Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 14, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
IRAQ
PHILIPPINES/CHINA
PHILIPPINES
SYRIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT
PAKISTAN
IRAQ
YEMEN
HONDURAS
TRANSCRIPT:
1:47 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Happy Friday, everyone. A couple of things at the top and then I'll get to your questions, answer them to the best of my ability. Let's start off with just an update on the Secretary's travel. He's on the ground in Kigali, Rwanda working with our international partners to secure an ambitious amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases. Negotiations are ongoing, and we're optimistic of achieving an agreement.
These talks, as you know, are part of a wave of momentum to address climate issues. Just last week, for example, we crossed the final threshold into the entry – into entry into force of the Paris Agreement, and we also saw the International Civil Aviation Organization adopt a measure based on carbon-neutral growth in the aviation – international aviation sector. An ambition – ambitious amendment to the Montreal Protocol would be another major step forward in our ongoing efforts to work with the international community to tackle the shared challenge of climate change.
In Kigali, the Secretary also met with President Kagame, and he also visited Rwanda's national genocide memorial.
Today, Ambassador Nancy Stetson, the U.S. special representative for Habitat III and global food security, is traveling to Quito, Ecuador to serve as deputy head of delegation for the United States to the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, which is also referred to as Habitat III. Habitat III will be the first time in 20 years that the international community has come together to reflect on and plan for the megatrend of rapid urbanization. UN member-states will adopt the New Urban Agenda, a vision for sustainable urbanization, as well as a new set of agreed voluntary standards of achievement. This agenda reinforces the crucial linkages between urbanization and sustainable development goals as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change, among other important shared global aspirations.
Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah. Let's start with Syria. There have been some suggestions – actually, I think a report, actually, from a state – or state-affiliated news agency that the Iranians are not going to attend this meeting in Lausanne. What's your understanding of who is going to be there now?
MR TONER: Well, again, we've been pretty consistent in saying that we're going to leave it up to the countries themselves to confirm their attendance. I have not seen that report out of Iran.
QUESTION: Have you – well – I mean, do you expect there be – to be a representative of Iran there?
MR TONER: I don't think we were certain, to be honest.
QUESTION: As a key player? I mean --
MR TONER: We would like Iran to be there, but I'm not sure that they've confirmed yet.
QUESTION: Okay. And then just more broadly on the meeting, is there any hope or expectation that it will produce the desired result, which I presume – but correct me if I'm wrong – is some kind of truce – a temporary one at least – that could then be extended? And is there any expectation that that might actually happen?
MR TONER: I certainly don't want to overplay or underplay our expectations for Lausanne. I think that you're right, that the urgent need right now in front of us is some kind of cessation of hostilities, at least a significant reduction in the level of violence certainly in and around Aleppo, and that's going to be a primary focus. But more broadly, you know the framework we're working within, which is to try to get a cessation. And once you get that cessation, then we can talk about next steps, which include getting negotiations back up and running in Geneva as well as access for humanitarian assistance throughout Syria.
So, I mean, the essential challenges are the same. That's going to be the topic of discussion in Lausanne. I think this – if I had to frame it, I don't know that I would expect any breakthroughs. I would just say that we're looking to get this multilateral effort and approach to Syria up and running.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yeah. Are we ready to walk away from Syria? Are you on Syria or we done with Syria? Great. Let's go.
Go ahead, Goyal.
QUESTION: This is Iraq.
MR TONER: Oh. Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. The British foreign ministry just hosted a delegation from the Iraqi foreign ministry that – I should say the British foreign office – my apologies --
MR TONER: That's okay.
QUESTION: -- just hosted a --
MR TONER: I understood.
QUESTION: -- a delegation from the Iraqi foreign ministry headed by the Iraqi foreign minister, but it included the head of the Kurdistan region's foreign relations office. Is that a format for discussions that you might consider in the future so that the concerns of the Kurdistan region are properly heard?
MR TONER: Look, I think we've already been coordinating pretty closely with both the Kurdistan Regional Government as well as the Government of Iraq. We've been in close and constant communication with them through a variety of different means, obviously in person but also via telephone, via email, all with the aim of coordinating upcoming efforts to liberate Mosul. And obviously, that's a very complex operation and we need to be coordinated, and we understand that the more we can discuss and coordinate with the various fighting forces, the better off the overall effort will be. Obviously, always – any operation on Mosul will be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government, but as much as, again, all these different fighting forces can be coordinated, it's to the overall betterment of the effort.
QUESTION: Beyond Mosul, would you consider this a format just so that the people in the Kurdistan region – that their views are also represented in their discussions with the – in the discussion that the United States has with Iraqis?
MR TONER: Again, I don't want to get ahead of the immediate challenge, which is Mosul. But I think in general we're in very close contact and in frequent contact with President Barzani, with other senior regional government officials to talk about not only the efforts to defeat and destroy and degrade Daesh but also the response to the humanitarian needs, and also the IDP, the internally displaced people. That's a real crisis as well in Iraq. So we're talking about all these issues all the time. We're already closely coordinated; we're already talking to these various groups as well as the Iraqi Government closely already.
Please.
QUESTION: Philippines?
MR TONER: Philippines. Go.
QUESTION: Filipino President Duterte is going to pay a state visit to China prior to any visit to U.S. ally countries. First of all, does it bother you?
MR TONER: Not at all. Obviously, the Filipino or the Philippines relations – relationship with China is an important one. It's important to the region, and strong relations between China and the Philippines, frankly, we believe is important to regional security. So we don't view it as any type of slight or any – in any way overlooking the importance of our own relations – our own bilateral relationship with the Philippines. We view it as a positive thing.
QUESTION: Yesterday, President Duterte had interview with my colleague in Manila in which he said he wanted to resume the friendship between Philippine and China, and he also – he said he was grateful for China not to interfere how he run the country, how he fight for the drug war. My question is: Do you think the tension between United States and Philippine may further force Philippine to pivot to China?
MR TONER: Look, I can't speak to President Duterte's vision of his foreign policy. That's for his own foreign minister to speak to, as well as President Duterte. Our focus is obviously on maintaining our close relations with the Philippines, and we've been trying to do that. We want to cooperate and continue to cooperate with the Philippines on the range of areas that we cooperate in, and that includes counternarcotics as well as security.
That said – and this is not specific to the Philippines – we're always going to be clear when we see credible allegations of human rights abuses or of any kind of actions by the government or by security forces – and again, I'm not being specific to the Philippines. We're going to be frank and candid about our concerns. That's part of a – we believe – a strong bilateral relationship with any country.
As to whether he's pivoting east or west, I can't speak to that. Certainly it's in the Philippines' interest to have strong relations in the region, and as much as this is an effort in that direction, we would support it.
QUESTION: What's your view of the arm sale – potential arm sales between Philippine and China? Because right now, the Chinese Government and Filipino Government, they are negotiating a 25-year military agreement. What's your view on it and could you please update us on what's the current status of the United States arm sales to Philippine? I think Matt raised the question two days ago.
MR TONER: With regard to potential arms sales or arms agreements with China, again, we wouldn't necessarily have a comment on that. It's the Philippines' prerogative to make its own choices in terms of who it engages in these kinds of deals with. I don't know if I have an update on our own – status of our own – sorry, I'm just looking through my book quickly here. Let me see if I can get you something on that. I didn't realize you had asked the other day. I apologize.
QUESTION: Go back to the Middle East?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Follow-up on Philippines?
MR TONER: Let's finish – you said on Philippines?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Let's finish with that.
QUESTION: Earlier this week, the Philippine senate ended its hearings on state involvement on the violence in the drug war. I was wondering if you had a comment.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think I would just say what I just said previously, was – is that where – we support, broadly speaking, efforts by the Philippines – the Government of the Philippines to take on the challenge of narcotrafficking and drug trafficking, and frankly the terrible effects that that can have on a society. It's obviously of great concern to the president, as he's spoken about it many times. But certainly in any effort to attack that kind of problem, I think that you have to be mindful of the approach and how you approach it. And certainly we would be concerned by any reports of extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities in the Philippines and would encourage, where there are credible allegations, for the Government of the Philippines to conduct thorough and transparent investigations into those reports.
And more broadly, again, just urge that the Philippines ensures that its law enforcement officers are consistent with their international human rights obligations.
QUESTION: It looks like – I mean, the ending of the hearings is an indication that they've ended, sort of, the investigation. The chairman of the hearings said that the hearings have failed to prove that the president is involved and that the state is involved in the violence.
MR TONER: I've not seen the specific results of those hearings. I'm just saying broadly what our concerns are and how we'd like to see the Philippine Government address them. If there's – if we have comment on the actual findings of the hearings, we'll certainly add those.
Please.
QUESTION: Last one on the Philippines. So is the United States getting mixed messages from the Philippines Government?
MR TONER: I'm sorry, I was coughing.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR TONER: That's okay.
QUESTION: Is the United States getting mixed messages from the Philippine Government? Because it seems Duterte says one thing; his defense minister comes out and says the alliance is strong. Who is the United States supposed to listen to in this?
MR TONER: Fair question. I think we've been pretty consistent in our approach, which is while certainly we don't want to discount some of the rhetoric and some of the things said by the leadership in the Philippines, what we look at most closely is at a working level whether the cooperation and the receptivity of the Philippine Government is still there. And we have not seen any indication at that working level, that bilateral level, of a turning away from the United States. So we're going to continue to, obviously, pursue those bilateral relations. As I said, we have a very strong, very long, historic relationship with the Philippines, and we're going to continue to pursue that.
QUESTION: To the Middle East?
MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah, Ros.
QUESTION: First a housekeeping question.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Apparently the President's having a meeting a little bit later this afternoon to talk about possible military actions in Syria. Is there any representation from State at this meeting?
MR TONER: I wouldn't be able to speak to those meetings. I'd refer you to the White House.
QUESTION: Okay. And then --
MR TONER: But I can say broadly speaking that we continue to look at a range of options with regard to next steps on Syria.
QUESTION: Well, the meeting's public. It's on the President and the Vice President's schedule.
MR TONER: I said that, but I wouldn't – I'm not going to speak to it from here.
QUESTION: I know, but who from State is going to go?
MR TONER: I don't know.
QUESTION: And then regarding Israel's decision to suspend its working relationship with UNESCO over the draft resolution about the Temple Mount or al-Aqsa Mosque, does the U.S. have a reaction to Israel's decision? Does it endorse Israel's decision? What can be done to persuade UNESCO to change this resolution or withdraw it?
MR TONER: Well, as you know, we actively opposed the resolution, and we did work in partnership with Israel and likeminded member states really to discourage other UNESCO members from pursuing this resolution. I'll let the Israelis speak to their decisions with regard to the relations with – relationship with UNESCO and their role in UNESCO. It's their prerogative, obviously, to have serious concerns in the wake of these, as we talked about yesterday, these continual resolutions that we believe, at the very least, cast Israel in a very unfair light. They're very politicized and anti-Israel.
With regard to – I forget the second part of your question – with regard to our own role or our own approach to UNESCO?
QUESTION: Is there any way of persuading the body to either change the language in the resolution or persuade them to withdraw it altogether? I mean, the chief of UNESCO has condemned the resolution herself, but she doesn't have the power, it seems, to do anything about it.
MR TONER: Right. Look, I mean, if those avenues are open to us, we'll certainly pursue them. Unfortunately, the resolution passed. But more broadly, we feel it's an important – and we talked a little bit about this yesterday – that the U.S. was still a member of the executive board and able to have a voice, able to express its dissent with this resolution. And going forward, we believe it's important that the United States remain engaged with UNESCO, not only to block or discourage these kinds of anti-Israeli resolutions, but also to, frankly, pursue a very affirmative agenda of what UNESCO can accomplish. It's doing important work in CDE, on climate change, World Heritage sites, and other educational programs.
So there are important roles for and important programs that UNESCO's pursuing, and so we're going to keep trying to put forth a positive agenda.
QUESTION: And finally, President Abbas welcomed the passage of the resolution. Is that regrettable on his part?
MR TONER: I think in the sense that these kinds of resolutions are counterproductive to what our overall goal is here, which is creating a climate that is conducive to the two parties getting back to some kind of settlement process with regard to peace in the Middle East – and so as much as any of these kinds of resolutions cast a negative shadow on those efforts, then we would find them counterproductive.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Please. Yes, sir. Are you --
QUESTION: Just two things.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: One, the White House says its National Security Council meeting – the National Security Council is defined by the White House itself as including the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, Defense, and so on. Even if there won't be a State representative physically at the meeting, can you not say whether or not someone from the State Department will take part in the meeting somehow?
MR TONER: Certainly, if there is a meeting and an interagency discussion on Syria, then of course the State Department will be represented in some way, shape, or form. I just don't know the details.
QUESTION: Great. And then one second thing: I imagine you've seen the quotes from Syrian President Assad saying that taking eastern Aleppo will be a good springboard to then push the terrorists back to Turkey. Does the U.S. Government – what is the U.S. Government's policy to try to prevent that from happening?
MR TONER: Well, President Assad has a very different definition, I think, of terrorists than we do. Obviously, our goal is to pursue Daesh, defeat and destroy them in the battlefield, working with some of the groups that we've been working with, certainly, in northern Syria. And frankly, one of the goals, the missed opportunities from this failed September 9th agreement from Geneva was the opportunity to jointly work with Russia on going after Nusrah. And Nusrah – or, rather, and Russia has said that's one of their objectives as well.
But that said, we view as – Nusrah and al-Qaida as the major threats, certainly to our national security but also threats to the region's security, and we're going to continue to pursue our efforts to defeat them.
QUESTION: Do you oppose the notion of Assad's forces pushing all the way to the Turkish border?
MR TONER: I mean, we oppose what Assad's forces are currently doing in leveling the city of Aleppo in what they claim is a pursuit to go after these terrorists, when, in fact, they're going at – much of their airstrikes and much of the assault is after – is aiming at the moderate opposition. So I would even go – I'd even take a step back and say not only would we not support them going further; we want them to stop right now where they're at so that we can get a political track back up and running in Geneva. If we get there – and it's a big if – then as we've talked about before, all other options – all other opportunities are on the table, which is going after Nusrah and going after Daesh more constructively, more productively – not with the regime, but with Russia; but we didn't get there, so.
QUESTION: Beyond trying to get a – back to the diplomatic track, do you have any other policies to stop Assad's forces from pushing on further?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think we're looking – and I don't want to get ahead of discussions, meetings that have yet to take place, but we've been very clear in the wake of our suspension of bilateral engagement with Russia on Syria, we've been looking at a range of options – economic, ways to put military pressure, ways to put economic pressure, other ways to put pressure and gain leverage given the situation in Syria. We're trying to be thoughtful about it. We're soliciting the views, obviously, of everyone involved in the interagency before we move forward. And again, what Secretary Kerry has been focused on is how do we go back to the multilateral setting and harness the ideas and the leverage that other countries may have with regard to Syria, and use that to put forward a new diplomatic process. Please.
QUESTION: On the Wikileaks dump today, there was one email in particular between John Podesta and Cheryl Mills asking about holding emails from President Obama and Secretary Clinton back. Why weren't those turned over? Would they not fall under work-related?
MR TONER: You're talking about emails between John Podesta --
QUESTION: I'm sorry, there was an email that suggested there were emails between President Obama and Secretary Clinton, and in Podesta's email he's saying we should try and have these held back, have the President use executive privilege to hold those back.
MR TONER: I believe there are, yeah – I believe – and I'd have to double check on that, but I believe with the correspondence with President there was – I don't know if it was executive privilege, but there was a concern that those emails not be made public.
QUESTION: Is there a reason why?
MR TONER: I think – and again, I don't have the chapter and verse in front of me, but it's – I think it's some form of executive privilege. I'd have to get back to you on what the exact wording is.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: I just don't know what the – the rationale is that the correspondence of the President is – has certain privileges and privacies, but I don't have the exact chapter and verse in front of me.
QUESTION: Mark?
MR TONER: Yes, Goyal.
QUESTION: Couple questions, thanks, sir. Couple questions on South Asia. One: What is U.S. stand at the UN Security Council resolution as far as declaring some of the terrorists wanted by the U.S. and India, but China has twice again last week supported Pakistan and saying that they are not terrorists. So innocent people have been killed in the name of terrorism, but China is supporting Pakistan and the United Nations.
MR TONER: Which --
QUESTION: Some of those include, sir, like, Hafiz Saeed, Ibrahim Dawood, and also Masood Azhar, among others.
MR TONER: I'm not 100 percent sure I know which resolution you're talking about, but I would just say that we continue to urge Pakistan to take actions to combat and delegitimize all terrorist groups operating on its soil. Obviously, Pakistan has suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and violent extremists. We want to help Pakistan confront this terrorist threat, but we also want Pakistan also to go after those terrorists who seek and sometimes find safe haven on Pakistan territory.
QUESTION: This resolution came twice in the United Nations Security Council that these people should be declared terrorists by the United Nations Security Council, but China vetoed or said that they are not terrorists and supported Pakistan. So where does U.S. stand there?
MR TONER: Again, I'm not aware of this specific resolution. I apologize, Goyal. I'd refer you to our team up at USUN who can probably speak with more depth than I have on this particular issue.
QUESTION: And second, in the name of terrorism innocent peoples have been killed in the thousands in Pakistan. And now the Pakistanis are asking that time has come to put this end and this rather in the name of this Mr. Altaf Hussain in London who is the MQM founder and chairman, and he was head there, or allegation that money launder, in the name of money laundering or cases against him in London. Thousands of people were rounded up in Karachi and hundreds were killed, and that's what he said that – and now the British court freed him and said they are not – they are all allegations and there is no truth in the case.
MR TONER: Well, I would refer you to the British Government to speak to that particular case. I think we've spoken out about this individual before, so I'll leave it there.
Please, Matt.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: Oh.
QUESTION: Sorry, just one question about Iraq.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: There were reports today that some of the Iraqi army units which were sent to participate in the upcoming operation in Mosul, they are raising sectarian flags – Shia flags. Would that alarm you? And – because, as you know, Mosul is a predominantly Sunni city, which could be problematic.
MR TONER: Well, we all know the reality of the effort in Iraq involves local tribal forces and so-called PMF, Popular Mobilization Forces. They've been instrumental, frankly, in much of the success that the Iraqi Government and Security Forces have had against Daesh. I don't know about this particular incident, but we've said before that these groups need to be mindful, need not to create more tensions as they operate among the local populations, and need to be respectful of the local populations in terms of respectful of their religion, and respectful of their human rights.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: I got two different subjects.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: First, Yemen. What's the status of the review into the assistance that you're providing to Saudis?
MR TONER: No update on that, Matt. I know we're going to do a background call shortly, but I don't have anything to add on --
QUESTION: Yeah, but – I mean, is this review just going to go on and on and on and on, and so that --
MR TONER: No, I wouldn't say that either.
QUESTION: You can say with certainty that there will be an end to this review with a conclusion about --
MR TONER: Where we go?
QUESTION: -- whether or not to continue or to modify the assistance you're giving to the Saudis?
MR TONER: I mean, honestly, I can say when we say we're going to conduct a review, we conduct the review. I can't speak to what – where it will land, what its conclusions will be. But as we've said, and said quite forcefully the last week, last weekend after the strike on the – that hit the funeral procession, or gathering, that we have very serious concerns about civilian casualties. And we're reviewing our assistance.
QUESTION: I understand. I'm not asking you for what the results of the review is going to be.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: I'm just – there – it will come to an end at some point. Is that right?
MR TONER: I believe so, yes. Yes.
QUESTION: And in the near future?
MR TONER: I hope so, yes.
QUESTION: I mean – all right. And then secondly --
MR TONER: Because you'll make sure – (laughter) – I hear about it if – otherwise.
QUESTION: Uh, yeah. Yes. And then the second one is on Honduras.
MR TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Have you guys certified that they have met their human rights obligations? I think I asked about this a couple weeks ago and then it slipped my --
MR TONER: Sure. So we – yes. We certified that Honduras is taking effective steps to meet the criteria specified in the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations – appropriation legislation. So that's not to say that all is well and good. Obviously, corruption, crime, impunity are real problems, continue to be real problems in Honduras. But we have seen, I think, a demonstration of political will by the Honduran Government that has taken on and made progress against some of the country's security and developmental challenges. So we want to see that progress continue.
QUESTION: When was that certification done?
MR TONER: My understanding is it was – oh, September 30th, 2016.
QUESTION: Any reason why it's taken so long to --
MR TONER: Publicly announce it?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: I don't know. Honestly, I mean, I don't --
QUESTION: I mean --
MR TONER: I don't know how we generally make --
QUESTION: Was it published in the Federal Register?
MR TONER: I don't know. I'll ask.
QUESTION: All right. And then can you be more specific about what effective steps they have taken? Because as you are aware, there have been numerous reports over the course of – well, over a while, but certainly this – over the course of the last couple months about new abuses and about new --
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- committed by the police and by the – by security forces there.
MR TONER: I mean, I can speak a little bit about what our assistance programs do in Honduras, but I don't have specific --
QUESTION: No, no, no. I want to know what --
MR TONER: Yeah, I don't have a specific – I'll get that for you.
QUESTION: So when you made the certification, there wasn't any attempt to define what it was that you think they're doing --
MR TONER: I'm sure there was. I just don't have it in front of me. And I'm not following as closely as I probably should --
QUESTION: All right. What's the --
MR TONER: -- Honduran human rights situation.
QUESTION: What's the total assistance that this frees up?
MR TONER: I will get that for you as well. I don't have it in front of me. I apologize.
QUESTION: All right. I – and please, if you could get the actual – the --
MR TONER: Yeah. So what I propose, we'll do --
QUESTION: -- because these reports have been --
MR TONER: -- we'll do this as a formally – we'll do this as a formal taken question. Okay?
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, because there have been persistent --
MR TONER: You have my pledge.
QUESTION: -- reports of violations.
MR TONER: I understand that. No, I understand that, Matt. And I understand – again, I'm not trying to create the appearance that all is well, that --
QUESTION: Well, I know. But if all is not well and all is not good, why did they get certified?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think we look for progress. And we've seen significant enough progress in their efforts – and I should have more detail to provide to you --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: -- on that; I apologize for it – but to give them a passing grade.
That it, guys? Thank so much.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yep.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:21 p.m.)
DPB # 176
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
