• 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
November 1, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT
SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAQ
ASIA PACIFIC REGION
SECRETARY TRAVEL
PHILIPPINES
LEBANON
PHILIPPINES
SYRIA/RUSSIA
YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA
PAKISTAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

1:37 p.m. EDT

MR KIRBY: Afternoon, guys.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: I have no opening statement today, so we'll get right to it. Matt.

QUESTION: I don't have a lot either, but I do need to ask again, just to check to make sure it's still the same, that still, as far as you know, there hasn't been any contact, or you haven't gotten any contact from the FBI regarding --

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: -- these emails. Okay.

MR KIRBY: Correct.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up.

MR KIRBY: On that?

QUESTION: Not with that.

MR KIRBY: How can you follow up on that one?

QUESTION: I'm not. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: All right. Go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up question to something else. Today on the public schedule the Secretary is in New York --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- meeting on Asia Pacific issues. Can you expand on that? What is he doing? Who is he meeting?

MR KIRBY: I think we'll have – there'll be a readout of the discussion later today. So I don't have a lot of detail right now for you, but he is up in New York meeting with some counterparts on Asia Pacific issues, as I think we outlined in the public schedule. And I think we'll just wait till later when we have a readout to provide you to --

QUESTION: Is he meeting people from the UN?

MR KIRBY: Again, I think I'd – I'd let the counterparts he's meeting with speak for themselves and their attendance. I just don't have much more detail than that right now.

QUESTION: Is it this afternoon?

MR KIRBY: The meeting – actually, meetings – started this morning. They'll stretch into the afternoon. And again, I think when everything's complete, there'll be a readout of it. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you update us on Mosul? It seems that the Iraqi army has made its first foray into Mosul proper, the city.

MR KIRBY: I don't know that for a fact, Said. I have seen some press reporting to that effect. I am leery, as you know, to get into battlefield updates here. But what I can tell you from what I have learned outside of press reporting is that they are making progress, that their campaign is actually ahead of schedule, and they continue to prosecute the fight against Daesh in and outside Aleppo. But exactly where they are, as you and I speak, I truly don't know the answer to that.

QUESTION: Now, it's a little blurry in terms of, let's say, coalition and aerial bombardment, as far it is concerned. Can you tell us anything – is the U.S. involved in – at least in the battle in terms of, let's say, fighter jets and so on? Is there participation?

MR KIRBY: That is a better question put to my Defense Department colleagues. I don't have the order of battle in front of me or what specific air support the Iraqis are getting. It is – I mean, it is a fact that coalition air support has assisted the Iraqi Security Forces on the ground for many, many months, and that the coalition air power was always intended to be part and parcel of the Mosul operation. But exactly what that entails on a day-to-day basis, I just don't have that information.

QUESTION: Because I just want to follow up on our thing yesterday, as far as air support and the civilian population and so on.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you indicated that it is very precise and so on. But how do you – what kind of reports are you getting in terms of civilian casualties, whether by coalition air power or whether by the Iraqi army, or in – or by Daesh, for instance? So what kind of reports on civilian casualties are you having?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that we've received any reports or credible allegations of civilian casualties caused by Iraqi Security Forces or the coalition thus far in the campaign. Again, I would encourage you to speak to my colleagues at the Pentagon. They track those things, as they should, more closely than we do here at the State Department. I'm not aware of any allegations of civilian casualties.

And I would say, as I said yesterday, we – we, the United States military in particular – takes extreme care and precautions against trying to – against causing damage to civilian infrastructure or civilians in general. And when we think we've done it, we investigate it. And when we know we've done it, we own up to that. We put a press release out after the investigation is over. And if people need to be held to account for that, well, we hold them to account. And that makes – that – we hold ourselves to a pretty high standard – and a higher standard, I might add, than virtually any other military in the world. So I guess I just don't know if there's been any reports.

QUESTION: John, if I may, can we go back to Asia Pacific issues?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Malaysia and China have signed today a kind of defense pact. What's your take on this? Is it bad news for the rebalance and pivot policy of the U.S. toward the Asia Pacific?

MR KIRBY: Well, I'd let those countries talk to their arrangements. Those are sovereign decisions that nations enter into. But as I said yesterday, we've long maintained that we believe it's in our interest to have our – to have other nations in the Asia Pacific region have productive, meaningful, bilateral relationships. This is not a zero-sum game for us. So again, as I said yesterday, for Malaysia and China to enter into some kind of agreement, whether it's on paper or not, whether it's just better bilateral relations, that's all to the good in terms of regional security and stability, in our view.

QUESTION: But Thailand used to be a very close ally to the U.S., Malaysia also, the Philippines also is one of your closest --

MR KIRBY: The Philippines still are.

QUESTION: Yeah, it still – it still is one of your closest ally. Don't you see any tilt from those countries toward China and drifting away from the U.S. in Southeast Asia?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'd let each nation speak for themselves and the diplomatic relations that they're pursuing. We have long said two things that I think are important. One, the Asia Pacific rebalance is not about China; it's about the region – a region that will, for the next certainly at least two decades if not longer, have an extraordinary impact on the economic life blood of globalization itself.

And so we – the whole balance, the whole rebalance, is not about posturing about – over China. It's about more resources, more talent, more time, more energy focused on a region that is and will remain vital to our own foreign policy objectives and, frankly, to the safety and security and prosperity of so many allies and partners that we have in the region.

So other nations making sovereign decisions to have better relationships with China or any other nation, all that, if those relationships can lead to productive and peaceful resolutions of some of the tensions in the South – not the South China Sea but in the region, to include perhaps the South China Sea, again, we would welcome that. We've been saying that from the very beginning, that we want these tensions resolved peacefully and diplomatically. So that's all welcome.

And this idea that people are turning away from the United States and turning to China I think is just not borne out by the facts. Everywhere we go in the Asia Pacific region it's reiterated time and time and time again how important foreign leaders there view American presence, American economic assistance and participation and trade, as well as American leadership. So we don't view it, again, as a binary sort of equation, and we don't view it as a zero-sum game. The whole idea of the rebalance is to foster the kind of dialogue that you're starting to see happening. And so again, we welcome this.

QUESTION: And I don't want to get too conceptual here, but what do you mean it's not borne out by the facts that countries in greater numbers in Southeast Asia are becoming friendlier with China? I mean, it is completely borne out by the facts.

MR KIRBY: Name 'em.

QUESTION: Well, the Philippines, for one.

MR KIRBY: Okay, there's one.

QUESTION: Well, then you just said that it wasn't true. Thailand, perhaps. Cambodia.

MR KIRBY: Perhaps, perhaps. So – but you got one. You got one so far.

QUESTION: Laos.

MR KIRBY: You got one.

QUESTION: Laos.

MR KIRBY: You got one. Laos?

QUESTION: Laos. Cambodia. Malaysia, as we've just seen.

MR KIRBY: Okay. So we have two or three, four, whatever. There's a lot of nations in the Asia Pacific region. My point is that you're --

QUESTION: There's only 10.

MR KIRBY: This idea that there's some sort of --

QUESTION: There's only 10 in ASEAN.

MR KIRBY: This idea that there's some sort of landslide movement towards China and away from the United States is simply not borne out by the facts, especially in so many of those countries where we too have strong and improving bilateral relationships. So again, this is not – it's not – they don't have to be binary choices. And we don't – we have nothing to fear from the peaceful, productive rise of China, and we have nothing to fear from nations establishing better and warmer and more productive relationships with China.

QUESTION: Okay. But that's – that wasn't the – that wasn't what you were saying was not true, was not borne out by the facts. The facts are that there are a number of countries in Southeast Asia that are developing better, closer ties with China.

MR KIRBY: I don't really – I don't want to get into a debate over semantics.

QUESTION: Anyway, the other – okay. The --

MR KIRBY: The point is – the point I'm trying to make is that the – this idea that by – that there are several nations who are reaching out and to develop warmer relations with China – I'm not disputing that. But the notion behind that, that that is something to be feared, that that is some sort of worrisome trend, that that is something that is not in keeping with the whole idea of the rebalance, that is an inaccurate reading of it.

QUESTION: But wasn't the rebalance though designed to keep the United States relevant in an area with tremendous potential, economic growth, which is, as you say, a huge transit spot or an area where lots of the world's commercial trade goes through?

MR KIRBY: It wasn't – the United States has been and will remain relevant in the Asia Pacific region.

QUESTION: Right. But wasn't the --

MR KIRBY: The rebalance wasn't about trying to shore up relevance. It was about recognizing where the economic future of the globe is going to reside --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- or where it's going to be deeply affected and to make sure that we were maintaining our focus on that part of the world.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: It wasn't about --

QUESTION: And at the --

MR KIRBY: It wasn't about some fear that we're losing relevance.

QUESTION: But it's – but it was happening at the same time as China was becoming increasingly assertive, looking outward, growing. So if you – if the rebalance was to maintain, keep relevance in the region, it was happening at the same time as the Chinese were expanding their relevance, their influence in the region. I think that's just an obvious statement of fact. It's not a --

MR KIRBY: I'm not disputing the fact --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- that China is also --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: Wait a second. I want to finish my debate here. (Laughter.) I'm not taking issue with the fact that China is also – is not also growing or developing their own set of interests and – or frankly, advancing their military capabilities, not at all. We're not blind to that. But the rebalance wasn't ever about one country in the region. I mean, the other thing that was --

QUESTION: No.

MR KIRBY: The other thing that's been going on – wait. The other thing that's been going on over the last two, three, four years is the growing provocative nature and behavior and conduct and development of nuclear weapons capabilities by North Korea. That's been a trend as well. And the deepening of our own relationships, particularly with ASEAN nations, that has been a growing trend. I mean, I could go on and on.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: There's lots of trends happening in the Pacific region.

QUESTION: The point is is that when the rebalance began, back in the first term, the whole idea that Secretary Clinton was expressing at the time was that she – was that the United States, under the Bush Administration, had kind of ignored Southeast Asia. And so therefore it was the job of the Obama Administration, when it first came in, to come back and make – and show the Southeast Asian nations that the United States was still relevant, was still an important Pacific power. And all of that was happening at the same time as the Chinese were expanding. So I just don't – I think it's hard to make an argument that this has – that the rebalance had nothing to do with China. That's all I'm saying.

MR KIRBY: But we've been making that argument since the rebalance was announced and was talked about from the very beginning, that it's not about China. And we maintain that today.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: You know four years ago there was a great deal of talk about the pivot to China and a great deal of --

MR KIRBY: The pivot to China?

QUESTION: I'm sorry, to Asia. The pivot to Asia. I take it back. The pivot to Asia.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: And would you say that this route had been steady or you have been steady in this course in the pivot to Asia, I mean, in light of, let's say, the PPT and other things that brought in so many countries together to your side, at least as far as trade is concerned. So would you say that it has been successful or you have been successful --

MR KIRBY: I would --

QUESTION: -- in exerting an influence on that part of the world?

MR KIRBY: I would certainly argue that we have remained committed to the rebalance in very real, tangible, practical ways.

Yes.

QUESTION: John, my question is not regarding the policy debate, just a matter of fact. Did the Secretary's meeting this morning in New York with his counterparts or the meeting going to be in the afternoon with counterparts including those countries that were mentioned?

MR KIRBY: Again, I'm going to let, as I said – while the meetings are still ongoing anyway, I'm going to let the counterparts that he's meeting with speak for themselves. As I noted, we expect that there'll be a readout this afternoon. And when it's done, we'll make sure that we alert you to it.

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: Can I stay in Asia? A separate – sorry.

QUESTION: No, no. Go ahead.

QUESTION: A separate question on the Philippines. Do you have anything on the congressional opposition of the planned 26,000 assault rifle sales to police national – to the Philippines national police?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I would say a couple things on that, Nike. The United States remains strongly committed to our alliance with the Philippines. The president personally attested to that commitment to that alliance when he traveled to the Philippines a year ago to meet with President Duterte's predecessor and to discuss strengthening and deepening that alliance.

And another note here I would throw out, while we were still on the rebalance, or while I'm at least still mentally on the rebalance, is that five of seven of our treaty alliances are in the Pacific, and that's – those are enduring commitments that we have. This is one of them.

U.S. forces, as I think you know, have been providing support and assistance in the Philippines for many years at the request of several different Filipino administrations. At the same time, we continue to be deeply concerned by reports of extrajudicial killings by or at the behest of government authorities in the Philippines. We encourage thorough and transparent investigations into all credible reports and allegations of extrajudicial killings and we strongly urge the Philippines to ensure that its law enforcement efforts are consistent with its international human rights obligations.

Our assistance programs are designed to address human rights concerns by expanding Philippine capacity to conduct effective, lawful investigations, and professionalizing the criminal justice system so that it's more accountable, transparent, effective, and just.

Now, to your specific question, the department is restricted under federal regulations from commenting on the status of commercial export license approvals of proposed commercial defense sales. So we're going to stay also committed to working closely with members of Congress to deliver security assistance to our allies and partners worldwide, including the Philippines.

QUESTION: So those rifles are commercial sales? They are not government-to-government transfer?

MR KIRBY: These are governed by commercial export license approvals. They're U.S. commercial sales. They're not --

QUESTION: Are they --

MR KIRBY: I am prohibited by federal regulation from commenting any further on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You said five of seven treaty alliances are in the Asia Pacific?

MR KIRBY: Yes. I've been saying that for a long time.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: John, (inaudible).

QUESTION: Is it wrong? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Wait a second. So NATO is – so NATO counts as one?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. So of those five that are in the Asia-Pacific, how many are in Southeast Asia?

MR KIRBY: Probably the Philippines, yeah. What's your point?

QUESTION: Okay. Just that --

MR KIRBY: The Asia Pacific --

QUESTION: -- your only treaty ally in Southeast Asia is aligning itself with the Chinese.

MR KIRBY: Look, we've talked about this one now for --

QUESTION: All right.

MR KIRBY: Wait, no, no. No, don't waive your hand and tell me not to talk.

QUESTION: I'm going to let you go. I'm --

MR KIRBY: There's --

QUESTION: No, no, no, I'm not saying that.

MR KIRBY: There's – Matt, we've talked about this one for weeks now. I mean, the security alliance that we have with the Philippines is still in effect. It's 70 years old and it's still in effect.

QUESTION: I'm not saying it's not.

MR KIRBY: And while we've seen comments and rhetoric from President Duterte and other leaders in the Philippines, what we haven't seen is any tangible move to break those bonds --

QUESTION: Got it.

MR KIRBY: -- or sever that relationship, and nor do we want to see that happen.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Press reports on Lebanon said that – saying that the Secretary called the new president of Lebanon and congratulated him.

MR KIRBY: He did call President Aoun this morning to congratulate him and to reaffirm our commitment to the future of a bilateral relationship with Lebanon and our desire to see – now that the Lebanese people have a chief executive – to see that Lebanon can move forward.

QUESTION: And he also called the former Prime Minister Hariri?

MR KIRBY: He did also call the former Prime Minister Hariri. But he did call President Aoun to congratulate him, yes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you support the Hariri premiership?

MR KIRBY: We don't – again, we're not going to comment or --

QUESTION: Would you like to see --

MR KIRBY: What we --

QUESTION: Because he (inaudible) with the United States.

MR KIRBY: Again, we're not going to involve ourselves in internal politics in Lebanon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just if I could add to the Philippines. This argument that the relations between the U.S. and the Philippines remains strong, it's just getting harder and harder to believe when it's not just the president of the Philippines publicly expressing doubt about that relationship; it's now members of Congress seemingly expressing doubt about the relationship. So I'm just struggling to understand how you can continue to insist this same line that relations remain strong.

MR KIRBY: I can continue to insist it because we continue to believe it's true. That doesn't mean that there's not going to be critics out there that have a different view in our government or their government. And it's not going to mean that there aren't people below President Duterte's level that are also making comments that are of concern to us. I'm not going to whitewash the fact that some of these comments are concerning. And as I've said many times, they're, in our view, strangely at odds with the relationship – relationships that we continue to have in a very tangible, practical, daily way with the Filipino people as well as Filipino institutions, including their security forces.

So we've seen in times where things are said and then walked back either by the individual that said them or by officials that work for those individuals. And so we're not going to get all – to use a military term, we're not going to get all wrapped around the axle here about every single thing that's said. We're focused on the long view. We're focused on a relationship that, at least from an alliance perspective, is 70 years old and we're looking for the next 70. And that's where our focus is going to remain.

So I understand people have a different view, and they're allowed to have those different views. And we certainly are not immune to the fact that there's going to be critics of where the relationship is right now or where it may be going. I can only speak for Secretary Kerry and our view here in the Administration, and that's that we believe strongly in this bilateral relationship. We believe very strongly in our security commitments to the Philippines, and we're going to continue to meet them.

QUESTION: How important are those bases to the U.S.?

MR KIRBY: Well, we don't have permanent basing in the Philippines. These are – whatever use there is – and there's only a small number of American troops that rotate in and out of the Philippines. We don't have permanent basing there, and it's in small numbers. So obviously, if you're going to have a rotational presence, you need some infrastructure to support that presence. So it's important, clearly, but we don't have U.S. bases in the Philippines.

QUESTION: So if you left them, it wouldn't really change anything, really.

MR KIRBY: If we left what?

QUESTION: The bases.

MR KIRBY: Well, it would certainly --

QUESTION: If --

QUESTION: You already did that once.

MR KIRBY: I mean --

QUESTION: Exactly. That's what I'm saying. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I mean, I'm not sure I follow the --

QUESTION: Twice if you count World War II.

MR KIRBY: I'm not sure I follow the --

QUESTION: I'm just asking how important are these bases to hang onto and --

MR KIRBY: They're not our bases that we're hanging on to. As Matt rightly said, we don't have military bases there anymore. We have a rotational presence of a small number of forces that are helping primarily with the counterterrorism efforts in the Philippines. We think those efforts are important not just for our own national security but for the national security of the Filipino people, and we'd like to see that presence and that CT capability persist.

But obviously, look, we're – they're there, as they are anywhere around the world, whether it's permanent basing or not permanent basing, they're there at the invitation of the host government, and we respect that. So if you're asking me if their rotational presence were to go away, would there be an – of course there would be an impact. But we're not there. I mean, again, as I said numerous times, there's – for all the rhetoric, there's been no change – no tangible, practical change – in the relationship on a day-to-day basis, to include from a security perspective.

QUESTION: John --

QUESTION: Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Samir's been very patient. Yeah. And he got interrupted by Nike.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR KIRBY: So go ahead.

QUESTION: No, that's okay. Any update on --

MR KIRBY: It's not okay with me.

QUESTION: Any update on the Geneva talks?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: The Russians are saying they going to postpone them because they are not happy.

MR KIRBY: I've seen Russian comments about postponing them, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means. The way I read it was they were speaking about political talks between the regime and the opposition. The multilateral discussions in Geneva continue. I don't have an update to give you or any readout from today, but the teams are still at it. The discussions are still ongoing. And I think the Secretary when he was overseas over the weekend talked a little bit about the fact that there are proposals being considered. So that work continues.

Again, I think there's been a garble in those comments, at least from my reading of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but the impression I got was that the Russian official was talking more about the regime and the opposition talks, which have obviously not resumed. We're all mindful of that. In fact, one of the reasons why we've got teams in Geneva trying to get to a cessation of hostilities is so that we can – if you get that, you can get hopefully to political talks.

QUESTION: Do you have any thoughts on President Assad saying in an interview that he will remain in power until at least 2021?

MR KIRBY: I saw the comments, and all I can tell you is that we're committed, the ISSG is committed, the UN is committed to trying to get political talks back on track so that we can get a transitional process in place. And from our view in the United States, nothing's changed about our view that he cannot be part of the long-term future of Syria.

QUESTION: But if your understanding of what the Russian official's comments were that basically there's an indefinite postponement in the talk – in the political transition talks, I mean, why is it – why is it hard or impossible to accept that he's going to be in power for another five years at least?

MR KIRBY: As I said, I don't know that that's exactly what they meant. That's how I took it. But if I'm right and that's what they were referring to, again, we wouldn't – we don't share the same view that there's an indefinite postponement, and we don't want to see Bashar al-Assad be part of the long-term future of Syria.

QUESTION: What about for the battle of Raqqa? I mean, that is imminent or looming in weeks, as was suggested by the Pentagon a week or so ago.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: What if the battle of Raqqa – would you coordinate or work with the Syrian army, Syrian forces? Because after all, that is a Syrian town. That is a Syrian city.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I'm not going to get ahead of military operations one way or another. I mean, one of the cardinal rules is you don't talk about future operations. So I'm not going to go there, Said, and I'm not going to speculate about campaign plans one way or the other. And I'm certainly not going to get into timelines or anything like that. Defense officials have spoken to their views of where things are going. What I will say is simply that we recognize that Raqqa is considered, at least by Daesh, as their --

QUESTION: Their capital.

MR KIRBY: -- capital in Syria, if you will. And we know that because Raqqa holds such importance to them and because the citizens there, those that remain, are in – every day in great danger, we know that something's going to have to be done about their presence in Raqqa, and that there are discussions inside the coalition about what that's going to be, what that has to look like. But I just won't get ahead of that.

QUESTION: But it is prudent to have – to marshal --

MR KIRBY: I will --

QUESTION: To marshal all forces available --

MR KIRBY: I will put a – let me – but --

QUESTION: -- to defeat Daesh, right?

MR KIRBY: Let me – but let me be clear, because I don't want to leave any doubt that there's no intention, there's no plan, there's no focus on working with the regime in any way, shape, or form with respect to the fight against Daesh in Syria. That has been the case in the past; that will be the case going forward. I want to make sure that I put a pin in that right away.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Go to what?

QUESTION: Yemen.

MR KIRBY: Yemen, okay.

QUESTION: Yes. Yesterday, the UN envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould al-Haj, during a closed meeting of the Security Council talked about that both sides need to submit good concessions and so on to have some sort of a resolution. But this peace map that he submitted was immediately rejected by the president of the country, Hadi – President Hadi. And in fact, his chief of staff said that a military solution was close or at hand, something akin to that. Do you have any comment on that?

MR KIRBY: I haven't seen those specific comments, Said, but I'm very comfortable restating again what U.S. policy is here. And that's that we want to see a ceasefire put in place across the country so that humanitarian aid can get – and this is something we don't talk about much in Yemen, in terms of humanitarian assistance, but there's desperate needs throughout the country. So we want to see a ceasefire in place, humanitarian aid delivered, and we want to see a resumption of political dialogue and talks.

And that's what the Secretary has been very keenly focused on now for many months – working with the special envoy, as well as with the Saudi-led coalition. So I can't really address those comments except to say – the one thing I will say about that, again having not seen those comments, is that we don't believe that a military solution is the right solution to what's going on in Yemen. We believe a political solution is the best approach and that's what we want to see all parties get back to.

QUESTION: But the United States is – directly or indirectly has taken sides in this fight. I mean, they're aiding the Saudi-led coalition and so on, providing info and satellite imagery or whatever you are providing. Could you lean on them, because they are the biggest influence or power in that war? I mean, they could influence Hadi.

MR KIRBY: First of all, I'd say we're on the side of the Yemeni people.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: That's the side that we're on and that's why the Secretary is working so hard to get a diplomatic solution to this; to get a ceasefire in place so that there isn't violence and people aren't living in fear and we can get them the aid they want and we can get this solved politically and through diplomatic approaches. So we're on the side squarely of the Yemeni people. That said, and the Secretary said this himself, the – the Saudi Government has a right to defend itself and they are under attack almost every day from across that border. They have a right to defend themselves.

Now, the third thing I would say is we have been nothing but clear and candid with Saudi Arabia, since they're leading the coalition efforts, about the manner in which military operations are prosecuted and implemented inside Yemen. And we've been very open with them about our concerns over certain strikes and reports of civilian casualties. I would note that they have investigated in the past. We've talked about the initial results of the October 8th strike already, that they're continuing to look at that. So I think they recognize the importance of taking a hard look at how they're prosecuting the war effort.

We're – we – Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region and they have a huge responsibility to their own people, they have a huge interest in combating terrorism in the region, and they are a member of the ISSG, so there is much to discuss with them. We are not bashful about expressing our concerns where and when they need to be expressed.

But again, I'd just follow back by saying the side we're on is the side of the Yemeni people. Okay?

Okay, thanks, everybody. Goyal – I tell you, Goyal, I'll give you the last one today. You were – I didn't get you yesterday. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Two questions, South Asia. One: What is going on in Pakistan now? Two things are going on. One, protest against the civilian government, and backed by the – some member of the military; and second, they are – military is killing innocent people in Karachi, among other things. So what – as far as U.S. security is concerned, is U.S. worried about these massive protests going on? Because now time has also come for the Mr. Sharif. The military chief must or should be resigning or – I mean, he will be replaced by a new military chief. Some believe maybe he may not leave and military may take over.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, the specific decisions about who leads the military in Pakistan are for – that's for the Pakistani Government to decide as – those are sovereign decisions that I'm not going to comment on. Obviously, we're aware of the reports about protest activity, bans on protest activity, decisions to protest or not to protest. Again, those are questions that are better answered by Pakistani authorities.

More broadly – and I've said this many times – the United States will continue to support freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. It's well documented that we do that. We talk about it every day, including the right of peaceful protest. So we want these rights to be exercised responsibly, and all parties should refrain from violence and exercise restraint and respect the rule of law.

Okay, thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Then can I just --

MR KIRBY: Thank you very much.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)