out of there. What I can tell you is that in practicality, as you and I talk today, that cooperation continues. Those government contacts continue. The military-to-military relationship remains strong. Tangibly speaking, every indication that we get is that the Philippine side is committed to the relationship as well.

QUESTION: Yeah. It wasn't so long ago, though – I mean, it was quite recently that we were in Manila with the Secretary, and he had a long meeting with the foreign minister – the foreign secretary. And I just wonder, did you get a hint of this from him in that meeting? Or is this something that may have just started with the president and is now filtering its way down the chain? Because as I recall, at least in their opening, at the beginning of their meeting, it was all sunshine and happiness. There was no hint, at least publicly. Was there any in private?

MR KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of, Matt. I do recall that meeting and the discussions afterward, and my understanding is that that was a very accurate reflection of the tone and tenor of the meeting --

QUESTION: Sunshine and happiness? Was that --

MR KIRBY: Your words, not mine. I would not – I – for the transcript, I don't want it to say that I said "sunshine and happiness." But I mean, look, there's a lot of – but it is – but we have – look, five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific region. One of them is with the Philippines. And we take that very seriously and we're going to continue to take that very seriously. And the meetings that the Secretary had in the Philippines reinforced that for him, and again, nothing that we're seeing today tangibly would change our mind about that.

We'll go back here. Said, behind you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On Bangladesh.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry visited Bangladesh a month back, and it was a significant visit. He met the ruling prime minister and the main opposition leader, Begum Zia and the Sheikh Hasina, and she – he urged – he offered assistance for rescue Bangladesh from the international terrorist threat and he urged government to back to democracy as to uphold the – so to uphold the democratic values and human rights, as Bangladesh is planning by the – an elected government. So what action has been taken from the Bangladesh Government side to rescue Bangladesh from the international terrorist threat and to – back to democracy and ensure voting rights of Bangladesh people?

MR KIRBY: Well, what I would tell you is that we remain in close dialogue with Bangladesh. And as the government continues to determine what assistance it requires from the United States, we stand ready to provide that support. Just earlier this year the fifth U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership – at the U.S. – at the fifth U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership Dialogue we announced Bangladesh's participation in the U.S. Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, which will enable Bangladesh and the United States to expand our bilateral counterterrorism partnership and support programs to advance collaboration.

Additionally, we support the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund, of which Bangladesh is a pilot country. This funding will support grassroots projects to strengthen communities' resilience to violent extremism. We're also working with Bangladesh police on community policing projects, to increase economic opportunities for vulnerable youth, and to help community leaders on conflict mitigation.

So in addition to critical programs like this, we've continued cooperation with the Government of Bangladesh on other important programs such as Feed the Future, Global Health, and the Global Climate Change Presidential Initiative. So there's a lot of work being done bilaterally between the United States and Bangladesh, and we look forward to seeing that continue.

Yeah.

QUESTION: I was just wondering if you had a readout between Deputy Secretary Blinken and South Korean Deputy National Security Cho Tae-yong's meeting this morning.

MR KIRBY: I think I do. But I have to find it in the book.

QUESTION: Moving from South Asia to East Asia. (Inaudible.)

MR KIRBY: Well, when you have this many tabs.

QUESTION: Think how hard it would be if you had no tabs. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Fair point. I can't argue that.

The deputy secretary did meet with the Republic of Korea Deputy National Security Advisor Cho Tae-yong. They discussed regional security issues, including the international response to the latest DPRK nuclear test and the importance of close coordination between the United States and the ROK. It was a good meeting; good, constructive meeting.

In the back there. I'll get to you in a second.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you. On Mexico. Speaking of the Leahy Law, as you just did, could you elaborate a little bit on the State Department thinking behind the decision to restore aid to Mexico, aid that was suspended last year because of the human rights situation? And I would say that the human rights situation is as bad this year as it was last. What was the thinking that went on at the State Department to make that recommendation?

MR KIRBY: Yep, hang on a second here. Actually, you know what --

QUESTION: No tab.

MR KIRBY: -- I think I'm going to have to take that question. Hang on. What I would say is – I'm going to take the question and get back to you with more detail, but we are aware that Mexico has launched an ambitious effort to modernize and reform its law enforcement and justice system. These commitments, we believe, are central to the protection of human rights and the rule of law. U.S. cooperation under the Merida Initiative provides support for this critical endeavor. Human rights challenges remain, and we are committed to supporting Mexico's own efforts to increase respect for human rights. But let me get back to you with a more detailed answer to this.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, Said.

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

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. I have a couple questions. Yesterday the Israeli navy boarded a boat, Zaytouna, in international waters, 33 miles from Gaza. Thirteen women were on board, including an American. Would you consider that to be an act of piracy?

MR KIRBY: Look, we have – I think we've talked about this.

QUESTION: I understand. But they – I mean, they boarded it, they took them by force to another port, they apprehended them, they put them in prison overnight. So --

MR KIRBY: What I would say is we underscore the need for international support for Gaza's recovery. We want to see that done through appropriate channels – I think we've said that before – that the assistance and goods destined for Gaza should be transmitted through legitimate crossing and established channels.

QUESTION: But the act of boarding a ship in international water, is that --

MR KIRBY: I am not a maritime lawyer, Said.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: What we said is we understand the pressing needs in Gaza. We want to see that aid delivered through legitimate channels.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me just follow up with the statement that you guys made yesterday, which was very strong, and in fact in which you rebuke the settlement activities and so on. But it also drew an indignant response by the Israeli minister of justice, Ayelet Shaked, and she suggested that you should not be saying this; you should be focusing on what's happening in Syria. And then she concluded by saying, "I think we need to build in Judea and Samaria," unquote, and so on. I wonder if you would comment on that.

MR KIRBY: Again, I don't think it's useful from the podium to get into a running debate here. I think you're right; our statement was very strong, it was very specific. We stand by that statement. And any assertion that we aren't paying enough attention to Syria simply flies in the face of the facts as we've – now we've spent I don't know how many time – how much time in the briefing today and every other day talking about Syria. So I think while we obviously aren't happy about the situation in that country, you can bet that the Secretary remains very, very focused on it. But I think I'm going to let our statement from yesterday stand.

QUESTION: Are you aware of any official government-to-government response from the – from Israel --

MR KIRBY: I'm not.

QUESTION: -- about the – on the statement?

MR KIRBY: I'm not, other than the public statements that came --

QUESTION: Yeah, no, but I mean that you're not aware if Dan Shapiro got --

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: -- hauled into the foreign ministry or anything like that?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Listen, there's one sentence in the statement that I want to ask you about. It's toward the end of it. It says, "Proceeding with this new settlement is another step towards cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation that is fundamentally inconsistent with Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state."

Can you – you said it's another step toward this. So can you explain, what does that mean? Are you talking about – when you say "another step," this is just another announcement of construction that --

MR KIRBY: Yet more settlement activity.

QUESTION: Is that the only thing that is going toward cementing a one-state reality?

MR KIRBY: Well, the statement was written in the context of this additional settlement activity.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But you – when you say another step, does that mean – you mean you're talking about just settlements, or are you talking about other actions that the Israelis have taken?

MR KIRBY: No, it says, "Proceeding with this new settlement is another step towards cementing a one-state reality."

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. But it's the previous steps that, in your opinion – I mean, in what – I'm trying to figure out if the steps – the previous ones, because you say this is just the latest one, right? Or is another one. So before this, was it all settlement activity, or are there other actions that the Israeli Government has taken that you – that also – that you believe also --

MR KIRBY: I think in the context of this statement, we're referring to settlement activity. But clearly, as we've said many times, what we need to see is leadership across the board moving towards a two-state solution. And taken in its totality, which is more than just settlement activity, we haven't seen that sort of leadership exuded to get us to a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MR KIRBY: But the statement was – the statement was written to refer to previous settlement activity.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, so do you believe then that the Israelis, in doing this – let me start by saying when you use the word "cementing," people don't cement things by accident, right? It's an intentional act. So is it your belief – is the Administration – does the Administration believe that the Israeli Government is just flat-out either lying or doesn't care about its stated commitment to a two-state solution and is, in fact, while saying publicly that that's what they want, actually actively taking steps to cement a one-state solution?

MR KIRBY: I think, Matt, I'm going to let the statement speak for itself, and --

QUESTION: Well, you would agree though that the verb – that the word "cementing," the gerund, "cementing" from "cement," right, is not something that you – that happens by accident? It's not something – it's an – it's doing something intentionally. So do you --

MR KIRBY: Well, clearly, the settlement activity is intentional and --

QUESTION: Right, exactly, okay. So do you think --

MR KIRBY: -- I mean, there's – we wouldn't have written the statement the way we did if --

QUESTION: Okay. I just – and I'm serious in just asking it. Do you think that the Government of Israel right now is intentionally moving to create a one-state solution – reality, one-state reality?

MR KIRBY: I would say that it's hard to derive from the activity that we are seeing, and in particular the settlement activity, that this activity is at all consistent with the statements and the assertions that they support a two-state solution. It's also, as we – as the statement says, fundamentally inconsistent with Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, that it is – that it is obviously --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- moving the country more towards a one-state --

QUESTION: So – reality.

MR KIRBY: -- a one-state reality.

QUESTION: Right, okay. So the – so this Administration thinks that the current Israeli Government wants a perpetual occupation and does not want Israel in the future to be a Jewish and democratic state? Is that – is that correct?

MR KIRBY: We – I don't know if I understood it correctly. We obviously want to see --

QUESTION: That the U.S. – is it correct then, judging from the sentence, that the U.S. – the Obama Administration believes that the current Government of Israel wants a perpetual occupation and a one-state reality that is not Jewish, or not Jewish and at the same time democratic?

MR KIRBY: What we're saying is that their activities, their actions to date specifically when we're talking about settlement activity, flies in the face of stated assertions that they are serious about a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Right. But my – I get that.

MR KIRBY: I can't --

QUESTION: I understand --

MR KIRBY: I can't speak for what --

QUESTION: Well, but there is --

MR KIRBY: -- they want.

QUESTION: But do you think that they're doing that because what they want is an undemocratic Jewish state that perpetually occupies Palestinian territory?

MR KIRBY: All I can go by is what they've said they want, and they say they want a two-state solution. What we're saying is that this kind of activity is actually moving them in the other direction. It flies in the face of those comments.

QUESTION: But when --

MR KIRBY: I can't speak for --

QUESTION: Yeah. But when you say cementing, that means they're actively trying to do it. And I'm just wondering if you think that the Israeli Government doesn't see its future as being Jewish and democratic at the same time, and do you – does the Administration believe that the Israeli Government wants to perpetually occupy land that was right now claimed by the Palestinians?

MR KIRBY: We can only go by their assertions.

QUESTION: So is it --

MR KIRBY: Their assertions are that they want a two-state solution, but their actions are going in the other direction.

QUESTION: And – right.

MR KIRBY: They're opposite to that goal.

QUESTION: But do you think that they're doing that intentionally? I'm trying to get at what you --

MR KIRBY: I'm not able to characterize their wants and their desires. What I can tell you is we evaluate and characterize by actions, and those actions are not in keeping with the words, with their stated desires.

I've got to get going.

QUESTION: Would the United – would the United States support equal rights for the Palestinians for the one --

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Would the United States support equal rights for the Palestinians and a one-state situation?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get into a hypothetical situation, Said. What we continue to support is a two-state solution.

QUESTION: A quick one. Unfortunately, an American woman died in Ethiopia, I believe on Tuesday, when her car was hit by rocks thrown, apparently, by protesters. Can you confirm that? Can you provide any information about the name of the woman, which I think is now being reported? And do you have any reason to believe that she was targeted because she was an American, or did she just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

MR KIRBY: There's some I can help with, some I can't. I can confirm the death of a U.S. citizen on the 4th of October near Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. Obviously, we offer our sincerest condolences to the family and to the loved ones. We're providing all possible consular assistance. Out of respect for the family, we must decline further comment.

And as for the situation itself, that's really for local authorities to speak to in terms of the investigation and how they're looking into it. It's really for them to speak to, not us.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:02 p.m.)

DPB # 171