Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 20, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
PHILIPPINES/REGION
SYRIA/SAUDI ARABIA/TURKEY/RUSSIA
SAUDI ARABIA/OMAN
IRAQ
UKRAINE
DEPARTMENT
TRANSCRIPT:
1:27 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Hello guys. Sorry I'm late. Nothing like calling an early briefing then being like a half-hour late for it, right? (Laughter.) You're welcome.
QUESTION: It's that military precision that we've come to know and expect.
MR KIRBY: I have long since given up military precision. I am a civilian now. (Laughter.)
Just a couple things at the top. Tonight – and I think you know this – the Secretary is going to travel to New York City, where he's going to be joining Oscar winners Leonardo DiCaprio and Fisher Stevens for a screening of their film, which is entitled "Before the Flood." The screening will take place at the United Nations. "Before the Flood," I think you know, is a film about the effort to combat climate change.
Following that film, the Secretary will participate in a panel discussion with Mr. DiCaprio and Mr. Stevens, as well as the deputy director of NASA, the deputy director of the Sciences and Exploration Directorate of NASA, Piers Sellers. That Q&A, that panel discussion, will be an open press event. So there's that.
I also just want to – because I'm imagining it's going to be foremost on somebody's mind – comments that we keep – that we have heard again coming out of the Philippines, in this case comments that President Duterte made in Beijing. And I just want to say that obviously we're aware of this rhetoric, of course, and we still hold that it is inexplicably at odds with the very close relationship that we have with the Filipino people as well as the government there on many different levels – not just from a security perspective.
We are going to be seeking an explanation of exactly what the president meant when he talked about separation from the U.S. It's not clear to us exactly what that means in all its ramifications, so we're going to be seeking a clarification on that.
I would add that Assistant Secretary Russel will be in the Philippines, in Manila this weekend. This trip was long-scheduled; I don't want to give any impression that it was thrown on as a result of recent comments or activities. It was something he's been planning for months, but it does give us an opportunity in the context of these comments to try to get a better explanation of what was meant by "separation" and where that's going.
The last thing I'll say on this – well, two more things. One, it isn't just the United States who is baffled by this rhetoric. We have heard from many of our friends and partners in the region who are likewise confused about where this is going, and also we believe are trying to learn more on their own about what it portends.
And then finally, as I have said before, I will say again today: We remain rock-solid in our commitment in the mutual defense treaty that we have with the Philippines. That hasn't changed. There has been – for all the rhetoric we've heard, there has been no tangible application of the intent behind, or at least the stated intent behind, some of the things that were made. And we're going to move – we're continuing to move forward and have every interest in seeing this 70-year alliance continue to grow and to develop and to deepen. That's our commitment. We have a close relationship not only with the government but with the people of the Philippines, and it is our hope and our expectation that that will continue.
So I just wanted to lay that out there. I figured that that might be on your minds today, so I just wanted to put that out there.
QUESTION: Well, you may have a close relationship with the government and the people of the Philippines, but you don't seem to have a very close relationship with the president, who is the head of the government. I'm just wondering if this – how could this possibly come as a surprise to you, given the – his increasingly nasty rhetoric over the course of the last several months – not just directed at the alliance or the military relationship, but also directed at your ambassador first, then the President of the United States. Why are you surprised now that he would say something like this?
And secondly, doesn't – he was semi-specific in what he meant by separation. He talked about economic and military ties, perhaps – I think, if I'm not – if I'm not mistaken, he said perhaps not the cultural side or the --
MR KIRBY: Well, that's just the point, Matt. I mean, whether he was semi-specific or not, I mean, I don't want to quibble over percentages here. But obviously we believe that there's certainly room for – well, we have an interest in trying to gain a little bit more clarity on what he meant. And I think even in your question, you hit on exactly why we would seek greater clarity on this.
The second thing I'd say though is – and I don't think I said it at the outset, and if I did, I was mistaken. I don't mean to – I wasn't trying to say we were surprised by these comments. As I said, we have continued to --
QUESTION: Well, you seemed to be taken unaware. You --
MR KIRBY: No, I said we were aware of the reports.
QUESTION: No, I know that. But I mean, it's not something that you expected. I mean, what I'm saying is that this came as a surprise to you when he said this in China, correct?
MR KIRBY: The specific line about separation?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Did we know that was coming? No, we didn't know that was coming.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: But this is yet another string in some pretty strong rhetoric that we think, we believe, is at odds with the kind of relationship that we have had and continue to have with the Filipino people.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that anyone in the government below the president has similar feelings or intent?
MR KIRBY: That's difficult to know, Matt. I don't know that we have particular insight into people below his level and what they might – how they might view his comments. What I will say though is that we in the past, in recent weeks, we've seen some – some of this bombastic rhetoric clarified or walked back after the fact. So again, all of that gives us reason to think that there's – there's a purpose in trying to get a better, deeper explanation on this.
QUESTION: All right. Last – and last thing very quickly. Who, other than Assistant Secretary Russel, is anyone approaching the Philippines Government in the immediate --
MR KIRBY: Well, our --
QUESTION: -- immediate term?
MR KIRBY: Our ambassador has been, obviously, in touch with officials there, of course.
QUESTION: Today?
MR KIRBY: Well, not – I mean, today no. I mean in general.
QUESTION: On this --
MR KIRBY: On this particular line.
QUESTION: On this separation thing?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any other communication on this particular line. Look, it just happened. Our ambassador has, as you would expect, has stayed in close touch with his counterparts in Manila, and I suspect that he's – that that will continue, and that there are conversations about this going on. But I can't confirm that as we stand here today. It wouldn't surprise me at all though if the ambassador was having those kinds of conversations. And as I said, Assistant Secretary Russel will be heading over in a few days, and he fully expects to be able to have those kinds of conversations as well and try to figure out exactly what this means.
QUESTION: All right. Because I know I --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: I know I said it was the last one but this --
MR KIRBY: Hang on, Ros. Hang on.
QUESTION: I promise this is the last one. More broadly --
MR KIRBY: You – it was two questions ago you promised.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know, I know, I know.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: All right --
MR KIRBY: No, go ahead. I'm kidding. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I just want to – more broadly, in terms of the whole rebalance to Asia, or pivot, it seems as though instead of gaining or increasing your influence, you're losing it. Would you – well, I'm sure you would disagree. Why would you disagree with that?
MR KIRBY: Yes, of course, we would disagree with that. Look, the rebalance is – so there are a couple aspects to it. It's – it is advancing. We are seriously committed to it, and you can see it across, again, many different sectors of government and even nongovernment activity. The second thing I would say is that relationships in that part of the world or in any part of the world are not zero-sum games, and we're not looking at it like – or looking at it like that. And we've long said that we would welcome a closer relationship between the Philippines and China, between other nations and China. This is not – this doesn't have to be binary and it's not zero-sum.
And for our part, the rebalance was never about any one country in the region. It was about putting more of our efforts as a government, as an administration, in the Pacific theater because so much of the future is going to be tied up there economically, from a security perspective, politically, socially. And so that commitment, our commitment to the rebalance, continues and will continue.
And as I said, again, more specifically on the Philippines, we still have a mutual defense treaty that we take very seriously our commitments to that, and that hasn't changed. We still have a strong military-to-military relationship. That hasn't changed. And in many aspects, aside from the rhetoric, the relationship with the Philippines remains very, very strong.
QUESTION: Is the --
QUESTION: Just a couple of quick ones. When do you expect – when exactly do you expect Assistant Secretary Russel to be there?
MR KIRBY: It's this weekend, Arshad. I believe he gets there on Sunday. We can have the EAP Bureau confirm that for you. But I talked to him just a little bit ago, and he told me he'd be there – Sunday and Monday, I think is what he said.
QUESTION: Second, do you think the Philippine President Duterte hopes to have his cake and eat it too; in other words, to assert closer ties with China, to assert separation from the United States, but to – because as you've repeatedly said you have not had any formal notification or change in any of the underlying relationships, the mil-mil cooperation, et cetera, et cetera, but to maintain the existing ties with the United States, his rhetoric notwithstanding?
MR KIRBY: It's difficult for me and I'd be a fool to try to get in the head of another leader in the world. I wouldn't do that. So I can't – I couldn't speculate about what might be behind some of the rhetoric and where the president is taking it or where he wants to take his administration. I think that's for him to speak to.
But I would like to just foot-stomp what I said a few minutes ago, that we don't believe that relationships in that, or any other part of the world have to be zero-sum or binary choices. We have a very strong relationship with the Philippines that goes way, way back, like I said, a 70-some-odd-year alliance, and that – and we fully intend to continue that.
We also welcome improved relations between China and the Philippines. If that is, in fact, what President Duterte is seeking, that – we don't see that as a threat, we don't see that as unwelcome, we don't see that as counterproductive. Actually quite the opposite; we think that improved relations between him and his neighbors, be that China or other countries, are all to the good, all to the good for stability in the region.
QUESTION: The U.S. Government had, for many years, a dramatically reduced particularly military relationship with the Philippines, even though the treaty, of course, the alliance continued. But Subic Bay was closed. The other --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Why – to ask a simple question, why is it, from your point of view, so vital to maintain a mil-mil cooperation in particular, given the U.S. forward projection in Japan, in South Korea, in Guam? Why do you – why is it so essential to have a better military or to maintain the existing mil-mil cooperation with the Philippines?
MR KIRBY: Well, one, there is the issue of the treaty itself, which binds us to a security relationship with the Philippines. And --
QUESTION: But that doesn't mean you necessarily have to have the rotating deployments that you've agreed this year.
MR KIRBY: No, no, no, no.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: So – but I'm just trying to frame it.
QUESTION: Yep.
MR KIRBY: I mean, the first foundational reason is we have a treaty that we are obligated to meet the requirements of, and we do. Every defense treaty is different; every one is defined differently. And in executing the obligations under a defense treaty – and I don't want to stray into my former life here too much – but as you meet those commitments it varies based on the foundational components of the treaty and the needs of both parties.
And I'm not an expert on exactly how we meet every obligation in that treaty. My Pentagon colleagues could probably help you out with that. But it does involve a certain level of routine training and exercising and advising and assisting. And there's even a defense relationship there in terms of foreign military sales. So it – there – it exists on many different levels, and we believe that it's important to continue to – in order to make the treaty real, to give it the teeth that it needs, you've got to have those other activities persist. And so, again, we're very committed to doing that. I'm not sure I completely answered your question though.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, basically my question is you lived without the super-close mil-mil relationship for a long time. I mean, there was a – Subic Bay closed.
MR KIRBY: So it's --
QUESTION: The airbase got hit by a typhoon, I think. I mean, it – there was that tremendous withdrawal from the Philippines in the early 1990s.
MR KIRBY: Our presence does vary over time. Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: Thank you for reminding me of that. I knew there was something I was missing in your question.
QUESTION: So why is it so vital now, I guess is my point. Is it because China is so much more assertive in this – about its claims in the South China Sea, and therefore you think it's vital to be in the Philippines on a rotating basis? Is that what has changed here? Or could you live without them, as you did for 20-odd years?
MR KIRBY: So a couple of thoughts there. First of all, you're right that our overseas footprint and the number of exercises we do or the scope of defense sales, that changes over time. Some of that's driven by bilateral sovereign decisions that either party makes. Some of it's driven on our behalf on budgetary constraints, and that was a factor in some of the drawing down of – as well as local desires. And then you rightly pointed out natural disasters kind of get in the way and do force the United States military to rethink its presence. That happens in virtually any bilateral military relationship. You're going to see things ebb and flow. Some of it's not based on threat at all; some of it is.
So let's go back to this presence in that part of the Asia Pacific region. It is – it remains a vital region, aside from the growing assertiveness of China, which obviously has our attention. There's no question about that. So aside from the tensions in the South China Sea, there are and have been already good, solid reasons why we would want to continue a strong defense relationship with the Philippines, just because of the economic lifeblood of the region that – the amount of commerce that just simply flows through those waters. So, I mean, there's plenty of good reasons to do that, and it is in keeping – this continued rotation or I'd – maybe not even continued, to your question – I mean, renewed interest in rotational activity from a military perspective in the Philippines is really borne out of my answer to Matt on the seriousness with which we take the rebalance and how we're trying to advance that.
QUESTION: I have one other one on this, which is since President Duterte came to power, which is not so long ago, there have been several thousand, as you well know, killings of alleged drug dealers and others. The human rights community describes these as extrajudicial killings, and as you well know, the Leahy law limits the assistance that you can provide.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this, despite the attractions of its geography and despite the treaty – which, as you pointed out, doesn't oblige you to have a specific amount of military presence there, and it's varied from decade to decade.
MR KIRBY: Correct.
QUESTION: Why is this an ally you want to have given your, A, human rights concerns and, B, this angry rhetoric often directed at you? Why is this an ally you want? Is geography destiny here and you just have to have it?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the alliance – as I said, some 70 years old now – has weathered all kinds of different storms, be they actual storms or political storms. And again, we're focused on keeping it solid going forward. It's based on a very rich history, people-to-people ties that, again, go back even before, obviously, World War II. And it includes a very vibrant Filipino American diaspora of Filipino Americans here who enrich our culture, enrich our society, enrich our armed forces, and a very long list of shared security concerns. So it is a country in the crossroads of a very important region, a region that is undergoing enormous strain and change. It is a commitment, an alliance that we have – that we not only entered into honorably but we intend to continue to honor going forward.
And that – to your question on human rights, we've been very open and honest about our concerns over human rights activities there, and you can go on our report online and see that. We're not bashful about expressing those. You're right about the Leahy law. I mean, obviously, that applies there and anywhere else around the world. We have restrictions on what kind of aid and assistance can go to specific units that, if we have credible information that they – that they're violating human rights, that that aid cannot go forward. We always look at that on a unit-to-unit basis. It's always under review. But to your larger question, it is – that we have human rights concerns, even with a treaty ally, doesn't mean that that renders moot or invalid or undesirable the treaty itself and the larger foundation of the relationship.
QUESTION: John, is the Philippines ambassador being summoned to explain President Duterte's comments?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such summons.
QUESTION: Is that something that you anticipate will happen?
MR KIRBY: If we have something to report on that, I'll let you know, but I'm not aware that any kind of summons like that's coming.
QUESTION: And then one other --
MR KIRBY: As I said --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- Assistant Secretary Russel is going to be heading to the region in just a few days.
QUESTION: Right. Right.
MR KIRBY: And I think his conversations will hopefully suffice for the kind of explanation and more detail that we're seeking.
QUESTION: But there will be a lag of at least three days, and certainly the ambassador is here. Why not just have him come in and say, well --
MR KIRBY: Well, I don't think we believe there's a need to do that. But if that changes, I'll let you know.
QUESTION: And then, going back to something that you just talked about, the overall relationship between the U.S. and the Philippines, the economic relationship. Could that be imperiled, given that Philippine workers are hired to work at naval installations around the world? I've seen them with my own eyes at PXs and cleaning facilities and doing maintenance. Schoolteachers, registered nurses routinely get visas to come work here in the United States, sending home money to a country that I don't think is considered an economic superpower. Does the U.S. believe that President Duterte believes or understands that he could be imperiling a real economic support for his country by making these sorts of comments and making these sorts of overtures to other countries in the region?
MR KIRBY: I have no idea what he thinks or believes about where he's going with these comments. Again, as I told Arshad, I wouldn't put myself in a foreign leader's head; I can't do that. All I can tell you – but you're right, there is a – there are many – the ties that bind us are many different areas of our – sectors of our culture, society, and our government. And there is strong economic ties and the United States does provide many billions of dollars to – for aid and assistance to Philippines. And when the Philippines have had natural disasters in the past, the United States was first into the fray to help. We very much want to see that close – those ties that – we want to see those continue and we want to see them deepen and strengthen, and there's really no reason why they shouldn't. And again, that's why these comments are baffling to us, and not just to us – as I said, to other of our friends and partners in the region. And that's why we'd like to get a little bit better sense of exactly what he meant when he said "separation." What does that entail?
QUESTION: Is it reasonable to assume that if President Duterte insists upon a change in the mil-to-mil relationship, that the U.S. in turn would reconsider its economic relationships, its visa policies, its immigration policies regarding the Philippines?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't. I don't think it would be helpful to hypothesize or speculate about that kind of stuff right now. Obviously that's not a future that we are interested in seeing.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
QUESTION: John, (inaudible).
QUESTION: (Inaudible) Syria?
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: Philippines.
MR KIRBY: Philippines?
QUESTION: Philippines.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: So you mentioned that there were friends in the region that were also concerned about these comments. Can you be a little bit more specific on who those countries – or what those countries might be and what the exact concerns they've expressed?
MR KIRBY: No, next question.
QUESTION: Okay. And then also, do you have any specific comment on the fact that the Philippines has agreed with China to discuss on a bilateral basis the South China Sea issue?
MR KIRBY: Can I confirm that the Philippines and China are discussing --
QUESTION: Or do you have a response that they've agreed to bilateral talks?
MR KIRBY: I've seen press reports that they have. I don't know that I can confirm that they've agreed to have bilateral talks on the South China Sea specifically, but as I said, we would welcome a closer bilateral relationship between the Philippines and China. And I would have every expectation that such a bilateral discussion and relationship would include what's going on in the South China Sea. That wouldn't shock or surprise us one bit, but we – again, we welcome China and the Philippines being able to have a closer dialogue and discussion and, in fact, a closer relationship.
QUESTION: Do you think that's a positive --
MR KIRBY: That doesn't – that doesn't bother us.
QUESTION: You think that's a positive step in terms of resolving their dispute?
MR KIRBY: I think any dialogue between two nations involved in the tensions there, any dialogue that can lead to peaceful diplomatic solutions to some of the claims disputes, obviously we're in favor of that – obviously we would see that as a positive, productive thing. And we've been saying that for years now, that we want these things to be resolved peacefully, bilaterally, in accordance with international law and norms. And if President Xi and President Duterte have that kind of conversation and they can arrive at some solutions and reduce the tensions there, that's all to the good.
Yeah.
QUESTION: So last week, Toner said that the working-level relationship between the Philippines and the United States is still strong and rock-solid. Have you seen any shift in the working-level relationship?
MR KIRBY: No.
Yeah.
QUESTION: So recently, outside of the U.S. embassy in the Philippines, there's been a lot of activity as far as protests and such.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And in fact, some pretty horrible video came out the other day --
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry, say --
QUESTION: Some pretty horrible video came out the other day with a police van. I'm wondering, with Russel going this weekend, do you think that him being there at the same time during these protests would heighten tensions at all?
MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly don't want to see tensions heightened regardless and I don't think that Danny would go if he felt that him going would exacerbate any tensions. I think he's going – again, long scheduled, long planned. He still believes that it's important to make this trip, particularly in the context of recent events, and believe me, I don't – he would not go if he felt that he was going to make the situation worse in any way and I don't believe that he will.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
QUESTION: No, no, no, no. I – three, but they're extremely brief. One, when you didn't want to be specific about what other countries have – are baffled by this, is it more than – can you say it's more than just other ASEAN members?
MR KIRBY: I think I'm – I would let --
QUESTION: When we talk about the region --
MR KIRBY: I would let --
QUESTION: When you say "the region," that's Southeast Asia, but I mean, are there – does it extend beyond Southeast Asia?
MR KIRBY: I think there are many – yes, it does.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: There are many nations in the region that are concerned and baffled. I'll let them speak for themselves.
QUESTION: All right, secondly --
MR KIRBY: Does it go beyond ASEAN? Yes.
QUESTION: Yeah. So, I mean, one could presume – assume, then, it's Japan --
MR KIRBY: I'll just leave it at that.
QUESTION: It's the Korea --
MR KIRBY: I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: -- or South Korea. Secondly, have you heard anything through the embassy there about concerns among American expats living in the Philippines? Because you mentioned the Filipino-American community here, the diaspora, which is quite large, but there's also quite a big --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- number of American expatriates there. Do you know, have you heard any reports of a concern --
MR KIRBY: We have not. I'm not aware of any specific concerns expressed by Americans that are living overseas.
QUESTION: All right. And then lastly on this, I don't know if you're aware of this, but today is the 72nd anniversary of General MacArthur returning to the Philippines after his --
MR KIRBY: I only know because I saw your tweet.
QUESTION: Yes, exactly. (Laughter.) And I'm just wondering – I'm just wondering if this – if you see any connection, if it makes the sting a little bit worse that this, whether it's a coincidence or not, happened on an historically – on a historically important day, particularly for the Philippines-U.S. relationship?
MR KIRBY: You'd have to talk to, again, the president about his --
QUESTION: No, no, no, I'm – from this – from this end.
MR KIRBY: -- motivations. No, I know. You'd have to talk to him about the timing of his particular statement and what it meant and whether it was timed to coincide with General MacArthur's famous proclamation about returning to the Philippines. We are not focused on history here. We're proud of the history of the relationship, obviously – I've talked about the 70 years of an alliance. We are very much focused on the future. And that's where our heads are – on the future of this very important alliance, very important relationship.
Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. But in that context – of course I want to ask about the ceasefire, but in that context, in the meeting between the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir and the Secretary of State, I'm sure they will be discussing the current ceasefire and perhaps a proposal to extend it.
MR KIRBY: I have no doubt that they will be discussing the situation on the ground in Syria, to include trying to get a meaningful cessation of hostilities in place.
QUESTION: Would you say that their meeting is dedicated to the Syria situation or it is – their meeting --
MR KIRBY: Would I say is the Secretary dedicated --
QUESTION: No, I mean this meeting, because there were some reports saying that it is going to focus on the ceasefire – the current ceasefire in Syria and the role of the U.S. and the role of its allies, regional allies and so on, and bringing – or making the ceasefire that is currently in – I guess in effect, has been in effect for the past few hours – to make it sort of go longer. That's --
MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we would like to see it persist --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- and sustain itself and be renewed. I mean --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- clearly and absolutely, he will be discussing with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir this afternoon the situation on the ground, our continued efforts in a multilateral way to try to get at a meaningful cessation of hostilities that goes beyond just Aleppo. Obviously, Aleppo is the focus --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- but goes beyond Aleppo.
QUESTION: Because there were statements attributed to Mr. al-Jubeir just a couple days, two days ago about arming the rebels or the – what he called the moderate rebels with lethal weapons and so on. So are you on the same page on this thing? Would you be willing to arm the moderate rebels with more lethal weapons and maybe supply them with surface-to-air missiles and so on that can bring Russian and Syrian airplanes down?
MR KIRBY: What we want to see is a meaningful cessation of hostilities that can --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- get us back to political discussions --
QUESTION: John --
MR KIRBY: -- because we still believe – hang on, guys – we still believe in a political solution to this. And as a government – I'm not going to speak for other governments, but I can speak for ours – we continue to examine a range of options at our – that are available to us going forward in Syria.
But as you and I speak here today, Said, nothing has changed about the fact that we continue to believe the best option is a political one, a diplomatic solution. And that is what Secretary Kerry's focus is on. That will be a major topic of discussion when he meets with the foreign minister this afternoon and that is what we're continuing to work towards.
QUESTION: A couple more on this one. On the ceasefire itself, I mean, seeing that there was actually a lowering down of hostility and bombardments in the last couple days and so on and now the ceasefire to be – seems to be holding and it's quiet all over. So are you optimistic that this can go on or that Lausanne was not a total failure, as has been suggested?
MR KIRBY: I don't know who suggested Lausanne was a total failure.
QUESTION: No, I mean, like --
MR KIRBY: Maybe you did. We didn't.
QUESTION: Well, okay. My article did, okay.
MR KIRBY: I mean, your article said it was.
QUESTION: No, I mean --
MR KIRBY: Well, there you go --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) probation, so --
MR KIRBY: -- so it's definitive. No, look, I mean, the Secretary said coming out of the meeting in Lausanne that we got exactly what we expected to get out of it, which was having a good multilateral discussion about ways forward. Did it solve everything? No. And yesterday you heard him say publicly that he has no special expectations, no high sense of expectations right now in these discussions. And so would he like to see this temporary ceasefire take hold and last longer? Absolutely. Would he like to see it extend to beyond Aleppo and other places of Syria? You bet. Does he have great, high expectations and hopes that it will? No. He's pretty pragmatic about this, and we've seen time and time again where the regime or their Russian backers have said, well, we're going to do this, we're going to stop firing, we're going to put people – put airplanes on the ground, and then they don't meet it.
So we – as he said yesterday, there still has to be a cessation of bombing in Aleppo, or you're never going to get not only peace in Aleppo but an end to this civil war. You're never going to get the opposition to stop fighting and be willing to come to any kind of negotiated settlement or political talks as long as they continue to see bombs dropping out of the sky.
So again, last few hours, good sign. But it needs to be deeper and broader and needs to last a longer period of time. And again, we just – we're going to have to see how it goes.
QUESTION: Sorry, just one more. The Russian foreign minister said that the only thing that is standing between a permanent ceasefire in Syria and – is the fact that al-Nusrah remains in Aleppo. So if they leave Aleppo, we will have a permanent ceasefire. You have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: I would say the only thing that stands between where we are now and a permanent, enduring ceasefire in Syria is Bashar al-Assad and his supporters. Now, we recognize al-Nusrah is a spoiler. We recognize the concerns about commingling. I have talked about this ad nauseam. But it is within the regime's power to put their airplanes on the ground and keep them there, and to keep their forces out of Aleppo and from killing innocent civilians and destroying infrastructure. It is totally within the Russian Government's power and authority to do that with their own aircraft. That's what's the problem has been. Look, you and I just got into a back and forth over the last few hours, where I agree with you, where we've seen a reduction in the violence. Why is that, Said? Why? Because the Russians --
QUESTION: Stopped the bombing.
MR KIRBY: -- and Assad have decided that they're not going to fly as much. So it's absolutely within their power, and we've said that from the very beginning.
QUESTION: John, the Turkish forces that are just north of Aleppo now and getting a bit closer there, Turkish-backed FSA and they've also got U.S. Special Forces with them. Are they part of the coalition against ISIS as is broadly understood, the FSA forces north of Aleppo now?
MR KIRBY: I'm wary to talk about specific military matters that there are – and I don't have perfect granularity on every group that's fighting. But the groups that – I think it's safe to assume that groups that we are supporting, whether it's through air support or advising and assisting on the ground – and again, I don't want to get into my colleagues' knickers on this – but it's safe to assume that if we're supporting those groups, that they are considered to be part of the coalition against Daesh.
QUESTION: What did you just say?
QUESTION: Let's just leave it in the transcript.
MR KIRBY: What'd I say?
QUESTION: Get into --
MR KIRBY: Into their business about that.
QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Come on.
QUESTION: So without wanting to get into the Pentagon's knickers right away --
MR KIRBY: I think you know what I meant.
QUESTION: -- the FSA forces are getting closer to al-Bab; they're getting closer to northern Aleppo. At some point they're going to bump up against regime forces and/or Russian forces backing them. It would be inappropriate for them to clash.
MR KIRBY: But you're – I don't want you to mix here the fight against Daesh, and the support that we're giving to some forces on the ground are to fight Daesh.
QUESTION: But that was in the premise of my question, that they're there fighting ISIS, and you've welcomed the advances they've made, but those advances are bringing them to closer to other forces with which they are not friendly but which are – well, would be if the ceasefire was reinstalled – would be party to a ceasefire. You don't have any concerns that these forces that you're backing now against ISIS are going to wind up with the front line (inaudible) Assad?
MR KIRBY: We're backing forces to fight ISIS, to fight Daesh. That's the goal, not – we're not doing that activity to get involved and embroiled in the civil war. And what we want and what we've said over and over again is we want every member of the coalition, be it a state or not a state – if you're fighting in the coalition against Daesh just to focus on that common enemy, because we all face that common enemy. But I really don't want to get into hypotheticals and speculating about the dynamics of the battlefield in and around Aleppo. Our focus militarily in Syria remains focused on the fight against Daesh and only on the fight against Daesh.
QUESTION: But you would give advice to forces that you were backing that their task remains --
MR KIRBY: The advice that we give is in keeping with the fight against Daesh and only Daesh.
QUESTION: Ukraine?
QUESTION: Syria.
MR KIRBY: I think we're going to stay on Syria. You got Syria?
QUESTION: No, on the meeting between the Secretary and the Saudi foreign minister.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Let me come to you after I go over here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I actually have a short question, and then I'll explain what prompted the question.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. fighting al-Nusrah in Syria at this time?
MR KIRBY: Now you were going to explain why you were going to ask the question.
QUESTION: No, that is actually a very simple – I mean, not – probably not simple, but short.
MR KIRBY: I thought you were going to ask the question and then tell me – (laughter) – why you were asking me the question.
QUESTION: The question is: Is the U.S. fighting al-Nusrah in Syria at this time?
MR KIRBY: Our efforts militarily in Syria, as I said today, is against ISIS, against Daesh.
Now, there has been I think at least one and maybe more – I don't know; you'd have to check with my Pentagon colleagues, but we know al-Nusrah – they're outside the cessation of hostilities, they're also a designated – UN-designated terrorist group. They're – al-Qaida in Syria is what – how we refer to them. And I know that from a unilateral U.S. perspective, when we have had information that led us to take action, because of plotting we knew they were doing, we did that. But the primary effort militarily in Syria is against Daesh.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. --
MR KIRBY: You said you only had one question.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Actually, you confirmed that, basically – my other – the one that prompted the question, so it's redundant right now and not necessary to ask.
Does the U.S. have – a more broad question: So in Mosul, the U.S. has a strategy to fight ISIL there, which is to support, to train, and equip Iraqi forces. In Aleppo, let's say with Russia out of the picture – and I'm assuming, and I'm actually certain, that the U.S. wouldn't do the same for Syrian forces. And I'm wondering, does the U.S. have a strategy of its own to defeat al-Nusrah in Syria that does not involve Russia?
MR KIRBY: We did have a strategy, if you might remember. If you go back to September 9th in Geneva, when Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry talked and we struck a deal, right? An arrangement where if we got seven days of reduced violence, we would stand up what was called a Joint Implementation Center, by which we would share information with the Russian military designed specifically to cooperate against al-Nusrah – specifically al-Nusrah – I mean, and Daesh. Daesh was mentioned in there, but al-Nusrah was specifically named as a target of those kinds of activities that we would be willing to cooperate and share information with the Russians on. We didn't get there. So there was a strategy and it was implemented – it was written down on September 9th, and you can go back and look at the agreement and see that. We just couldn't get there, because the Russians weren't willing to meet their commitments.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: One more --
QUESTION: I have a Syria question now too – breaking news.
MR KIRBY: You're killing Samir over here. (Laughter.) I'll go to you and then you and then, Samir, I promise I'll get to you. You're being very patient.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just more specific question about the Turkey – Turkish air force bombing the Kurds in Afrin. It looks like the Syria Kurdish forces – also Turkey-backed Free Syrian forces – both of them are racing to take over or reach to al-Bab. It's near Aleppo. Do you have a position to which groups to take over the al-Bab?
MR KIRBY: I – do I have a position on what groups should take over al-Bab?
QUESTION: Because they are clashing with each other right now. They are trying to block each other right now.
MR KIRBY: I mean, I'm aware of the clashes. We're monitoring it, as I think Mark said, closely. We've called on all parties to refrain from uncoordinated movements and to focus, as I said earlier, on the common enemy, and the common enemy is Daesh. Both these Syrian forces and Turkey can and should operate inside the coalition, which is to, again, to focus on Daesh and not one another, and that's what we want to see. But as I said, we also don't want to see any uncoordinated movements, and these strikes would qualify as uncoordinated movements.
QUESTION: So on that al-Bab question, do you have a position, because both – each of the groups trying to reach to al-Bab. That is the main --
MR KIRBY: My – I said our position is we want them to focus on the fight against Daesh.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can you confirm there was a Kerry-Lavrov phone call on Aleppo today?
MR KIRBY: I cannot. I'll have to get back to you. I don't have a call or readout to you.
QUESTION: Okay. Come back to me on Ukraine, please. I'll defer.
QUESTION: The – my turn?
MR KIRBY: Yes, it's finally your turn, sir. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: The Secretary's meeting with the Saudi foreign minister today comes at a time where reports published today that Iran is increasing its supplies of missiles to the Houthis via the border of Oman. Are you unhappy that the Saudis – that Oman is not taking strong measures to prevent these smugglings?
MR KIRBY: So let me back this up. I mean, we're aware that Iran provides lethal support to the Houthis. We have regularly and routinely called on regional actors to de-escalate the tensions in Yemen and the region, including abiding by the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, as well as the ceasefire, which both the – all parties have said they would support.
We've also repeatedly raised our concerns that Iran is providing lethal aid to the Houthis in Yemen, including at the UN, when dhows smuggling Iranian weapons to the Houthis were interdicted at sea.
So we have been, I think, very clear – again, without getting into specifics of diplomatic discussions, we've been very clear about our concerns with all of the partners in the region, including Oman, regarding the risks that these weapons used in these kinds of attack pose to maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and also the risks that future incidents could inadvertently expand the conflict in Yemen. And particularly at this very delicate time, when we have a ceasefire budding here and a real chance to get the political talks back on track.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yep.
QUESTION: So some – a question about Mosul. Some local Sunni leaders there are blaming both the Iraqi Government and the U.S. Government that they started the Mosul operation before reaching a political agreement about the aftermath of the operation, and that you and Iraqi Government disregarded their calls, calls from the Sunni leaders and also from President Barzani, for reaching a political agreement. What is your take on that?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments or those critiques. All I can tell you is that we have been in very close contact with leaders in Erbil as well as in Baghdad about the Mosul offensive, which is an Iraqi offensive. It's an Iraqi campaign plan, an Iraqi strategy. And we have been nothing but supportive of Prime Minister Abadi's efforts to provide the command and control infrastructure he needs in order to conduct this successfully. It's ongoing. It's going to be, we believe, still a tough fight, although some progress is being made. So again, I can't rebut specific comments I haven't seen except to reaffirm for you that we have been in very close touch with leaders both in Erbil and Baghdad about this.
And I might add that we have had active discussions with them as an – as a U.S. Government interagency, but also with our Iraqi partners, about what Mosul looks like after it's taken back, both from a political perspective and from a humanitarian assistance perspective. I mean, this is – it's not like we haven't – and I don't – when I say "we," I don't just mean the United States; I mean all of us – haven't thought this about this and aren't actively planning and trying to coordinate for what it looks like when Daesh is finally evicted from Mosul. And obviously the immediate focus is the actual task of taking Mosul back. But even as we are supporting that effort, we're having, continuing to having those active conversations – again, with leaders both in Erbil and in Baghdad. And I think that that will continue throughout.
QUESTION: Okay. One more question about Mosul?
MR KIRBY: I've got time for just a couple more.
QUESTION: One more question?
MR KIRBY: I'll come back to you, Catherine; I promise.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. We'll go to you – you got --
QUESTION: One more question about Mosul?
MR KIRBY: You got to be – it's got to be quick, though.
QUESTION: Very quick.
MR KIRBY: I'm running out of time.
QUESTION: Sorry. So today some local Peshmerga leaders, they are saying that they're not getting enough air support from the coalition, and because of that they're – they lost some troops in the fighting today. Do you have any say about – anything to say about that?
MR KIRBY: I really try to avoid getting into operational assessments, particularly in an operation that's ongoing. I would really point you to my Pentagon colleagues to speak to that. Obviously, our role from the United States is to support Iraqi efforts with – primarily through training, advising, and assisting. I'll let my Pentagon colleagues speak to things as they unfold on the battlefield. I really don't want to get into doing that.
QUESTION: The Ukrainian Government says they were in close contact with U.S. officials before this Normandy Four meeting in Berlin, and that the U.S. supports Kyiv's position. Do you have anything on the U.S. role and position with regards to the roadmap for the Minsk agreement's implementation?
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, we continue to support the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. We've stated that on numerous occasions. We are not part of the Normandy group. I won't speak to things that the members of that group have decided on. I think your question about a roadmap is really better put to them, not to us. We support the process and we support their ongoing work, but I would refer you to our French and German colleagues for more on the roadmap. I'm just not – it wouldn't be appropriate for me to speak to that.
Catherine, you're going to have to be the last one today.
QUESTION: All right. It's on the Pat Kennedy matter. Is it the State Department's position that the FBI interviews contain significant errors?
MR KIRBY: I don't think we would say that, Catherine. I think – look, those were interviews with officials. They were – those 302s are just that; they're notes – actually, they're notes from interviews. They're not facts, they're not conclusions, they're not investigative work. I can't speak for the recollections of the individuals who were interviewed or their – no, no, no, no. Hang on a second.
QUESTION: Okay. Yeah. I'll let you finish.
MR KIRBY: But – I know you're going to interrupt me here, but let me finish --
QUESTION: All right. Mm-hmm.
MR KIRBY: -- I can't speak for those recollections. What I can speak for and what Pat Kennedy has already spoken for is his recollections of those conversations and his very firm belief – a belief that was backed up, oh, by the way, by the institution of the FBI itself, that there was no bargain sought or even suggestion – suggested.
QUESTION: Well, then you do agree with me. The State Department's position is that the FBI records contain errors.
MR KIRBY: What I'm saying is that there was no bargain sought by Under Secretary Kennedy, there was no bargain suggested, and there was certainly no bargain enacted. I cannot speak for the recollections of the individual who was interviewed.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up. I have a specific on the November 2012, which is the email that was the subject of discussion. Why was Patrick Kennedy working so hard to bury this email?
MR KIRBY: There – again, I'm not going to – I can't speak for recollections here in an interview. There was absolutely no intent or desire to bury anything. And you can go on our website, as you know, and see that very email. Our focus and Pat Kennedy's focus over the course of many, many months was to screen 55,000 pages of documents for release through the Freedom of Information Act, which took time --
QUESTION: Well, the --
MR KIRBY: -- and effort and painstaking --
QUESTION: -- the language of it – the --
MR KIRBY: -- painstaking professionalism.
QUESTION: Okay, I --
MR KIRBY: There was no effort.
QUESTION: I respect that, but the language in the document is to archive it in the basement of this building. That's, I think, burying it.
MR KIRBY: There was no intent to bury that or any other document, and you can go on our website and see it for yourself. It's not – don't take my word for it – it's all out there. There was a very concerted effort to properly redact information in those documents, because we have to under the law, but there was no intent to bury or try to hide anything. And again, I think our actions speak much louder than my words when you just go to our website and look at it.
Okay, thanks everybody. I really do have to go, I appreciate it.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:17 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
