• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 27, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL/IRELAND/LONDON
KENYA
SYRIA/RUSSIA/TURKEY
MIDDLE EAST REGION
CHINA/NORTH KOREA
INDIA/PAKISTAN
NORTH KOREA
REPUBLIC OF KOREA / JAPAN
BURUNDI
HAITI/UNITED NATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:17 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon. Just a short travel announcement here, and we'll get right after it. I think you probably saw our announcement, but the Secretary will be traveling to Tipperary, Ireland on the 30th of October, where he will meet with the Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and a range of regional and global issues. While he's there, the Secretary will also accept the Tipperary International Peace Award, which will be awarded by the Tipperary Peace Convention to honor the Secretary's efforts to end conflicts in a number of countries.

The Secretary will then travel to London on the 31st to meet with international counterparts for a discussion about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support for the Government of National Accord. While he's there, he will also accept two awards, the Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize, which I think we've already talked a little bit about.

And as you know, the Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for significant contributions to the improvement of international relations. The Secretary was named the 2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The medal recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin Franklin's footsteps by exemplifying great vision, cross-cultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual rigor.

While he's in London, the Secretary will also have an opportunity to sit down with the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and, together with the mayor, engage in a discussion with London youth on current issues, including climate change and countering violent extremism.

So it's a short trip but lots going on inside of it, and the Secretary is looking forward to that. They will leave Saturday evening.

QUESTION: Will he be home in time for Thanksgiving – for – not for Thanksgiving, for Halloween – excuse me?

MR KIRBY: I don't think – I think he's going to miss trick-or-treating. I'll take a look at --

QUESTION: But he's being honored for public service and human rights and --

MR KIRBY: But he's going to miss out on the M&Ms and the candy bars.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I don't think he's going to make it back in time for that.

Matt.

QUESTION: I just wanted – you've seen the reports, the news about this shooting outside the embassy in Nairobi?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: I'm just wondering if you can offer us any details that you might have about what happened there.

MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me get you that. Where is it, Elizabeth? Here it is, right on the top. I looked in Africa; she put it right in top under American citizens.

So we can confirm that there was a shooting incident today near our U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. Kenyan security personnel responded swiftly, and the incident appears now to be over. No embassy personnel were injured in this attack, and we know of no other U.S. citizens that were involved. The embassy is closed for the evening, and the ambassador and senior staff are reviewing their operations for tomorrow. Obviously, we're going to continue to closely monitor the situation, and we will release information as needed to help U.S. citizens make informed travel decisions.

Last thing I'll say is it's obviously very early here in the wake of this incident and the investigation by Kenyan authorities is just now starting. So we'll be in close communication with Kenyan authorities as they look at this, and we're going to obviously await the results of that investigation to assess any possible follow-on actions by the embassy.

QUESTION: But you have no idea as to the motive of this – the guy who was – why he was there, what he --

MR KIRBY: I don't have anything that I can report specifically about motive or what the intention was.

QUESTION: Can you be clear just on – our reporting at least says that a knife-wielding man whom Kenyan police described as a criminal was shot dead outside the embassy in Nairobi. You described it as a shooting incident. I just want to be clear. The – is it your understanding that there were shots exchanged, or was this, as we've been told, a man with a knife who was shot dead by security personnel?

MR KIRBY: My understanding is, early on, that the individual was brandishing a knife and it was security forces which engaged with gunfire. But again, very early on. I think we need to let the investigators do their job. But that's my early understanding.

QUESTION: And it's your understanding that he was – that the man was indeed killed?

MR KIRBY: That's my understanding, that the man brandishing the knife was killed by security forces.

QUESTION: And then last thing. And I realize you said that it's early in the investigation, but do – as of now, do you have any reason to suspect that the man had links to terrorist or militant groups?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't know. I've seen the press reporting of what he is reported to have exclaimed right before security forces engaged, but I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy of that. I don't know. And I don't know at all what motivations might have been behind this. Why don't we just let the investigators do their jobs? Okay?

Matt, did you have something else?

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to get at the – what has become the daily non-update/update, I guess, on the discussions about Syria, and in particular the situation in Aleppo, the discussions that are going on in Geneva, but also if there have been any additional conversations.

MR KIRBY: The meetings in Geneva continue. I don't have anything specifically to read out. They're still talking. We still have gaps we're trying to close, and I don't have additional conversations to read out with respect to the Secretary.

QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about that Amnesty International report.

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR KIRBY: About the civilian casualties?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: This is about the report that the Pentagon's under-counting? Is that the one you're talking about?

QUESTION: I believe it was a report that talked about a number of civilians being killed in strikes that you guys have said that you were involved in. I believe that's the – the one that you were asked about yesterday, and you said you were looking at the report. And I'm just wondering if you have any update.

MR KIRBY: I don't have an update. I think we're still going through that. But I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same one. I believe what you're talking about is we were being asked about an Amnesty report that said the Pentagon was under-counting --

QUESTION: It may have been that.

MR KIRBY: And as far as I know, both here at the State Department and the Pentagon are still going through that. And as I said yesterday – I'll take the opportunity to say it again – we take all credible allegations seriously, and, unlike other nations, we actually investigate them. And when we learn our lessons from them, we tell people what we've learned and we try to fix it. But I just don't have an update.

QUESTION: Can I – can we go back to Aleppo? Yesterday there was a very contentious meeting at the UN Security Council, particularly charges of war crimes by UN – U.S. Ambassador to the UN Sam Power. Essentially, Russia – I'm sure you've seen the comments. Russia was kind of taking credit for the pause in airstrikes, and basically, Ambassador Power says well, you know, you don't get congratulations for stopping for a week from committing war crimes.

So I'm just wondering, was that a personal reflection? Has this Administration concluded that Russia is, indeed, committing war crimes in Syria? There have been other countries – Britain, France, their foreign ministers have said that what's going on in Aleppo is considered war crimes, and now in the wake of the attack in Idlib on the school, killing over a dozen children, I'm wondering if – how that affects your calculations.

MR KIRBY: Over two dozen is the latest count that I have in that school in Idlib. Look, I think the Secretary has been equally as candid and forthright about this and saying that what he's seeing can be – can only be couched as violations of international law. The term "war crimes" itself has a very legalistic definition, and it's not for me at this podium or for us here at the State Department to make that definitive qualification.

QUESTION: Well, why is not for you, but it was for Ambassador Power to say that yesterday?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think Ambassador Power was simply restating what we have all said is our assessment, that these are violations of international law. But the --

QUESTION: No, she specifically said war crimes. And I know that we go back on this back and forth. Is there an effort within this building to make a determination of whether that's war crimes and whether that would be referred to the International Criminal Court? I mean, I know you're trying to parse this out, but I mean, she said war crimes; the Secretary said that an investigation of war crimes is appropriate.

MR KIRBY: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And this has gone beyond violations of international law now. I'm wondering where you are in your trajectory in terms of trying to make a determination.

MR KIRBY: It's not up to the State Department to make a determination, Elise. But as the Secretary has said, he does believe that what's going on is worthy of investigation by the international community. And the determination of war crimes is – that's a – it's a – it needs to be made by appropriate – by an appropriate judicial process, not by one cabinet agency just making a declaration of it.

I think we've been very clear, and I don't think you have to look any further than transcripts to see where the Secretary's head is on what's going on here. But he recognizes that war crimes has a very legalistic definition and that – that's why he wants it to be investigated. He wants it to be looked at. He wants there to be a determination by the international community one way or the other.

QUESTION: Well, where are – okay, well, where are you on that? I mean, the Secretary made some kind of vague remark saying, well, we should consider whether we want to investigate this as war crimes. Is the U.S. calling for a formal investigation of whether war crimes are being committed? I mean, you wouldn't be alone. There's the British, there's the French, today UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said something about if this school attack was deliberate it would be considered a war crime, you have the head of UNICEF – so, I mean, it's not like you're out on a limb here. And where are you in terms of working with the international community to see if war crimes are being committed?

MR KIRBY: We are still having conversations inside the international community about next steps, and I'm not going to get ahead of that.

QUESTION: Can we stay with Aleppo and Syria?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Russian President Putin is quoted as having said today that Russia has no option but to clear Aleppo of what he described as a, quote, "nest of terrorists," close quote, despite the fact that civilians are also present in the city. Do you have any comment on his apparent intent to continue the attack on Aleppo?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, his comments are not inconsistent with the actions that we've seen in recent days, if not weeks, by the Russian military and the Assad regime. I think the Secretary addressed this himself in saying that, when asked about this flotilla that was heading ostensibly into the Mediterranean, that if that's their intention to reduce Aleppo to rubble, then they will do nothing more than encourage the opposition to keep fighting, make a cessation of hostilities all the more elusive if not impossible, and bolster the rise of extremism in Aleppo as well as prolong a war that should not be – I mean, you would think, you would hope that that – that the Russians would see that's clearly not in their interests. But the president's comments today are sadly all too in keeping with the actions we've seen out of Russian military forces.

QUESTION: And the Russian defense ministry spokesman is quoted as saying that Russia, Russian planes did not enter the Syrian region where the school was hit yesterday. I've seen that the White House has since said that they believe it was either Russian or Syrian planes. Do you believe the Russian denial that their planes were in that area? And therefore, do you conclude that it was Syrian planes or do you have an open mind and you haven't made a – reached a judgment on this?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would completely concur with my White House colleague that we – we're not sure exactly whose aircraft it was, but we know information that we have makes it – indicates that it was either Russian or Syrian, and I just don't know.

QUESTION: Well, has anybody else – I mean, is there a suggestion that --

MR KIRBY: I think the coalition has already spoken to the fact that they had no aircraft in the area, and the only other ones it could be is Russia and Syria. I just don't know which.

Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yesterday, General Townsend stressed the importance of liberating Raqqa as quickly as possible and he said that the YPG is the only force on the ground that is capable of doing that with U.S. air support. But the political leadership of the YPG has said they can't move on Raqqa while Turkey is attacking them in other places. So there seems to be a more general strategic problem. Why should the YPG fight and die to liberate Raqqa without getting anything in exchange?

MR KIRBY: That is a classically loaded question, isn't it? Look, first of all, I'm not going to get ahead of military operations. I saw what comments were made by defense leaders yesterday and I'm not going to speculate about timing or composition or any of the operational details with respect to Raqqa. The Secretary himself has said publicly that we know we need to remove Daesh from Raqqa, their so-called capital of the caliphate – the so-called caliphate in Syria. But I'm not going to get ahead of that.

Number two, with respect to operations against Daesh, as I have said I don't know how many times this week, we want – especially in that part of Syria, in that particular area, but everywhere, we want military activity to be coordinated. And uncoordinated military activity is counterproductive to the larger, overarching goal, which is going after Daesh. And this gets to the continued reports of clashes between Syrian fighters on the ground and also Turkish forces. We believe that these uncoordinated activities are not helping us with the overall goal.

Now, as to who should do what and why should they do it, and why shouldn't they do it, I think obviously every group that's involved in the fight against Daesh, every entity, every nation, has to make decisions for themselves about what they will do or what they won't do. I can't get into their heads on that. What I can tell you is that broadly speaking, the coalition, which is now 66 nations strong, and does include groups on the ground in Syria – obviously, who aren't nations; I understand that – maintain and should maintain their focus on Daesh as a common enemy. And that's what we want everybody to be focused from a military perspective.

But I can assure you that, without getting into operational details, whatever the coalition decides to do with respect to Daesh in Syria, it will be as a coalition, and it will be as a team. And that's the only way that we're going to be able to sustain a lasting defeat of this group.

QUESTION: Well, my question actually echoes a recent column by David Ignatius, who is raising the same --

MR KIRBY: I've read it.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay.

MR KIRBY: I've read it.

QUESTION: Is raising the same issue. I know it was a difficult problem dealing with ISIS in this area, and tendency to postpone the most difficult aspects of that problem, but don't you need some kind of Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation in order to present to the YPG something reasonable in exchange for the sacrifices they're being asked to make?

MR KIRBY: There – first of all, we obviously respect and admire the sacrifices that they have made. And we recognize that they have been brave and courageous in the field. And we have supported them through air power, and I believe the general said yesterday that we'll continue to do that – that the coalition will continue to support from the air what they're able to do on the ground, and that will continue.

Now, you talked about Turkish-Kurdish reconciliation. I think it's no secret to anybody that there have been tensions there between the Kurds and between – and Turkey. And we have long talked about the fact that we recognize that, and that we have had discussions with Turkish leaders about their apprehensions and their concerns. We've also said that it's important as a coalition that we stay focused on Daesh, and that to the degree everybody is capable of doing it, laying aside other issues, other contentions, and focusing on Daesh as required. And again, as a coalition, we're going to continue to make that case to every member.

QUESTION: Well, I understood that President Erdogan and President Obama had a very long phone conversation last night, and perhaps President Obama explained the importance of this to the Turkish president. But if he had earlier on told Erdogan, who seemed to have a picked a fight with the Kurds in order to bolster – boost his domestic position that this was just unacceptable to – in current circumstances, might the situation now not be easier?

MR KIRBY: I – look, we could Monday morning quarterback this all day long, and I'm not going to do that. Yes, the President had a good discussion with President Erdogan last night. I think the White House put out a readout of that. I'm not going to go beyond that. Turkish concerns about Kurdish forces are longstanding, and we understand that. We recognize that. And we have – have and will continue to talk to them about those concerns. But what we continue to believe is most important is that everybody focus on the fight against Daesh, that that's where everybody's attention ought to be.

Now, Turkey is facing real terrorist threats from the PKK and we recognize the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization. And we have, once again – we will call for, we have called for, the PKK to lay down their arms, to renounce terrorism, and to go back to the negotiating table. That's what needs to happen long term for the kind of peace and security and stability that I think the Turkish Government and the Turkish people want and deserve.

But we're going to continue to have these discussions and we're going to continue to press the case for the – a united coalition effort against Daesh. That's the common enemy. That's the enemy of all the members of the coalition, and so it would follow that you'd want everybody focused on that common threat.

QUESTION: Do you have a – just a general comment on the main thrust of Mr. Ignatius's column, which is that the United States has a history of using, exploiting, and then abandoning military allies in the Middle East?

MR KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to – I don't know that I'd characterize his conclusions the same way, but I would argue that --

QUESTION: Wait, wait. You don't know if you would characterize it in exactly the same way?

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't characterize it the same way.

QUESTION: You would not. Oh, okay. All right, well, I just was kind of surprised that you weren't denying it.

MR KIRBY: With all due respect, with all due respect to Mr. Ignatius – and I know he's done some excellent reporting out of the region and that he talks to many people there, I fully respect what he says and where he gets his information. But I think – and I'm not saying that he said writ large that America has this reputation of abandoning allies, and I don't think it's borne by history, any reading of American history.

QUESTION: Well, do you acknowledge the perception that this is – even if you don't agree with the conclusion, that is the perception in the region?

MR KIRBY: Well, I can't speak for the perception of every person in the region. I am certainly not doubting the veracity of those who Mr. Ignatius talked to or who have also expressed similar opinions. But – and I'm not going to try to get into the mind of everybody in the region. I can tell you that unequivocally the United States still maintains significant interests in the region. We have significant commitments that we continue to meet in the region, not just in – with respect to Syria. And I don't think anybody can reasonably look at recent history and say that the United States is abandoning our friends and partners or abandoning our responsibilities or the leadership role that we have taken, whether it's Secretary Kerry leading efforts to establish the ISSG and to try to get a peaceful solution to the civil war in Syria, whether it's the United States leading, putting together this 66-member nation coalition to fight Daesh in the region, or any number of other issues that we're leading the way on in the Middle East to try to get to better outcomes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we move to Asia, or are there more Syria questions?

MR KIRBY: Asia.

QUESTION: Okay. China again seems to be making a mockery out of these UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea. According to the Korea International Trade Association as reported by Yonhap, Chinese export of jet fuel to the DPRK jumped nearly 400 percent in September for a year earlier; $9.7 million last month. And what are your concerns about this? What is the U.S. doing to try to close these loop holes? The only the loopholes that are supposed to be humanitarian concerns. It's hard to argue that infants are going to eat jet fuel in North Korea. And can you give us an update on basically what communications you're having with the Chinese about this?

MR KIRBY: We routinely have conversations with the Chinese about the importance of continuing pressure on the DPRK. We continue to urge the entire international community to fully implement and comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 2270. Chinese officials themselves have made clear that they intend to implement that resolution, and we're engaged in an ongoing --

QUESTION: When? When are they going to implement them?

MR KIRBY: That they are going – that they have said they're – that they're – they are going to meet their obligations and --

QUESTION: And did they say when they were going to do that? Because in addition to the jet fuel, I understand that coal has also risen. Imports of North Korean coal to China have also increased since the resolution was actually passed, right?

MR KIRBY: I'm not familiar with that particular fact, Elise. What I can tell you is the Chinese have stated their intention to fully comply and to meet their requirements under the --

QUESTION: Well, but I mean, is it --

MR KIRBY: Under the resolution and our expectation and the expectation of the international community is that they'll do that --

QUESTION: But will --

MR KIRBY: -- and we have routine conversations with them. The deputy secretary is in the region. He will have these kinds of conversations as well with Chinese officials.

QUESTION: I understand. But I mean, I'm glad that they told you that they plan on doing it, but did they give you any kind of road map to when they're going to do it? Because when was --

MR KIRBY: We have already seen them implement measures of the resolution. We've already seen them implement. Now --

QUESTION: But, I mean, one of the main ones was coal, for instance. And, I mean, like I said, it's not just – I mean, you don't have to take my word for it, but officials in your own building are saying that North Korean coal has increased into China since the resolution was passed. So, I mean, I'm glad that they told you that they're going to do it, but do you – how do you use your leverage to get them to actually do it? Because it's clear that they're not doing it up till now. What do --

MR KIRBY: There's been a historic issue with the – with some nations meeting all their obligations under UNSCR resolutions, and I've talked about it here publicly, that in the past we've not seen China completely comply. And when we have concerns about compliance, we're not going to be bashful about expressing them. We continue to have discussions with the Chinese about their obligations and their commitments under this particular resolution and every other one before it. And we're going – and we'll continue to have those conversations.

QUESTION: But has there been specific communication about coal and jet fuel going to North Korea?

MR KIRBY: I don't have – I'm not going to read out diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Well, isn't that what your talks are about, specifically strengthening those on the – on this new UN resolution – isn't it specifically about strengthening those provisions?

MR KIRBY: Yes. We are talking to the international community and to other members of the UN Security Council about making sure we are staying in compliance with the resolutions already passed, and considering the developing and application of additional, maybe even tougher sanctions. So obviously we're going to have to continue to talk to Chinese leaders in particular about this, since China does have – perhaps more than other – any other member has an economic stake here – I mean, with a border with the north. And there have been problems with Chinese compliance in the past. I'm not going to dodge that, and we're going to continue to talk to them about their commitments going forward.

QUESTION: Kirby, it's my understanding that coal is permitted under the so-called livelihood clause of the most recent resolution, right?

MR KIRBY: That's my understanding.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: But I'm not an expert on this and I can't speak to specific coal shipments today.

QUESTION: Well, okay. I think that's the case. So my next question was: Is jet fuel permissible under – I guess it's different, because you're talking about coal exports from North Korea to China, but are – from your understanding, and if you don't know, could you take it – are Chinese jet fuel exports to North Korea permissible under existing legislation and under the existing sanctions resolution?

MR KIRBY: I don't know. I don't know. I'll have to see.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I'm just not an expert on the language. I'll have to check.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. First, follow-up on this. A few months ago, I had raised this question about the – there is a corridor of trade between North Korea and China, and has the U.S. tried to ask for international monitors on that corridor? Because that's from – through which everything is going on.

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such request. I'm not aware of any such request.

QUESTION: Because the sanctions do not matter to North Korea with China having an open trade corridor going on.

MR KIRBY: I think I've addressed this issue as far as I can today.

QUESTION: Okay. The other one is about the diplomatic tit for tat going on between India and Pakistan. India expelled a diplomat, Pakistan expelled a diplomat, and now it's a rising tension. So are you worried about it? Do you have any comments on that?

MR KIRBY: We've seen the reports of these decisions. These are sovereign decisions that nation-states make, and these are issues that we're going to leave to India and Pakistan to work out.

QUESTION: But in the past, usually these decisions are followed by firing across the line, across the borders, and then escalating into further. So --

MR KIRBY: Well, obviously, we don't want to see that happen, but let's not get ahead of events.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: These are issues that we believe India and Pakistan need to discuss, need to talk about, need to work out between themselves. Okay?

Yeah.

QUESTION: Back to North Korea, if that's okay. I'd like to circle back to the he said/he said between you and DNI Clapper a few days ago. I know you can't talk about specific intelligence, but can you broadly say that you share most of the same intelligence throughout the Administration?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters – (laughter) – one way or the other from up here.

QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because how can two people have – or two organizations have essentially the same intelligence and come to wildly different conclusions? He's saying there is no – there's no hope for denuclearization on the peninsula; you said a few minutes later that the U.S. remains committed to it. Who should we believe? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Both.

MR KIRBY: Thank you, Arshad. Look, I think we all share concerns about the direction that the north is taking, all of us. And the concerns expressed by DNI Clapper are not new concerns, and we share them. We do share concerns about the increasing provocative nature of not just their rhetoric but their actions with respect to developing nuclear weapons. No question about that.

And what's why we continue to work inside the international community to put more pressure – to apply more pressure on the North. And that's why we're having an active conversation in the UN about the possibility for additional sanctions. And that's why we maintain a robust military presence on the peninsula, because we have real security commitments to our South Korean allies and to the region to be able to respond militarily if that's required.

So I think everybody has – everybody shares the same sense of urgency here. I didn't see a big gulf between what the director said and what we've been saying all along. The question that was posed to me was: Is that U.S. policy, that we're just – that we're going to give up on trying to achieve a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. And the answer is very simple: No, it's not. And that's not just the State Department, it's not just one agency; it's the entire U.S. Government. Our policy is the same. We want to see a verifiable denuclearization on the peninsula.

Now, it is – I don't think it should come as a shock to anybody that people may have different views about the odds of achieving that, but that is the goal, and that's what we're after. And the best way to do that is a return to the Six-Party Talk process. And we've said all along we're ready to do that. The onus is on the North to prove that they're able and willing, and thus far they have not proven willing to do that.

QUESTION: Is part of this trying to influence the debate for the next administration, which by my calculations, I think, is the thirteenth that will be dealing with the North Korean issue?

MR KIRBY: Is what --

QUESTION: Is it trying to influence the debate for the next administration?

MR KIRBY: What is?

QUESTION: Like this – you say there's no gulf, but one says that – that it's not possible. You're saying you're still committed to it. Usually these aren't in public, these sort of disagreements. So I'm just --

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I take issue with the fact that there's some big disagreement here. But let's put that aside for a second.

I – the concerns about what's going on in North Korea are not set by, established by, affected by the political calendar here in the United States. I'm well aware we have an election coming up, and I think we're all well aware that in January we're going to have a new president. And that new president will have to make decisions about where things are going with respect to North Korea.

But what we're focused on is what has been, not just on this Administration but administrations past, is a consistent policy of applying pressure to the North and trying to achieve a verifiable, complete denuclearization of the peninsula, which we think is in the best interest not only of the people who live on the peninsula, North and South, but everybody in the region, if not here in the United States.

So I just don't see it the same way you do. I got that he offered a frank assessment. That's his job. He's the head of intelligence for the United States of America and his job is to be candid. His job is to look at threats and his job is to assess where things are going. But that doesn't mean that he was saying any – that he was denouncing or walking back or changing our policy objectives, which is that denuclearization. So I just don't see it the same way you do.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, on the ROK and Japan, do you have anything on the fact that your allies are going to restart GSOMIA --

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

QUESTION: -- GSOMIA, the military information sharing?

MR KIRBY: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat your question. I didn't get it.

QUESTION: All right. Can you hear me better now?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have any comment on the fact that the ROK and Japan are going to start talks on GSOMIA, the military information sharing?

MR KIRBY: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Thanks. Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we did note the recent announcement by the governments of the Republic of Korea and Japan to resume negotiations on what's called a bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement, which is I think you called GSOMIA. I'll defer to you on how to pronounce that acronym.

We believe that this potential agreement would strengthen cooperation between our two closest allies in Northeast Asia, particularly in light of the growing threat posed by North Korea. So we welcome the fact that they're having those discussions.

Okay. I got time for just a couple more.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, do you have a readout on Deputy Secretary Blinken's trilateral in Tokyo with his Korean and Japanese counterparts?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. So on the trilateral meeting, the deputy secretary had productive discussions with both his counterparts from Japan and from South Korea. They reaffirmed the importance of our trilateral cooperation in maintaining peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region, particularly regarding the threat posed by the DPRK nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They also reiterated the important contributions our trilateral cooperation continues to make on global issues, including things like climate change, global health, and women's empowerment. So good discussions. Okay.

QUESTION: Wait. (Laughter.) I ain't going to let you get out of here that easily.

MR KIRBY: First and last.

QUESTION: I've got two – they're brief, though.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: They both kind of --

MR KIRBY: I've heard that before.

QUESTION: They both kind of involve the UN. One, you may have seen that Burundi formally notified the UN today that they were withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, which prompted Ambassador Power to suggest that the Burundian Government was memorializing its – I can't remember her exact words – something like its passion or its approval or for – approval of impunity. Do you have anything to add to her comments?

MR KIRBY: Well, no, I don't think I can improve upon that. I mean, obviously we're following these developments – these – this closely. And again, I wouldn't also get ahead of events or speculate one way or the other, but I mean, I think we share her general sense of concern.

QUESTION: All right, I think, actually, it was something about their opposition to accountability or something like that. Anyway, but you don't – you do not have anything more to add?

MR KIRBY: I don't.

QUESTION: All right. And then earlier this week, there was a UN expert speaking up at the UN in New York about Haiti and the cholera epidemic. And in his comments, he described the UN response as a disgrace and also alluded to or suggested – hinted may be another word – that the reason the UN took the position that it took when people tried to get some accountability for the introduction of cholera into Haiti was at the behest of the United States. Can you address that? Is that correct? Did you pressure or push the UN into not responding?

MR KIRBY: No, we did not. We have been very clear that we do not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this particular case. We do not take a position.

QUESTION: But you did take a position in favor of the United Nations, correct?

MR KIRBY: What we've said is we support efforts by the special rapporteur to give greater prominence to the plight of those living in extreme poverty. We have said before that we welcomed the secretary-general's acceptance of the UN's moral responsibility for the cholera outbreak and his recent statement expressing regret for the loss of life. We've also said that we recognize more must be done and we support the UN's ongoing efforts to design an assistance package to assist those most affected by cholera including in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. So we look forward to receiving the secretary-general's proposal for the provision of a package of assistance and support to Haitians most affected by the cholera.

QUESTION: Thanks and then the --

QUESTION: Wait, sorry just on that. Why, just so I'm clear – I think Matt's fundamental question was: Did the U.S. Government at any time discourage the UN from taking responsibility, right? Was that fundamentally your question?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And did you ever do that in the past?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that we discouraged them from taking responsibility. I said we've – we welcomed that --

QUESTION: No, I get that --

MR KIRBY: -- the secretary-general said it was a moral responsibility. But with respect to the actual claims, we did not take a position on the validity of the underlying claims in this case.

QUESTION: But couldn't you – couldn't you discourage them from taking responsibility even if you don't take a position on the underlying claims? Look, you could say, "Look, I don't know who did this, but it's going to be bad if you take responsibility, so don't do that."

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, could we have? I don't know. I suppose we could have. I'm not aware that we did. What I can tell you is we did not take a position on the underlying claims and we did welcome the secretary-general's actions and his comments on this matter going forward.

QUESTION: The last one – and this is extremely brief – is that you talked several times about this – the anti-ISIS coalition being 66 nations. Is that up recently?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: Have new members --

MR KIRBY: Afghanistan joined several months ago, making it 66.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MR KIRBY: All right, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)