Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 25, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/VIETNAM
PAKISTAN
SYRIA/RUSSIA/TURKEY
VENEZUELA
NORTH KOREA/REGION
PHILIPPINES/REGION
ETHIOPIA
IRAQ/TURKEY/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS
PAKISTAN/REGION
MOROCCO
IRAN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:14 p.m. EDT
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: A couple things to start off with here. First, on Vietnam, I think you know the Secretary today met with Executive Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam Dinh The Huynh to discuss a range of bilateral and regional issues of mutual interest. Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to deepening the U.S.-Vietnam bilateral relationship. The Secretary and the executive secretary also discussed key bilateral priorities, including enhancing security cooperation, continuing our longstanding cooperation on war legacy issues, and deepening people-to-people ties. It was a good, fairly comprehensive set of discussions.
On Quetta, the United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific terrorist attack on the police training center in Quetta that claimed the lives of over 60 people. We extend our condolences, of course, to the victims and their families, including the police cadets who were embarking on careers of public service. We stand with the people of Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan in this very difficult hour, and we will continue to work with our partners in Pakistan and across the region to combat the threat of terrorism.
Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. Let's start with Syria. You may have seen, or probably have seen, that the Russians say that they're extending this non – this pause in bombing of eastern Aleppo. Have you?
MR KIRBY: I --
QUESTION: And if you have, do you --
MR KIRBY: I've seen the reports of it, yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any response, reaction?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I think --
QUESTION: Is it still too little, too late, or not enough, doesn't go far enough? What's the --
MR KIRBY: Well, as we've said repeatedly, that we obviously welcome any reduction in the violence, but it has to be met with a commitment and an actual delivery of humanitarian assistance, which was the purpose in the first place, and that still hasn't occurred. So of course, we welcome the stated intention to extend this pause and we hope that this extension, for however long it may be, will be more successful in terms of the intent and purpose than it has been thus far. I would add that we have continued to see violence in Aleppo despite the announced pauses, the humanitarian pauses in the past. There's still been violence.
QUESTION: Okay. So in the absence of knowing for sure whether or not it's going to work, whether or not the airstrikes actually do continue to be paused, and knowing – and an inability to know whether or not the humanitarian aid is going to get in, what is the Administration's plan? I realize the Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov yesterday, but it seems – it seems like there's some kind of an inertia here that you guys don't know what to do.
MR KIRBY: I think I'd challenge the premise of that. I think we know what to do. I think – in fact, I think what needs --
QUESTION: Well, what is it?
MR KIRBY: Well, what needs to be done is what we've said for a long time needs to be done: a sustainable, supportable cessation of hostilities that meets --
QUESTION: Well, yeah, that's the – but that's the goal, though. It's the getting there that --
MR KIRBY: Which is why our teams are in Geneva still talking multilaterally to try to get at exactly that solution. Look, what we've been seeing, or seeing announced, in the last few days has been these humanitarian pauses, and they kind of come in fits and starts, 48 hours here, 48 hours there. And even with the announced pauses, we still continue to see violence in Aleppo, and we've seen no aid getting in, and very few civilians leaving.
So I agree that we're in a bit of a static situation there in Aleppo, very much the same as it has been, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a plan going forward. And the Secretary has done little else but try to work on getting a plan in place that will give us a meaningful cessation of hostilities that will actually allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid, and that's why we're participating in these multilateral talks in Geneva.
QUESTION: Yeah, but the thing is, is that it's been almost a month, if not a month, since the last – since the September 9th agreement fell apart, while we were only – when we were in New York. And if there is a plan, it doesn't seem to be very clear what that plan is because nothing has happened and the situation, as you said, remains static, which "static" is bad, right?
MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: Well, that's what the – that's what the teams in Geneva are trying to do, is develop the plans, the framework for a cessation of hostilities that can actually take hold and allow for the – allow for the situation in Aleppo to improve, to change. That's why we're still engaged diplomatically on this.
But look, I mean, Matt, I'm not going to – I'm not going to dispute the fact that this has been extraordinarily difficult and that we haven't reached success in terms of a cessation of hostilities. And the Secretary would be the first to admit that he's frustrated about the lack of progress and about the fact that too many people in Aleppo are still being deprived food, water, medicine; too many are still being attacked by the regime and by their Russian backers. I mean, believe me, nobody wants to see the static situation change more than Secretary Kerry, which is why he's been staying in touch with our folks in Geneva and why he's very interested in seeing those talks bear some fruit with respect to a plan, a framework for a cessation of hostilities.
QUESTION: All right. So when was the last time that he was in touch with the people in Geneva?
MR KIRBY: I think he got an update today.
QUESTION: Well, can I follow up? I mean, as you know, there's these – there are these Russian warships kind of steaming towards the area and there's this supposition that Russia is trying to make – going to try to kind of end this and completely have Aleppo fall pretty soon. And are you concerned at all that Russian – the Russians are playing for time here in order to gain even more of an advantage on the ground while these negotiations are prolonged, as they – you've said that they have done before?
MR KIRBY: That's certainly a concern, Elise. I mean, it's difficult to know exactly what is in the mind of the Russian defense ministry and the Russian navy as this deployment continues into the Mediterranean. I can tell you what --
QUESTION: One of the largest deployments in decades, right?
MR KIRBY: I can tell you – well, I'd leave it to naval experts and the Russian navy specifically to quantify it.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, I know you have your State Department hat on now, but that doesn't mean that you weren't and aren't still a naval expert.
MR KIRBY: It is a sizeable deployment, but I am not an expert enough to be able to characterize it in terms of history. The point is – and the Secretary talked about this, this exact issue, when he said that while we don't know with great specificity what their plans are, if the plans are to just further complete the siege of Aleppo and the fall of Aleppo, then that's (a) counterproductive to the overall effort, diplomatic effort, which the Russians have said they supported; (b) it's going to be – it's going to just cause more war, attract more terrorists, deepen the civil war; and then (c) run absolutely against what should be the interest of Russia, which is to see an end to this war and a political solution, and that it's just going to embolden the opposition all the more to fight. So I can't speak for what the Russians are doing, but I think as I would echo back what the Secretary said, if that's their intention, then it's going to – in our view, if that's the intention, it will have the opposite effect.
QUESTION: I mean, has any progress been made in Geneva other than – I mean, as Matt pointed out, they've been meeting for a while now. And would you say, could you actually say, that there's been progress?
MR KIRBY: I would tell you I think by virtue of the fact that they're still meeting and talking in Geneva, I think you can derive from that that there are still gaps and seams, that there are still issues that remain to be resolved, that they are still areas of disagreement in this multilateral format. I don't want to get into the details of what they are. I mean, obviously we want to see these discussions succeed. I don't think getting up and publicly detailing all the areas of disagreement is very conducive to helping those talks go, so I'm going to refrain from doing that.
But I think by virtue of the fact that we don't have agreement here after so many days that it's safe to assume that there hasn't been significant progress. Now, I've been informed that there has been some progress on some issues, so I don't want to couch this as nothing but failure. There has been – on certain issues there have been – there has been some progress made, but there's obviously still more work to be done.
QUESTION: Is most of the – can you just give us some kind of idea? Is most of the negotiation taking place between the U.S. and Russia, or are all – is everyone in the same room trying to figure this out?
MR KIRBY: I don't know if everybody is in, like, one room or not. I don't have the optics there for you. But it is a multilateral discussion. This is not a bilateral negotiation between the United States and Russia. This is – as I said yesterday, this is a true multilateral format. And sometimes that makes these kinds of discussions a little bit more difficult because now you have more voices at the table, more perspectives to be weighed. But in the end, if you can get agreement, it also, because you have multiple perspectives there and more parties involved, if you get an agreement, our hope is that that would mean that the agreement will be more enforceable going forward.
QUESTION: How much does the U.S. --
QUESTION: Well, it's not that had that – you had a giant group, the whole ISSG with all the members, not that small – smaller group, the ISSG-minus that met in Lausanne. And that still didn't work.
MR KIRBY: No, I disagree, Matt. The purpose of the meeting in Lausanne was --
QUESTION: It --
MR KIRBY: The purpose of the meeting in Lausanne, and the Secretary said it himself --
QUESTION: Well, you can't disagree and admit that you haven't achieved, you haven't gotten to the goal that you want to yet.
MR KIRBY: Yes, I can. I actually can.
QUESTION: You had a group of more than 20 countries come together and agree on something that failed. So I don't see how when you're talking about multilateral it might make it harder to get an agreement, but once they do get an agreement, if that happens, that it's going to be stronger and much more effective, when you had a much larger group already agree to something that didn't happen.
MR KIRBY: I can --
QUESTION: Is that incorrect?
MR KIRBY: So I can still disagree with you. I think – because you're talking about Lausanne, and Lausanne – we got what we wanted out of Lausanne, which was to get a multilateral format together and agree on a path forward, and that path forward included discussions which are now going on in Geneva.
I agree with you in terms of the – in whatever format, whether it was U.S.-Russia bilateral, or multilateral through the ISSG, or even through subcomponents of the ISSG, I agree that we haven't reached our goal, which is a sustainable cessation of hostilities, and the delivery of humanitarian aid, and a resumption of political talks. No question. Not disputing that at all.
But what we're hoping, since we weren't able to get anything bilaterally going with the Russians that was of any success, because the Russians wouldn't meet their commitments – what we are hoping is in this new multilateral format – which is smaller than the ISSG – we're hoping that because it's multilateral, because it will encompass the views and perspectives of key partner nations involved in what's going on in Syria, that we can get something that you can sink your teeth into. But we're going to have to see. We're just going to have to see.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: But are the negotiations – may I? Are the negotiations progressing, though? It seems like you're having these negotiations and they don't even seem to be kind of inching closer to your goal, which, as you say, is a multilateral ceasefire. I mean, how much of this is a – like a Potemkin process where it's better to have no process than nothing at all?
MR KIRBY: I think we believe it's very much important to have a process of dialogue and discussion going forward.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So it's good to have a process of dialogue and discussion, but is that actually a negotiation that is leading to an outcome of a unilateral ceasefire, or is this just, as you say, a process of dialogue and being able to discuss these issues?
MR KIRBY: No, they are – they are discussing the very issue of reaching --
QUESTION: Are they negotiating?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think there's obviously some negotiation going on, and that's what they're doing right now. They're trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities that can be enduring and sustainable throughout the country. Obviously, key – a key part of that's Aleppo, but they want to go even broader than that and we've said that for many months now.
So as I said to Lesley, there has been some progress. I don't want to paint the discussions as a complete failure. There have been – there has been some progress made towards those goals, but there has obviously not been complete progress made. We haven't reached agreement. And in any negotiation, until everything's agreed upon, nothing's agreed upon. So there's still a lot of work to be done.
QUESTION: John, let me just follow up on – what is it exactly that you object to? I mean, I understand all the humanitarian and bloodshed that is ongoing and so on. But why do you object to the regime retaking eastern Aleppo? I mean, western Aleppo or the larger part of Aleppo lives in, I mean, relative peace and so on. The other towns that the regime has regained, life goes on, relatively so. What is it that you object to? Considering that a sizable number of Nusrah and other terrorist groups that you consider terrorist are actually in eastern Aleppo, so why do you object to the regime regaining Aleppo? Why is the --
MR KIRBY: What we object to, Said, is the violence – the violence against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And infrastructure in Aleppo and hospitals, first responders. What we object to is the violence. We want to see the violence end so that humanitarian aid can come in, and we want to see the resumption of political talks between the opposition and the regime. And we've long said – and yes, I recognize that back in February, when we achieved an ISSG agreement on the cessation of hostilities, and what we saw for a couple of months after that was a dramatic reduction in violence, something on the order of 70 to 80 percent, based on how you measure it. So it's possible to get there, and what we said back then was that we didn't want to see the regime taking or retaking additional territory. We wanted a freeze on the hostilities.
So that's what we're after here. And I think – you don't have to take my word for it; you can look at media coverage of what's going on in Aleppo – that efforts by the regime to retake a block, a street, a building – a part of the city, east, west, it doesn't matter – any effort is obviously going to lead to more violence and more death for the Syrian people.
QUESTION: So just to be clear, you believe that the regime, not by – not taking eastern Aleppo, they will be placed in a more, let's say, flexible negotiating position for the future? Is that it?
MR KIRBY: Who will be put in a more flexible --
QUESTION: The regime. Do you think that they are – they will be more flexible in terms of negotiating a transition, so --
MR KIRBY: I can't get inside the head of Bashar al-Assad. I've seen, obviously, that there are those who think that the continued siege of Aleppo is intended to provide more leverage at the negotiating table. Our view is that that's a false narrative, that all the siege of Aleppo is going to continue to do is inspire the opposition to fight back even harder and make it that much more difficult for anybody to agree to a cessation of hostilities and to get us to political talks.
QUESTION: Okay, so there's – I just want to understand. The sharing, let's say, of power in Aleppo – the eastern side being controlled by the opposition and the western side being controlled by the regime – is more conducive to a negotiated settlement? Is that what you think?
MR KIRBY: I didn't say that and we're not – I'm not parsing east Aleppo or west Aleppo. We're talking about the entire city of Aleppo here. That's our focus. We're not drawing a line on the map and saying, "You can have this," and, "You can have that." What we want to see is the siege of Aleppo stopped, we want to see the violence stopped, and we want to see the aid get in for everybody in Aleppo regardless of where they live.
QUESTION: And maintaining the status quo, maintaining the current status quo with forces on either side being entrenched where they are?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not an expert on what you call the status quo. What we want to see is the siege of Aleppo stopped, Said, and we want to see aid trucks move in. We don't want to have to see civilians make a difficult choice about whether they should leave or go or choose between Daesh and the Assad regime. They should be able to live peaceably and in their own town, in their own city, and shouldn't have to worry about the barrel bombs dropping from the sky. That's what we want to see.
This isn't about – again, I don't know what you mean by "status quo." If you mean, like, as of today, the situation of today, if we're going to start from today, that we would absolutely not consider that a great starting point here. I mean, look at what's going on in the city.
Abbie.
QUESTION: Can we go to a new subject?
QUESTION: There – could I do one more on Syria? There are reports of leaflets being dropped by the Syrian armed forces that read, "This is the last hope. Rescue yourself. If you don't withdraw from this area urgently, we will finish you. We left a secure passage for your exit. Hurry up to take the decision and save yourselves. You know that everybody let you down and left you alone to face your fate. Nobody will help you."
Does this sound like someone who's open to negotiations in the context of what's going on in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the – seen that, but let's for a second just assume that it's accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that it is. It's indicative of the brutality that we have continued to see out of the Assad regime and its backers, and it's indicative of what many people believe they're trying to do, which is to take Aleppo by force, by siege. Now, whether that's to buy space at a negotiating table or whether it's to make it clear evidence that they have no intention to negotiate at all, I don't know. But it's – it is that mentality that is driving us forward with a sense of urgency to try to get a cessation of hostilities that can be enforced and sustained, particularly in Aleppo. We obviously want to see it throughout the country, but particularly in Aleppo.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
QUESTION: This is extremely – I just want to – you used the phrase, when you're talking about the Lausanne format or the Lausanne group, you used the phrase "key partner nations."
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So that's Iran and Russia? Does the Administration really regard them as partner nations in Syria?
MR KIRBY: They have been – they're members of the ISSG, Matt.
QUESTION: So --
MR KIRBY: So I mean, in terms of the Syria --
QUESTION: Even though your goals – you say your goals are diametrically opposed to those of Iran and Russia, you consider them to be partners?
MR KIRBY: They're partner nations in terms of the discussions on Syria, but obviously we have major differences with Iran and with Russia on a number of matters. I don't think you should read more into that --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- than I meant. What I meant was in the context of trying to get a cessation of hostilities in Syria.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Syria, you addressed yesterday as well – and you sent some tweets on the Turkish-backed FSA forces clashing with the Syrian Kurds on the Afrin side. My question is the fundamental question, is that the both sides are trying to get to al-Bab. Do you have a position on that, whether you have a position the Turkish-backed forces or the Syrian Kurds should take it from ISIS?
MR KIRBY: I dealt with this a few days ago and the exact question, and I said what our position is: We want all members of the coalition to focus on our common enemy, which is Daesh. And I'm not going to make a battlefield assessment here from this podium about al-Bab or any other city. What we want to see is that all the members of the coalition, including Syrian fighters as well as Turkey and any other nation, to focus less on uncoordinated military activity, which is not part of the coalition plan, and focus, in fact, on a coalition plan, which is to degrade and defeat Daesh.
QUESTION: How do you think these Turkey-backed forces clashing with the Kurds – both of them anti-ISIL forces – affecting coalition work against ISIS so far?
MR KIRBY: As I've said many times, that we want to see the focus put on Daesh and that efforts that are uncoordinated and are not focused on Daesh are, by definition, going to be counterproductive to that goal.
QUESTION: Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu today said that U.S. partnering with Syrian YPG forces and ask you directly, the U.S. Government, are you trying to create a terrorist state, then we see you as terror-sponsoring state, as – addressing you. Do you have a comment?
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the foreign minister's comments, so I think I'm going to refrain from a reaction until I see it. But I think that it's evident and clear that the United States, as a leader of this coalition against Daesh, has been investing a lot of time, talent, resources and energy towards degrading and defeating this group. And we have a longstanding record of counterterrorism efforts and success to back us up on that.
QUESTION: And the Turkish prime minister said that half of the ammunition and weapons that they've been seizing from PKK inside Turkey turn out to be those ammunition and weapons given by U.S. to YPG.
MR KIRBY: As I've said many times from this podium, we don't provide weapons and arms and materiel to the YPG. And the PKK is a terrorist group.
QUESTION: Can we move to Venezuela, please?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So you might not know, because it just happened as the briefing was started, but Venezuela's opposition legislature has voted to begin the political trial against Maduro. This has been going on all day, but they obviously just voted. The government has said the move is meaningless. What is your general view about the fact that they're now going to put – they're going to impeach Maduro, if they can. And at the same time as yesterday, when they – the sides announced peace talks. Where – how do you see it? Do you think that the political trial should continue alongside the peace talks? Do you think it's even possible?
MR KIRBY: Lesley, I haven't seen that report, so I'm going to refrain from a reaction here from the podium until I – we can have a chance to consult with the bureau on that. We'll take that question and get back to you. But in general, as I said yesterday, we want to continue to see dialogue between the government and the opposition to move the country forward. And there's nothing changed about our overall position with respect to that. But you're going to have to let me take that question, because I just haven't seen that report.
QUESTION: At the same time – there's another link to this – is that the Swiss has given the U.S. 51 million in frozen assets from PDVSA, the petroleum company of Venezuela, because of an investigation that the U.S. is doing. Is any of this – or all of it tied? I mean, would you see this investigation as a means of pushing these sides together?
MR KIRBY: I don't have – I'm afraid I just don't have anything on that either.
QUESTION: You do not --
MR KIRBY: Let me take the question and get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I just don't have details on that.
QUESTION: One on North Korea.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The DNI James Clapper just recently said, I think in – just minutes ago, that the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearize is a lost cause, because that's their ticket to survival. Is that an Administration-wide assessment, and – I mean, I would think that would factor into the diplomacy that you're working on with South Korea and Japan and others.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen the comments. What I can tell you is --
QUESTION: I'm quoting him.
MR KIRBY: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: I'm quoting him.
MR KIRBY: I have no doubt that you are. But I haven't seen them, so – and you have the benefit of your smartphone and I don't. But --
QUESTION: No, but I mean, it doesn't – I mean --
MR KIRBY: But Elise, nothing has changed about our policy with respect to the North and that we want to continue to see a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. We want to see a return to the Six-Party Talk process, and that means we need to see the North show a willingness and an ability to return to that process, which they haven't done yet. So I can't speak to that. What I can tell you is our policy, with respect to North Korea's provocations and the resolve of the United States and the international community to try to put adequate pressure on them to change their behavior, has not changed and remains the same.
QUESTION: So you haven't given up on the idea that North Korea might denuclearize or there's something that you could do --
MR KIRBY: We haven't given up on the --
QUESTION: No, I know that you want to see that. Like I'm – put aside your – what you'd like to see and talk about what you're trying to effect.
MR KIRBY: They're the same.
QUESTION: And have you given up on the idea that you will be able to get North Korea to denuclearize.
MR KIRBY: They're the same. What we'd like to see is what we want to get.
QUESTION: No, it's not. No, it's not. No, it's absolutely not the same.
MR KIRBY: The answer is – it is the same.
QUESTION: What I would like to see is a lot different than what I think I'm going to get a lot of times.
MR KIRBY: What you'd – (laughter) --
QUESTION: Or what you actually get.
QUESTION: Or what I actually get. Especially at this --
QUESTION: You can't always get what you want.
QUESTION: Especially at this briefing. (Laughter.) Especially in this briefing room. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: The short answer to your question is no.
QUESTION: Yeah, (inaudible.)
MR KIRBY: No. Nothing's changed about --
QUESTION: So it is not an Administration – well, I'm just saying, like, it is not an Administration-wide conclusion that it is a losing proposition to try and get North Korea – a lost cause.
MR KIRBY: It is – that is not our position. No. We continue to want – we continue – our policy objective is to seek – to obtain a verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That is the policy.
QUESTION: Because giving --
MR KIRBY: That is both the goal and what we want to see, and there's a way to do that, right? There's a way to do that, through them stopping their provocative activities and a return to the Six-Party talks process, and we're still committed to that process. So I can't speak for the director's comments – haven't seen them. But if you're asking me as a result of that – of the quote you read, if our policy has changed with respect to the DPRK, the answer is no.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Go to Iraq.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Deputy Secretary Blinken is now in Asia for talks related to North Korea and --
MR KIRBY: I think he's on his way.
QUESTION: On his way --
MR KIRBY: He left this morning; I don't think he's there yet.
QUESTION: On his way to Asia this week for talks. Can you tell us a little bit more about what the focus of his meetings will be, both in the trilateral consultations in Tokyo and also in the meetings in Seoul?
MR KIRBY: I actually talked about this yesterday in quite some detail, so I think I'd just refer you back to what we said yesterday in terms of his trip and his objectives. We laid that out yesterday.
QUESTION: So a little bit more specifically on the trilateral consultations in Tokyo?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get ahead of specific discussions. I think the trilateral discussions are something that – we had trilateral discussions that the UN General Assembly up in New York. There's obviously a full agenda of issues to talk about in that format, and again, I'm not going to get ahead of the deputy secretary's meetings. But obviously issues of peninsular security and improved defense and security cooperation, as well as a whole host of economic issues are at play. And I think you can expect that those same kinds of discussions will ensue when he gets into the region. But I just – again, I went through it with – in pretty good detail yesterday of who he was meeting with and what he was doing, so I'd refer you back to that.
QUESTION: Okay. And then one more. Ambassador Joseph Yun was recently appointed as the special representative of North Korea policy and replacing Ambassador Sung Kim. Can you tell us whether he'll be participating in meetings in – related to North Korea this week?
MR KIRBY: I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that. I just have – we'll have to get an answer for you – don't have it.
QUESTION: Iraq.
PARTICIPANT: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: So then will his --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry. And then will his priorities --
QUESTION: Can we stay in Asia?
MR KIRBY: Yep. I'm sorry. You had another one?
QUESTION: Sorry. Just one more. (Laughter.) And will his priorities be shifting at all from Ambassador Kim?
MR KIRBY: I think that you can safely assume that he's going to continue the great work that Ambassador Kim did with the same energy, the same effort, the same focus. I don't think that there's anything that – there's not going to be a policy shift as a result, but I'm not going to speak for his – how he's going to go about doing his job. I know he's excited to get started, but I can – I think you can safely assume that he'll continue the strong legacy of hard work and dedication to that effort as the ambassador – as Ambassador Kim did.
Asia?
QUESTION: Yes. Can we stay in Asia and go to the Philippines?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Because apparently, the president – President Duterte is not listening to you, is not calming down, reacting to Assistant Secretary's Russel visit to the Philippines, and reacting to your own statement. He said – I'm quoting him, "Americans are really crazy," and reacting to Danny Russel's comments about the – about foreign investors being worried. He said they have to pack up and leave. So I'd like to know, what's your options now? Are you going to continue to be insulted by your closest ally in Southeast Asia or are you going to take some actions against the Philippines?
MR KIRBY: Again, nothing has changed from our view, in terms of the close relationship that we have and expect to continue to have with both the government in the Philippines and the Filipino people. As I've said over the last several days, we've seen these comments. They are at odds – inexplicably at odds – with this relationship that we continue to enjoy. And you've already seen cases where the president himself and even some of his cabinet officials have walked back some of these statements. In fact, just today I'd point you to comments made by the president's spokesman himself about the issue of businesses, where the president's spokesman himself walked that back just today, that there's no intention to harm the U.S.-Philippines economic relationship or the presence of American businesses there. So even just in the wake of him saying it, his own spokesman walked that back.
So – and this is a pattern we've seen, so we're not going to react and respond to every bit of rhetoric. We're going to continue to work at this relationship. We're going to continue to meet our obligations under the defense treaty. And as I said yesterday and I think I've said for several days now, that despite the rhetoric, we haven't seen any policy traction behind it; in other words, there hasn't been any change, tangible changes, to the policies and to the programs that both our nations are implementing and executing on a daily basis.
QUESTION: And even the context of the entire drugs war and the context of the rhetoric, there is no discussion, conversation within this building or between the White House and the State Department and the Pentagon to put on hold some part of the security cooperation between the two countries?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such discussions. And I'd obviously encourage you to talk to my colleagues at the Pentagon, but I'm not aware of any such discussions to change the nature of the military-to-military relationship or the security assistance that is being provided to the Philippines right now.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that with the Philippines. So I know that you said yesterday as far as Assistant Secretary Russel's discussions that – that we're going to be able to work through this period and continue to be able to meet our mutual requirements to one another. But Duterte is going to be in power for six years, so how does the State Department – like, how are they going to be able to keep going like this back and forth between what he says, and then oh no, he didn't really mean that, and --
MR KIRBY: I never said oh no, he didn't really mean that. What I've said is --
QUESTION: Oh no, I mean his – his counterparts.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can't – I can't speak for President Duterte and I can't speak for his cabinet officials. All I can, again, restate is that we've seen this rhetoric and then we've seen it walked back. And just today, just the one that Nic read to me, shortly thereafter his spokesman walked that exact statement back. So rather than – I guess the way I'd answer this question is we're going to take the long view, okay? And the long view, in our mind, is a sustained, healthy, vibrant bilateral relationship with the people and the government of the Philippines. That's what we've had for 70-some-odd years, and that's what we expect to have for 70-plus more years in the future. And so that's where our focus is on. We're looking at the horizon. We're looking long-term here. And --
QUESTION: It sounds like you're saying you're going to work around him for the next six years.
MR KIRBY: No, not at all. Not at all. What I'm saying is that he is – he's the elected head of state, and we've got a treaty alliance with his nation, and we're going to meet those requirements. And we're going to continue to work at this bilateral relationship, and we're going to respect that he's the head of state; of course we are. And we're going to work just as hard through his administration as we would – as we have in the past through previous ones. So that's – that's where our head space is right now, is on the – is on the – not just the long history in this relationship but what we expect will be a long future. Does that make sense?
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. So President Duterte is in Japan. Do you have any hopes or expectations that the discussions there will sort of bring him back into the fold of the alliance sort of temporarily?
MR KIRBY: He's not outside the fold of the alliance.
QUESTION: That perhaps, like, the discussions there would sort of clarify that relationship and maybe temper his rhetoric?
MR KIRBY: I don't – we don't have any special expectations for his visit to Tokyo, and I would let the president and his staff speak for his trip and his agenda and what he intends to accomplish there. We didn't lay expectations on that. As I just said, our expectations are that we're going to continue to abide by this treaty alliance and by our relationship going forward. We are taking a long view here. And obviously, as the head of state, we would expect that he would travel in the region or throughout the world to meet – to meet with his neighbors or other nations. That's certainly his right as president. So we obviously welcome these discussions, as we did when he went to Beijing, and we'll see what comes out of it. But we didn't lay expectations in advance of it. That wasn't our goal at all.
Yeah.
QUESTION: If I could ask about Ethiopia. The communications minister has called the State Department's Travel Advisory absolutely ridiculous, says everything is coming back to normal, and that the state of emergency there is comparable to the U.S. Patriot Act. I'm wondering if you could respond to his assessment of the Travel Advisory and the – whether you think the current conditions in Ethiopia perhaps need to be looked at again.
MR KIRBY: Well, we don't – look, we don't issue travel warnings lightly. And when we update them, we do so with great care, because we know people pay attention to them. We want people to pay attention to them. The whole reason we do that is to help inform American citizens about their presence or their travel in various parts of the world, and Ethiopia is no exception.
We have – you may have seen my statement on their declared state of emergency. We continue to be troubled by the impact of the government's decision to authorize detention without warrant and to further limit freedom of expression, including by blocking internet access, prohibiting public gatherings, and imposing curfews. And this declaration, as I said in my statement, if implemented in these ways, would further enshrine the type of response that has failed to ameliorate the recent political crisis.
So again, this was an updated Travel Warning, but we felt in light of what their own state of emergency declared it was the prudent thing to do. And we do that with nations all over the world.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: On Iraq.
MR KIRBY: Where?
QUESTION: Iraq.
MR KIRBY: Okay, sure.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Said is being a gentleman.
QUESTION: I appreciate that. Thank you. So the Turkish foreign minister said today that they could launch a ground operation in Iraq. You've talked a lot about how Turkey is a key NATO ally. How does the U.S. feel about that?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm a little reticent to talk about military operations here, but in this case what I'll – what I would say is that, as we have made clear from the beginning of this fight against Daesh, that all military activity should be coordinated as part of the larger Iraqi effort to expel Daesh from their cities, their towns, their communities. And any nation's participation in that effort we want to be done by, through, and with the Iraqi Government's express permission and coordination.
QUESTION: So Turkey's involvement without their express permission and coordination would complicate that effort?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to, again, speculate for what Turkey will or won't do. But as I've again said many times, that any – we would – we believe that any effort outside, done in an uncoordinated fashion, is ultimately counterproductive to the overarching goal of defeating and degrading Daesh inside Iraq. We want all military activities to be coordinated and with the permission and approval of the Iraqi Government.
QUESTION: All right. Just one more quick one on Iraq. Has State begun any discussions about the presence of U.S. forces after ISIS is pushed out of Mosul?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of such discussions. Again, we – our forces are there in a limited number and for a very express purpose; that is, to train, advise, and assist Iraqi Security Forces. And I'm not aware that there has been any discussion or decision made post the defeat of ISIS. Obviously, we'll continue to consult and coordinate with the Iraqi Government going forward. We are there at their invitation and with their permission, and every decision that the President has made with respect to force levels has been done in very close consultation with Prime Minister Abadi before that decision has been reached, and certainly before it has been announced. I think that that'll be the case going forward, whether the number goes up or goes down.
But the other thing I'd say to your question is there's still a healthy, long fight ahead of us in terms of defeating Daesh inside Iraq. Mosul is obviously a key objective, and when it is taken – and it will be taken – it will be a major blow to the organization. But it doesn't mean that they are – at that point the fight's over and that – and it's done. There's still going to be work to be done in Iraq. And again, what the shape of that looks like going forward is really up to Prime Minister Abadi.
QUESTION: On Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just on the same Turkey-Iraq tensions, so it seems you're saying that if any – any work by any outside country such as Turkey in Iraq is not coordinated with the Iraqi Government, it's counterproductive to your fight against ISIS. I just wonder why isn't the United State making – voicing a more forceful concern against Turkey to reverse what it has done. Because it seems that you just voice your concern and Turkey keeps doing and keeps staying in Iraq without the invitation or the consent of the Iraqi Government, and while you are explicitly saying that this is counterproductive to your fight against ISIS.
MR KIRBY: I said any uncoordinated military activity would be counterproductive. Your question assumes that they've taken this activity. And I don't know that they have.
QUESTION: Well, the Iraqi Government says that they have.
MR KIRBY: I've seen what they've said. And as I've said I don't know how many times before, we want Turkey and Iraq to work this out bilaterally and to have a discussion and a dialogue. And they have. And as I – we understand it, they continue to have that dialogue. Now, the degree to which they agree or disagree, I don't know. That's for officials in both countries to speak to. We've been very clear – we've been clear here publicly, right here in this briefing room, and we've been clear privately in discussions with many governments involved in this fight against Daesh about what the best way forward, from a military effectiveness perspective, is, and that is to work by, through, and with the Iraqi Government, to have things coordinated with the government in Baghdad. We've been nothing but clear about that.
And then you're asking me to, again, speculate about Turkey's intentions here, and I just can't do that. I can tell you we've made it very clear what our position is directly to Turkish officials. We've certainly made it clear publicly many, many times. I don't know how better to articulate that. But Turkish officials and Iraqi officials should, we continue to believe, should sit down and discuss this and have a meaningful dialogue towards the best and most effective way forward.
QUESTION: Well, it seems that Turkey's paying no attention. But on another issue, the IDPs in Iraq. Now some cities, including Kirkuk, are apparently refusing to accept IDPs from Mosul. Are you concerned that these IDPs might have nowhere to go?
MR KIRBY: We have long been concerned about the issue of internally displaced persons in Iraq as a result of military operations, and well before the campaign to take back Mosul started, because we've seen internally displaced people throughout Iraq over the last couple of years. So it's something that we have been in routine discussion with the Iraqi Government on. It's something, as I said yesterday, USAID has been very, very focused on, in terms of additional assistance that we have provided to the Government of Iraq to deal with this. And we'll continue to monitor that situation, and if there's a need for additional assistance, even beyond what we've given, I'm sure we'll consider that. But we are very focused on this. And we're not the only ones. The international community is as well, and I can assure you Prime Minister Abadi is.
I can't speak for individual communities and whether they've decided to or not to accept people that are trying to flee the danger. But I think, look, every Iraqi citizen has a stake in the future of their country, and the future of their country right now is very much dependent on the effort to degrade and defeat Daesh inside Iraq. And so this is something that, at least from the U.S. perspective, we're going to continue to stay lashed up with Prime Minister Abadi on.
Okay. Said's been very patient. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, very quickly?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Okay. The Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman gave an interview to a Palestinian newspaper in which he reiterated his positions that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace, that they should not be dismantled in any way, none of them, that he wants to maintain a military presence all over the West Bank, especially in the Jordan Valley, that he wants to have Hamas completely disarmed before lifting the siege and so on. And I wonder if you have any comments on that, because it was quite belligerent and, in fact, paints a very bleak road ahead for any kind of negotiated settlement.
MR KIRBY: Well, there's an awful lot there. And as I've said --
QUESTION: Well, he said a great deal.
MR KIRBY: I know. I understand that. And I'm loath to react to every comment made, as I've said before. But look, our position on settlements hasn't changed. It's not just our position – look at the Quartet report – that the further pursuit of settlements is not at all a productive way forward to getting to a two-state solution. The Quartet report lays that out very clearly.
On Hamas, we consider them to be a foreign terrorist organization. We --
QUESTION: A foreign terrorist organization? Hamas is a foreign terrorist --
MR KIRBY: We consider Hamas to be a foreign terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, all right. Have they --
MR KIRBY: So I mean, our position hasn't changed --
QUESTION: -- ever conducted attacks on the United States of America in any way?
MR KIRBY: Look, we consider them to be --
QUESTION: Hamas operates within Gaza.
MR KIRBY: We consider them to be a foreign terror organization, Said. And so I'm not going to respond to every bit of rhetoric, but on our position on these issues hasn't changed. And what we continue to want to see is leadership on all sides there in the region to take the affirmative steps that are needed to get to a two-state solution, which we believe is still possible.
QUESTION: Now, speaking to the leadership on both sides, Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, has an op-ed piece today in The Washington Post in which he's saying that your position – I mean, he gives a phrase, when you condemn the settlements. But he basically called it recycled positions lacking any genuine action on the ground. Do you have any response to that?
MR KIRBY: I've seen the op-ed piece. Again, our position on settlements, as you know, is longstanding and clear. And with regard to the future, at this point – and I think we've said this before too – we continue to work with the international community to try and advance our shared goal of achieving a negotiated two-state solution, which we believe is the only way to a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.
QUESTION: Can you point to the Palestinian negotiator that, in fact, your position on settlement did have an effect on the – on Israeli actions and activities?
MR KIRBY: Can I – I'm sorry, can I point --
QUESTION: Can you show the Palestinian negotiator that, in fact, he's wrong, and that your positions on the settlement did have an impact on Israel's behavior?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think what matters is that our position has been steady and that it hasn't changed. And what really is going to matter in terms of changes in behavior is the leadership there. And that's what we need to see, is leadership there. And that's why the Secretary's going to continue to work at this for the remainder of the time that he's in office.
QUESTION: Speaking of settlements – this happened last week, I don't – I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there was an incident in which four Palestinians were invited to a settlement, a religious celebration in a settlement. They met with some of the leaders of this community and then when they left, they were then arrested by the Palestinians for consorting with the enemy or some such kind of thing. Do you – were you aware of that? And if you are, do you have anything to say about it?
MR KIRBY: We are aware of it. I think we're still looking into the exact details of it. But in general, we certainly encourage any efforts to promote people-to-people dialogue and understanding, and we're deeply concerned by any efforts to intimidate individuals who participate in those kinds of activities.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV. Sir, yesterday we have seen your statement about the terrorist attack at the police cadet training center in Quetta, Pakistan. Sir, whenever this happens, the accusations go towards India; whenever such thing happens in India, accusations are on Pakistan; something happens in Pakistan, accusations go to Afghanistan. So we have seen this blame game since long. Sir, every country claimed that it bring the peace to their region, but so far nothing is working out. So what are your suggestions, sir, to the countries of that region? What should they do? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: What are my suggestions for the region? Look, first of all, as I said at the top, our thoughts and prayers go out to all those who were affected by this. And remember that many of the victims were police cadets, young people who were training and learning to defend their fellow citizens. So obviously this is a cowardly, lethal, horrific attack. And sadly, it's not the first time that the people of Pakistan have fallen victim to terrorism. Many soldiers have died, many civilians have died. This isn't some theoretical exercise for the Pakistani people; it's right there. Not in their backyard, in their front yard.
And so we remain committing – committed, I'm sorry, to supporting the Government of Pakistan in its efforts to end the scourge of terrorism and violent extremism and to promote peace and stability. And it is a regional issue. So the shortest way to answer your question is we're going to continue to work with regional countries, regional partners, to deal with this because it is a common threat to everybody. And it requires common, comprehensive, collaborative solutions. And that's what we're going to continue to seek.
QUESTION: Sir, secondly it's about a Pakistani family in Islamabad awaiting a U.S. visa for their ailing little girl, Maria, six years old, running out of time to get her to treatment. She has some rare disease and a U.S. hospital has offered free surgery that could help her, but the American embassy in Islamabad has so far twice – they refused to give the family visas. Sir, have you any idea about what's really going on about this? And can she get the visa? Because the surgery date is November 2.
MR KIRBY: Look, I've seen reports that the visas have been approved for the family, but visa – but to be clear, visa records are confidential by U.S. law and so I'm unable to comment on the specifics of any individual visa case.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) a planned sit-in Pakistan – sit-in protests by Pakistani political party Tehreek-e-Insaf in front of Parliament House Islamabad. The protests seek the resignation of Prime Minister Sharif resignation, and U.S. has always, always supported democratic system in anywhere. So how much concerns U.S. has if something happens, like a military interaction and like General Musharraf did – General Musharraf did in 1999?
MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to speculate here and hypothesize about those sorts of outcomes. We support the democratically elected Government of Pakistan. We also support the peaceful right of protest. But this is an internal matter for the Pakistani Government and Pakistani authorities to speak to.
QUESTION: So final question is regarding Afghanistan. There is three leaders from Taliban Qatar office arrived in Pakistan to discuss the arrest of several Taliban leaders in Pakistan, including Mullah Nanai, who served as intelligence chief under Mullah Mansour.
MR KIRBY: I don't – I mean, we – hang on a second. So on this one I'd refer you to the Government of Pakistan specifically for this issue. We've seen some press reporting on it, but look, our view on this hasn't changed. We believe that Pakistan can directly contribute to regional stability by acting against militants on Pakistani soil who seek to attack its neighbors.
Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: I've got time for just a couple more. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just a quick question related to some of the WikiLeaks fallout over the last week. Just specifically, can you tell us during Secretary Clinton's tenure here at State that the Government of Morocco was not provided with any special treatment or gifts, monetary or otherwise, any kind of special aid?
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for every action or decision made during that time frame. What I can tell you is that you can go on our budget, and the aid and assistance that we give countries is all a matter of public record. You can go on and look at the budget and the – and what sort of aid and assistance Morocco gets. It's all there for the public. But I don't have – with respect to these documents, I'm not going to speak to the veracity of leaked documents, number one. And two, I just don't think that that would be a productive discussion to have.
So, kay.
QUESTION: Oh wait. No, no. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: Wait, before you go into your final two or three, we'll go to Abbie.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on reports of a U.S. citizen, Robin Shahini, being sentenced to 18 years in Iran?
QUESTION: That was mine.
MR KIRBY: Oh, all right.
QUESTION: So there you go. Number one.
MR KIRBY: We are troubled by reports that Robin or Reza Shahini, a person reported to be a U.S. citizen, may have been convicted and sentenced to 18 years in prison. We reaffirm our calls on Iran to respect and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, cease arbitrary and politically motivated detentions, and ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings in all criminal prosecutions consistent with its laws and its international obligations.
QUESTION: So can I follow up on that?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: This keeps happening over and over and over – over again. I'm presuming that the Secretary is still taking the opportunity, whenever he speaks to Foreign Minister Zarif, to raise cases of detained and missing Americans in Iran. Is that true? Is my presumption correct?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: So has it crossed any – has it – excuse me. Has it yet – I realize that you guys are insistent and make a case, make an argument, that the sequencing of what happened in terms – in January and the release of the U.S. prisoners and the return of the money to Iran, that that money was not a ransom. But given the fact that this keeps happening – American or Iranian Americans keep being arrested and keep being convicted in Iran, has it occurred to anyone here that despite your best efforts to convince the Iranians and the rest of the world that these payments weren't ransom, that in fact, they regard them as ransom, and they have had the effect – or the payments have had the effect of this kind of thing continuing to happen?
MR KIRBY: Matt, I can't possibly get into the head – heads of Iranian officials. I can't speak to their motivations on this. What I can say, again, is that we do not pay ransom. We don't pay ransom. We didn't then, we don't now, we're not going to change that policy going forward. And we're going to continue to raise our concerns with Iranian officials about the detained citizens there. That's not going to stop. We're also going to continue to call on Iran to respect and protect human rights and to ensure fair and transparent judicial proceedings. I would remind you that we continue to maintain sanctions related to Iran's human rights abuses. We continue to support the annual UN General Assembly resolution and the mandate for the UN special rapporteur --
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: -- on human rights in Iran – let me finish. And we address human rights violations and abuses in the international religious freedom, human rights, and trafficking in persons reports.
So nobody's turning a blind eye here, but what may be behind this, I don't think any of us know with certainty.
QUESTION: Right, but are you at least able to conceive of the idea that an Iranian perception – if in fact, there is one, but that – a perception in Iran that they successfully took and held Americans, then released them, and at the same time received millions and millions and millions of dollars in cash – that the perception – their perception of that being perhaps ransom is contributing to what is the continued arrest and conviction of American citizens in their country?
MR KIRBY: I would say, again, I can't speak to the motivation behind these detentions, but if there's a perception out there if one of the motivations were to secure ransom, it is a false perception. It is wrong. It is – we are not going to – we haven't changed our policy, we're not going to change it forward. So if somebody in Iran thinks that that's what's behind this or that that's what makes for good decisions, they are patently wrong.
QUESTION: Well, John, there's also a report that Iran wants a $4 million ransom in exchange for Nazar Zaka. This is the Lebanese citizen and permanent resident of the United States that, by the way, was on a job as a U.S. contractor when he was taken.
MR KIRBY: I think we've already spoken to his – to this particular case, but --
QUESTION: No, I know you've spoken about the case, but the Iranians now want $4 million for his release.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that.
QUESTION: So it just goes to Matt's point that --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report.
QUESTION: -- they see these Americans as cash cows and it's only likely to continue.
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, but again, I go back to what I said: If there is – if the motivation is driven by, quote/unquote, "ransom," it's a false motivation.
QUESTION: Are you looking to strengthen your travel warnings? I mean, I know that there's already travel warnings out for Americans traveling.
MR KIRBY: The travel warnings are already pretty starkly written with respect to Iran.
QUESTION: Well, is there anything – do you have any – they keep seizing these Americans. Is there anything you can do --
MR KIRBY: I think we've been nothing but honest with the American people about the risks of travel to Iran.
Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: You say, though, that this is false motivation, but anyone – whatever the motivation is, it's their motivation. It's not yours to say that it's incorrect.
MR KIRBY: Which is why I said I couldn't speak to their motivation, Matt, but that doesn't mean that --
QUESTION: I know, but you only say that if someone --
MR KIRBY: But I'm – let me disabuse anybody in Iran that thinks that if the reason for --
QUESTION: Yes, please do.
MR KIRBY: -- detaining American citizens is to achieve a ransom; I want to disabuse them of that notion – that that is not --
QUESTION: So they're not going to get any more – there are no more prisoner swaps that are going to involve money?
MR KIRBY: We're – we are always working to obtain the release of Americans detained unjustly in Iran. I'm not going to speak to our efforts in that regard, but we do not pay ransom, and that policy's not going to change.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thank you.
QUESTION: How many Americans are there? Do you know?
MR KIRBY: I am not at liberty to discuss that. Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:16 p.m.)
DPB # 182
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
