Daily Press Briefing
Mark C. Toner
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 28, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA/RUSSIA
TURKEY
BURMA
PHILIPPINES
PHILIPPINES/CHINA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
KENYA
PAKISTAN/COUNTERTERRORISM
YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA
UNITED NATIONS
BAHRAIN
IRAQ
TRANSCRIPT:
1:36 p.m. EDT
MR TONER: Wow. A Friday at the State Department. Hey, guys. Welcome.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR TONER: We have four White House Fellows in the back; they're going to be disappointed at the turnout here. (Laughter.)
Welcome to the State Department. I have nothing at the top, so I turn it over to you.
QUESTION: You don't have anything? Really?
MR TONER: No, but I can guess at what your first question's going to be. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah, I would think so. So as you know, the FBI director has just informed Congress that they're – they've found new emails that are pertinent to the – their investigation --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- into Secretary Clinton's server. What do you guys know about it? Do these – do these emails relate to while she was secretary of state? What do you know? Have you been asked to cooperate? Will you cooperate? And --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. First, what do we know? Not much more than you know – in fact, about the same. We just learned about this when we saw news reports of the letter. So at this point I'd have to refer you to the FBI for any more details about what emails they may be looking at, what they're looking for – any more details at all. We just don't know anything about the scope of this new – I'm not even sure it's an investigation, but this effort to look at additional emails. And we don't know if these emails pertain to her time while she was at the State Department. We just don't have any more information at this time.
Your second question was --
QUESTION: Well, I mean, you said that you just --
MR TONER: Was have we been asked to cooperate.
QUESTION: You just – you say that you just learned about it from the letter that he --
MR TONER: No, I – well, I mean, whatever they're reporting, the --
QUESTION: But that's a letter to Congress.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Has the State Department gotten a letter as well, telling it that --
MR TONER: As far as I know, we've not been informed about this, no.
QUESTION: Okay. And so – but --
MR TONER: And I spoke to several people before coming out here. This is the first notification we have.
QUESTION: Can you say – you will cooperate, though, right?
MR TONER: Of course. I mean, as much as we're needed to cooperate with FBI, as we've done in the past, we'll cooperate to the fullest extent we can.
QUESTION: Okay. Really? So this – you're just mystified by this whole thing? Is that what you're saying?
MR TONER: I wouldn't say we're mystified, but we're – we're just – we're unaware.
QUESTION: Well, Mark, can I ask --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- has the State Department turned over any emails recently to the FBI that we don't know about --
MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no.
QUESTION: -- or that might be – because I guess people are just trying to understand where --
MR TONER: As are we, to be honest with you. We don't – I just don't have any additional details. We're certainly – stand ready to cooperate, as I said, if we're asked to do so. But we just don't have any additional details or information to provide at this point.
QUESTION: The court has ordered you guys to produce several more batches of the emails that the FBI turned over.
MR TONER: Correct. Yeah. Right.
QUESTION: Do you anticipate --
MR TONER: Which is an ongoing process, right.
QUESTION: Yeah, but you anticipate that those releases will continue as per scheduled and that that's not – in other words, any new investigation by the FBI is not going to interfere – is not going to affect your release of the emails that they gave to you?
MR TONER: I would see them as – and again, I – again, speaking as someone without full vision on the – on this new development, I don't see how they would – that they would be in conflict. We would – we plan to proceed with publicating – (laughter) – sorry, publishing these emails in accordance with the legal commitments we've made.
QUESTION: And you're not aware if those emails are at all --
MR TONER: Not at all.
QUESTION: -- pertinent to this?
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: If I may, what about --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- the idea that if these are new Clinton emails, then technically they would be State Department assets, right? They would belong to the State Department if they were Clinton's emails or someone who was working for her during her tenure as Secretary. So --
MR TONER: Honestly, I mean, I – sure. Go ahead and finish your question.
QUESTION: So the question would be then: Have you – will you, or have you asked the FBI to hand over those documents? And if you haven't, will you?
MR TONER: So again, I think we're just at the point here where we're trying to figure out what these emails even pertain to, whether they're relevant to her time as Secretary of State. I can't make any assumptions at this point that they are, but they may be. As much as they are, we'll certainly see to work with the FBI if they ask us to. But I just don't have any more details to provide at this point.
Anything else, guys? Can we move on? I just don't have any – (laughter) --
QUESTION: After these questions?
MR TONER: What's that?
QUESTION: Well, let's go --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: We've exhausted your nonexistent knowledge in this subject?
MR TONER: Right. Exactly, exactly. Sorry, guys.
QUESTION: All right. Well, can we just – I realize it's Friday, but when --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: I presume that you will get more details at some point during the afternoon.
MR TONER: As we get more information about that or we have to more to say about it, we certainly will update you guys, of course.
QUESTION: All right. Let's go to Syria --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: -- unless someone has more on this. No? Okay.
You put out a statement this morning in your name about the joint – the fourth report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism --
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: -- that was set up to look at alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: And I'm presuming that this came up for discussion at the UN Security Council yesterday, and the Russians said that they were not convinced of the findings.
MR TONER: That's correct. That's correct.
QUESTION: I'm going to assume – presume safely, I think – that your statement means that you fully back the findings of the so-called JIM.
MR TONER: Yes, that is a correct assumption to make, that we do support the JIM. We support these types of mechanisms. They're doing important work, really shining a light on these uses of chemical weapons in Syria. And I would note that of the four incidents that are noted in the report that took place, the use of chemical weapons that took place in 2014 and 2015, three of them were by the Syrian regime. So in that respect, they outdid Daesh in horrific acts on their own people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Isn't that – isn't accepting those findings the same thing as accepting that the deal that you guys worked out with the Russians to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria didn't work?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think – and we've been very clear about this – the deal that we worked out with and successfully implemented with the Russians --
QUESTION: Well, that --
MR TONER: -- was declared chemical weapons. And we recognize that --
QUESTION: But you used the --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MR TONER: Go ahead. That's okay. Finish.
QUESTION: You say successfully implemented. But doesn't this finding and your acceptance of it mean that, in fact, it wasn't successfully implemented if they still have – if they're still using chemical weapons, whether or not chlorine is a declared – is not being declared --
MR TONER: Well, that's – so again, when I say declared chemical weapons, I mean exactly that. So why do we – why do I view this as a success that we were able to eliminate a significant quantity – well, all of their declared chemical weapons and a significant quantity of chemical weapons? Because clearly, the regime has shown that it will use these as a weapon of war against its own people, so the fact that they have far less chemical weapons in their arsenal now than they did previously to this successful action that we took is – I don't want to say a silver lining or a good thing for the Syrian people, but --
QUESTION: Well, I don't see how you can say if it's a success if you said – it was supposed to get rid of all chemical weapons.
MR TONER: No, it was – well, I mean, look – we can belabor this.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, what did you think he had stocks of chlorine for? Obviously, there was a lot of it. But I mean, there's – in the middle of a civil war there's only so much industrial use for chlorine, and I don't think there are enough swimming pools there that would need it to, you know. What did you think he was going to do with chlorine? Why wasn't that part of the agreement with the Russians even if it was a side deal? You didn't think that with all the chlorine that he's got it was not going to be used as a weapon, did you?
MR TONER: Well, again, so you're right in that we only went after the – what was its – what were the known chemical weapons arsenal or, as I said, declared chemical weapons arsenal that it – that the Syrian regime had in its possession. We obviously didn't remove all their capacity to create chemical weapons. As you mention, the issue of chlorine and chlorine gas as chemical weapons is clearly a concern that they've – and they've used this as a weapon and shown that they're capable of doing so. But we significantly reduced their arsenal of chemical weapons, and again, we took away all of the – and neutralized all of the other chemical weapons that they possessed. I know it's not a complete victory in this case, but it's a significant one nonetheless --
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: -- in that they're less able to use these against their own people.
QUESTION: If, in fact, they got rid of all of their declared chemical weapons – not – leaving aside the chlorine issue, where do you believe ISIS/ISIL got the mustard gas that it used, according to this report? Did they produce it themselves, or did they take it from the stocks?
MR TONER: It's unclear how they got it or where they got it.
QUESTION: So again, doesn't – okay.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: But if they got it from the Syrian Government stockpile, if they stole it from there, that would also mean that it wasn't a success, right?
MR TONER: So --
QUESTION: The deal was not a success because it clearly didn't get rid of all the declared – I mean, mustard gas is a – that's a --
MR TONER: Yes, that is a chemical weapon. Yes, it is a declared or a recognized chemical weapon. I mean, look, we eliminated through this program about 1200 tons of chemical weapons that was in the possession of the Syrian regime. To the best of our knowledge, we eliminated all of their declared chemical weapons, but we recognize that that didn't include chlorine. And as far as mustard gas goes, we don't know how they were able to either make it or get a hold of that. We just don't have a clear visibility on that. But what's important is that this mechanism, this JIM is continuing to hold these investigations – rather, carry out these investigations in order to hold the perpetrators accountable. And it's important that the regime – certainly Daesh, but in this case the Syrian regime is held accountable for the actions it's taking against its own people.
QUESTION: Mark, was --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: Just some follow-up questions.
MR TONER: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: Was it not a significant lacuna to have not gone after precursor chemicals or non-declared chemical weapons?
MR TONER: I mean, I – look, I really would let somebody who's far more expert in how to identify and go after precursor, as you said, chemicals that can be used or transformed into chemical weapons and used on the battlefield to speak to that. Someone with the OPCW could probably answer that far better than I could. All I can say is that this was a pretty comprehensive effort that successfully eliminated, as I said, some 1200 tons of chemical weapons and took them off of the battlefield. Was it complete? No, and we've recognized that, but it was still a pretty effective operation.
QUESTION: And why would it not have been a better course for the President to have proceeded with what where at the time his plans to enforce the red line that he had set? Why would that not have been a better way of deterring the Assad government from using the chemical weapons that it had and, potentially, from using the chlorine or other kinds of things that could be weaponized, as it were? Why wouldn't deterrence have been better served that way?
MR TONER: Well – and we've talked about this, obviously, a lot over the past couple of years, but just a couple of points to make. One is that we weren't able to get congressional approval for that authorization of force, and even if we had, it is arguable that the action that we undertook – with Russia's assistance, in this case – was far more effective in actually removing these kind of chemical weapons, as I said, from the battlefield, that any kind of airstrikes would have been limited in the effect that they would have had on destroying these stockpiles of chemical weapons. And --
QUESTION: My question is not about destroying them.
MR TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: It's about deterrence.
MR TONER: You're talking about deterrence, yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: Deterring the Assad government from doing what you say it has done, which is not just use chemicals weapons in the --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- but also use chlorine and other things not technically defined as chemical weapons but still highly deadly.
MR TONER: Yeah. Well, again, I think that one of the – one of the things we're going to continue to pursue through the UN, through mechanisms such as the JIM, is accountability. And we're trying to work with these mechanisms to ensure that the regime is not going to get off scot-free, is not going to be able to carry out these kinds of attacks on innocent civilians and simply walk away. This – there needs to be accountability in this case. We need to shine a light on these actions, but --
QUESTION: But there – but there hasn't been any accountability since 2013, and in your own statements for weeks and weeks and months now, they continue to attack civilians, albeit with conventional weapons for the most part. And if anything, one could argue that the government is stronger now than it was three years ago – its grip on power. So I understand the importance of shining a light on things, but I don't see how you can argue that anybody has been held to account here nor – and therefore, I don't understand why that's your argument sort of justifying the – this path.
MR TONER: Right. Well, I mean, look, this has been a long process, perhaps not as swift as some would like, but that does not mean that it's still not a process that we're going to continue to work at and fulfill going forward.
In terms of deterrence and in terms of the fact that they continue to carry out these kinds of attacks on civilian populations, it's a fair point to say that they're capable of using conventional weapons to also carry out atrocities in Syria, certainly in and around Aleppo, what we've seen in the past weeks and months.
With regard to the use of force, we've been over this ground many, many times. There's a number of factors that we weight when looking at the use of force. And certainly in this case we felt it was more effective and more prudent to pursue this action to remove and destroy their declared chemical weapons. And we continue to believe that the best way forward is to pursue a political and diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Syria. Ultimately, any escalation of violence in Syria could have even more consequences for the people of Syria on the ground, and that's all the kinds of things that we're – all the factors that we're weighing when we look at these decisions.
QUESTION: Can I follow up quickly?
MR TONER: Yeah, sure, Said.
QUESTION: Chlorine is commercially available. There are – there is no ban or restriction on the import or export of chlorine as far as you know, is it? (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Said, I'm not certain in terms of – I just don't know the specifics legally of like the quantity or the type of chlorine, so I can't answer that.
QUESTION: Second, how do you sort of determine the veracity of these allegations? How can you say that this has really happened or did not happen? What are – what kind of measures or criteria you use to determine the veracity of these allegations?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think it's partly the reason why we look to these kinds of mechanisms, as I said, that are not affiliated with any country or any government; that are apolitical, if you will; that are able to carry out these investigations, look at the facts on the ground as much as they can be assessed, and reach a conclusion. You saw, as Matt noted yesterday, that the Russian representative raised questions about the validity of the findings. We obviously consider them to be valid.
QUESTION: Okay, let me ask you a couple --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- other things on Syria. Today, I think --
MR TONER: Sorry, just to – no, no, I'm sorry, just to – but I didn't say enough about – but they did, just to speak to the work, which I think is – may have been what you were getting at. I mean, they conducted – it was an independent investigation. They conducted hundreds of interviews, poured over thousands of documents, and analyzed a lot of forensic evidence to reach these conclusions.
QUESTION: Okay. Can I follow up on Syria?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Today, I think it was Jaysh al-Fatah and another group, they said that they have begun a battle for the liberation of Aleppo or to break the siege and so on. And I wonder if you have any comment on that. Will the United States or its allies give assistance to these groups in trying to break the siege?
MR TONER: Well, I think you know we don't talk about who we give assistance to within the moderate Syrian opposition. We've seen those reports too. You're talking about that they've launched a counteroffensive --
QUESTION: Counteroffensive.
MR TONER: -- in Aleppo. I don't have much detail to provide at this point. We've just seen the reports of these – this counteroffensive or this announcement. If I could make one observation – it's one we make frequently – which is the fight for Aleppo is not over. And it's easy, I think, to underestimate the ease at which one can take the city of Aleppo. And it just shows – not to sound like a broken record – that you get into a cycle of escalation here that's difficult to extricate oneself from.
QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, today --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- I think a spokesman for the Russian army said that they called on President Putin to renew airstrikes because they claim that there's a – there's been a cessation in attacks since – for about eight days now. Do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: I mean, look – I mean, of course any pause in the attacks that have been carried out on Aleppo in the past months now is a good thing for the people of Aleppo. We hope to see that continue. But we also want to see access for humanitarian assistance, which is absolutely critical to the people who have been under constant barrage now. So certainly a reduction or a pause in the violence is a good thing, but we have not yet seen humanitarian assistance be provided.
QUESTION: Was there a call between Secretary Kerry and the foreign minister of Russia today – Lavrov?
MR TONER: There was, yes.
QUESTION: There was? Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, they spoke earlier today, again, about this multilateral effort that's taking place in Geneva. I think Kirby said the other day, which is still kind of where we're at, we're still looking to overcome some of the differences of opinion that we have, still working in a multilateral context on this, but still think it's worth pursuing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Any plans for the two of them to meet?
MR TONER: Nothing right now to announce, no.
QUESTION: Can I just ask you very briefly --
MR TONER: Please, yeah, of course.
QUESTION: There was another report this morning of a close call between U.S. and Russian military planes in the area, and I am just wondering how much of a concern that remains, particularly since you guys say that you suspended the bilateral contacts. I know that the de-confliction still is supposed to be going on, but it seems to me that if it was still functioning the way it's supposed to function that you wouldn't have these kind of close calls.
MR TONER: So this was, as you said, a close call – I think within a half mile to aircraft, which is a close call – considered a close call. I don't have a lot more details to provide other than that, but I do know that the de-confliction mechanism, I believe, was used in this case. Would refer you to the DOD. But it shows, obviously, we need to keep this mechanism going and – please. No, I just – but I --
QUESTION: Well, okay. So you regard this as a success of the de-confliction rather than a failure?
MR TONER: I wouldn't say it's a success because, I mean, it was a close call. It shouldn't have happened. That said, it underscores the importance of keeping these kinds of lines of communications going forward because we don't want any accidents to happen.
Please.
QUESTION: Turkish prosecutors have launched a probe against the head of the pro-Kurdish HDP, Selahattin Demirtas, after a protest against the arrest of two mayors in Diyarbakir. Demirtas is a very respectable figure. In 2014 when he was visited Washington, Deputy Secretary Blinken had a meeting with him. The next year, Demirtas led the HDP to its successful representation of the Turkish parliament as a party for the first time ever.
So what's your comment on the announcement of this probe?
MR TONER: So I would refer you to Turkish authorities to talk about why they've launched such a probe into this politician. I don't have much to add other than the fact that we obviously want to see stronger ties between – or within Turkey among Kurdish leaders. As you said, he was a moderate Kurdish leader. I just don't have any insight to add or to provide as to why they may be investigating. I would refer you to Turkish authorities.
QUESTION: Well, maybe they are investigating him completely without reason because Erdogan acts like that and he is whipping up sentiment among Turkish nationalists --
MR TONER: That's your opinion.
QUESTION: -- against Kurds. Well, it's not just my opinion. But if the United States were to speak more clearly against such abuses, perhaps the Turkish authorities would take them into account and be less abusive towards their own Kurdish population?
MR TONER: And I think you'll appreciate the fact that I can't speak to an investigation when I don't know the details or as to why they may be investigating any individual, whether he's Kurdish or not. It's just – it would be irresponsible for me to do so. So let's assess, let's look at the facts, before we make any kind of judgment.
QUESTION: And maybe we can speak about this next week?
MR TONER: Perhaps.
QUESTION: Can you speak about some evidence that Turkey – new evidence that Turkey submitted for the extradition of Gulen (inaudible)?
MR TONER: No, I'm aware that the justice minister was in town yesterday, had meetings here with – at the Department of Justice. I think they issued a statement after those meetings, and I believe he did speak to reporters and said that they did provide further evidence. With regard to the Gulen case, I don't have anything to add to that. It's common with regard to extradition cases that evidence would be added as the process continues.
Yeah, please.
QUESTION: A shorter one is --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- we have a report that quotes eight Rohingya women as saying that Burmese soldiers raped them as they were cracking down on militants. Do you have any comment on that report? And what is the Administration doing as it eases sanctions on Burma to try to prevent what, if true, would be crimes and human rights abuses committed by the Burmese army?
MR TONER: Sure. So obviously, aware of the reports and taking them very seriously. In fact, I know we've raised our concerns with the government directly at the ministerial level. We're urging the government of Burma to be transparent, to follow the rule of law in responding to the original attacks, and of course, subsequent reports of abuses. And obviously, we would like to see them investigate these allegations fully and take whatever actions against the perpetrators are warranted. With regard to your follow – or your second question about sanctions or the – whether this will affect the process of alieving – alleviating the sanctions that we – the sanctions that we still have in place, I don't have anything to announce today – that's obviously something we continue to assess as we see the government make progress on democratic reforms or not. So that's something we continue to constantly evaluate.
QUESTION: Do you – you said you raised your concerns at a ministerial level. Was – does that mean that Secretary Kerry spoke to the foreign ministry?
MR TONER: No, I think it was that – I apologize, it was the ambassador – raised those – our concerns, rather.
QUESTION: With the foreign – with the foreign minister?
QUESTION: Specifically?
MR TONER: The foreign minister.[1]
QUESTION: And when was that?
MR TONER: I don't know, I don't have that in front of me. I would imagine recently.
QUESTION: And was it in response to this report? Or was it --
MR TONER: That's my understanding, yes. Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: And was it – do you know if it was in person or over the phone?
MR TONER: That I don't know.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: No, I was --
MR TONER: Oh, that's okay. Yeah.
QUESTION: Does the United States welcome Mr. Duterte's message from God to curb his profanity and do you think this will make conversations with him easier?
MR TONER: (Laughter.) I'm not going to take the bait on that. He's certainly entitled to his views about his own relationship with the supreme being.
QUESTION: Can --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- we stay on the Philippines?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: So there – it looks like there may have been some movement in terms of the Chinese taking coast guard or coast guard ships away from the Scarborough Shoal. Do you know if that is correct or – and if it is, do you – is it a good sign? Is it a – what is it?
MR TONER: I think we're still assessing. I've seen the comments from Manila about Chinese boats. As you said, they are no longer at the Scarborough Shoal and that Filipino fishing boats have resumed fishing in that area. So still assessing; we hope it's certainly not a temporary measure. We'd like a – see a – we'd like it to be a sign that China and the Philippines are moving towards an agreement on fishing access at Scarborough reef that would be in accordance with the July 12th arbitral decision.
QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue --
MR TONER: We can go to Palestine.
QUESTION: -- very quickly?
MR TONER: Matt's finished. Yes.
QUESTION: Oh, sorry about that.
QUESTION: Mark. Well, I have another issue, but I'm done on the Philippines.
MR TONER: Oh okay, well let's go do --
QUESTION: Very quickly.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Yes.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask your assessment. There's been a great deal of some dissatisfaction by your allies in the Arab world, like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and so on with the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas. They say that he's inflexible, that he's not allowing enough room to bring in other Palestinians into the fold or have some sort of reconciliation within his own organization and the other Palestinian groups. I wonder if you have any comment on that, and where do you stand as far as the Palestinian Authority president is concerned?
MR TONER: Well, I'm not going to weigh in on internal Palestinian politics and the political situation there. We've obviously long worked with President Abbas and continue to work with him and consider him to be a partner. I can't speak to the criticisms that he's under; what we would like to see is the same thing we'd like to see from the Israeli Government, which is actions and words that de-escalate rather than escalate tensions between the two parties with the hopes that we can get back to a point where we can begin serious discussions and negotiations towards a political solution. But in terms of some of these comments, I'm not going to weigh in.
QUESTION: Do you think he's been too obstinate in terms of allowing changes within the Palestinian realm or allowing other groups to participate in the process? Are you having conversations with him in terms of opening up to other – to different groups?
MR TONER: Well, Said, I'm not going to necessarily disclose what we talk to him about. (Laughter.) Except to say that he continues to be a partner, we continue to view him as the elected leader, and --
QUESTION: But that's been a long time --
MR TONER: I understand that. I think any leader needs to be responsive to the demands of their constituents. I'm just not going to weigh in in this case.
QUESTION: And finally, today, Gennady Gatilov, the deputy – the deputy Russian minister, I guess, foreign minister --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- was in – on a visit to the West Bank in Israel and he said that they are getting close to arranging a summit between – to host a summit for Abbas and Netanyahu in Moscow. Are you aware of that? Are you – do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: I'm not – I've heard – I mean, other than that we've seen previous reports about some kind of meeting or summit in Moscow, I think, earlier this year --
QUESTION: Right.
MR TONER: -- there were some similar reports. I think what we said then is what we'd say now, which is that we welcome any and all efforts and any and all ideas about how to get negotiations back on track. I think we wait and see what's on the table in this case.
QUESTION: But would you welcome or oppose such a move?
MR TONER: I don't think we know enough yet.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: I wonder if you could update us on the fatal shooting yesterday outside Embassy Nairobi. I know yesterday was characterized as basically a Kenyan domestic law enforcement investigation, but the photographs from the scene clearly show U.S. armed personnel out there immediately after it happened, so there's obviously --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- some U.S. investigation going on as well.
MR TONER: Well, again, I don't know. I can't speak necessarily to who was in the photos, but of course, any embassy like Nairobi would have a marine security detachment affiliated with it. I don't know who specifically was in the photo. But with regard to the investigation and details about who was behind this incident, I think that's really for Kenyan authorities to speak to. I think it's still being investigated. It's still in the early stages. I don't know that there's much more to report.
What I can say in terms of the embassy's actions is that they did order – or, rather, issue a security message to U.S. citizens in Kenya informing them of the incident yesterday and also informing them that the embassy was closed to the public today, October 28th. But of course, we'll continue to be able to provide emergency consular services to U.S. citizens.
QUESTION: So you have ongoing security concerns resulting from this incident?
MR TONER: Of course, and speaking broadly, because I wouldn't necessarily speak to any specific decisions or any changes in posture, but of course, when any kind of serious incident such as what took place yesterday happens, the ambassador or the charge would call an emergency action committee meeting to assess the situation and take appropriate measures.
QUESTION: The Pakistani National Security Secretary, Mr. Janjua, had a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Mr. David Hale, just two days ago. And he had informed Mr. David Hale about the Indian involvement in the shooting which just happened in Quetta a couple of days – in the police training academy where 70 people have died. Could you provide us some information whether some proofs were shared with the ambassador regarding the Indian involvement or --
MR TONER: I really can't. I don't have any kind of readout, not – and I'm not sure we would offer any kind of information that might have been shared with regard to who was behind the attack. And of course, we reiterate our condolences for those who lost their lives in this terrible attack, and of course, their families and loved ones.
I think we're still at early stages, to be honest, and that's an investigation to be carried out by the Pakistani authorities.
QUESTION: One more thing.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: There are media reports that this attack – for the first time, a lot of media has reported that ISIS had a role in this shooting. If there's any update with regard to that, whether the – we can say that ISIS has officially – like, has launched into Pakistan or Afghanistan, or that's not clear yet?
MR TONER: No, we don't have – again, it's still early stages of the investigation. I don't think we know with great certainty who was behind the attack. Certainly, that investigation's ongoing. We'll continue to cooperate where we can with the Pakistani authorities as they conduct this investigation, but it's their investigation. But we don't at this point in time have any clear understanding, that I'm aware of, of who carried out this attack --
QUESTION: So Mr. Olson --
MR TONER: -- or definitive understanding. Please.
QUESTION: Mr. Olson a few days ago at the – this institute here had stated that the U.S. is carrying out targeted bombing along the border side with some ISIS presence there. So that is clear, though, right – that there is ISIS in that region now?
MR TONER: Well, we've seen ISIS or ISIS affiliates in Afghanistan and we've talked about that. So it's not surprising. I mean, we've talked about the fact that ISIS or Daesh is trying to – as it is choked off in places like Iraq and Syria, that it's trying to, as I said, create affiliates or to establish itself in other ungoverned spaces. And as much as we see that, we'll take action to take out senior leadership of these groups. We've done so in Libya and we've talked about that and we'll do so elsewhere. I can't speak to these specific actions – what you're talking about, but as we see ISIL attempt to metastasize, we'll take action to cut them off.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I --
MR TONER: Yeah, why don't you – and then we'll get back to you, Said.
QUESTION: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: No, no, I – very – really very quick question on Yemen.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure, of course.
QUESTION: Okay? Today there were reports that the Saudis intercepted a ballistic missile that was launched towards Mecca. I wonder if you have any comment on that. And of course the Houthis are denying and there is a great deal of condemnation. Do you have any comment on that or are you aware of that?
MR TONER: You're talking about the --
QUESTION: Allegations that the --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- Houthis shot a ballistic missile towards Mecca.
MR TONER: So – sorry, I'm looking for the points I have on that.
QUESTION: And the Saudis shot it down.
MR TONER: Yeah, no, I'm aware of the reports.
QUESTION: Thanks, Matt.
MR TONER: I don't know if I have any greater detail to add to what – to what's out there publicly. Nah, sorry. I'll get – I'll get you whatever we know about it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.
QUESTION: Two different things. First on the --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- UN Human Rights Council vote today. We saw Secretary Kerry's statement on the U.S. being reelected, but --
MR TONER: I did see that. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, no, I said we have seen.
MR TONER: Okay, sorry, I apologize.
QUESTION: I'm sure --
MR TONER: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: -- you probably wrote it.
MR TONER: (Laughter.) Go ahead, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Not that – not that the Secretary needs your help --
MR TONER: I'm sorry. No, no, no of course.
QUESTION: -- to write a statement.
MR TONER: Sorry.
QUESTION: Russia was voted off of the council and I'm wondering if you have anything to say about that or about the inclusion of – the election of countries to the council with which your own human rights reports say are not exactly the --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- upholders of --
MR TONER: Stellar, yeah. Well --
QUESTION: Don't have stellar records, yeah.
MR TONER: So we are – as the Secretary noted, we are very pleased to have been elected once again to the UN Human Rights Council. A little technical, but we were – we had to take a year off – a mandatory year off, which is required after serving two consecutive terms.
But look, we found it to be a very valuable organization. We feel like that we've seen some successes over the past several years since we joined in 2009. We believe we've made strides in helping it reach its full potential. I won't get into – the statement detailed some of the progress we've seen on various fronts.
With regard to your question about Russia, we don't make our candidate preferences known in secret ballot elections. Broadly speaking and not specifically to Russia, I would say that – but in response to your follow-up question, I think – look, we continue to believe that UN member-states should seek countries that have strong human rights records to be a part of the council. And we encourage other countries to consider this when electing members to the Human Rights Council.
QUESTION: Okay, and the last one is --
MR TONER: Yeah. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- on Bahrain.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: As you may know, the – Nabeel Rajab, who you have been calling for his release for some time, but he goes back to court on Monday. I'm wondering if you have any expectations for what is going to happen, if you're going to be there.
MR TONER: So we're --
QUESTION: Not you personally.
MR TONER: -- obviously following this case – Nabeel Rajab case very closely. We have repeatedly expressed our concern that he is facing trial for a series of tweets that he published last year. We – as we've stated before, we believe that no one should be prosecuted or imprisoned for engaging in peaceful expression and political activity, and we strongly urge the government of Bahrain, as we have in the past, to abide by its international obligations to respect and protect freedom of expression. And we reject these charges against Rajab.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: And call for the government to release him.
QUESTION: Yeah, so --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- and you'll have someone there at the --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: In the court?
MR TONER: Yes, my – it – I mean, without being able to predict the future, yes, it's our intention to have someone there in the court.
QUESTION: All right, and then secondly --
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: -- apparently, there was – this is just recent, I think maybe earlier today or yesterday – a two-year old or a very young child who's a U.S. citizen or just a dual U.S.-Bahraini citizen was – and her – I think it's a girl – her mother were prohibited from leaving. Do you know anything about this case?
MR TONER: I don't. I'll look into it.
QUESTION: The child is apparently a U.S. – is an American citizen, the mother I am not sure about.
MR TONER: Okay, I'll look into it.
QUESTION: One last one.
MR TONER: Please, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have anything fresh to say about Shia militias saying that they are going to join the Mosul campaign imminently?
MR TONER: No. I mean, I've seen those reports. I don't want to get into hypotheticals. Obviously, no action's been taken thus far. In terms of anything fresh to say, no, because we want to see any actions taken by these types of militias to be under the command and control of the Iraqi authorities or Iraqi Government as we've said in the past. So I'll leave it there.
QUESTION: But – just to follow-up on that – but if the Shia militias – al-Hashd al-Shaabi – under the command and control of the Iraqi authority do get involved, that's okay? Because there are very credible reports they're going to be out in the west, west of Mosul. That's acceptable?
MR TONER: I'm aware of those reports. Again, these are all decisions for the Iraqi Government to make. I don't want to get out ahead of any decisions that have been made.
Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:22 p.m.)
[1] The foreign ministry
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
