• 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

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 3, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

LEBANON
IRAN/REGION
AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ
PHILIPPINES
INDIA
SYRIA
SUDAN
SOUTH SUDAN/KENYA
VENEZUELA
DEPARTMENT
IRAQ/ISIL

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:14 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. Happy Thursday. Abigail, put the phone down. (Laughter.) I'm teasing. It was a joke. (Laughter.) You can use your phone all you want. Anyway, welcome to the State Department. I just have one thing at the top and then I'll get to your questions.

This is about Lebanon. The United States congratulates Saad Hariri on being named prime minister-designate of Lebanon. Today Lebanon took another important step to help build a better future for all of its citizens. The Lebanese people deserve an inclusive government that promotes peace and stability, restores basic services, and confronts the range of economic and political – or rather, economic and security challenges currently facing the country. The United States stands with the people of Lebanon in support of a secure, stable, and sovereign state.

Matt.

QUESTION: Well, let's just stay with – I'll just start with Lebanon very briefly --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and then move – I think there will be a natural segue here. You may have seen that Foreign Minister Zarif is going to be going to Beirut to greet the new president and potential prime minister this week. He'll be, if not the first, among the first foreign visitors. Does that give you guys any pause at all?

MR TONER: No. I have not seen those reports, first of all. But look, Kirby spoke to this the other day. We're going to judge the new government by its actions. We're aware of its affiliation or at least its backing or support of, rather, of[1] Hizballah. But as we've made clear, we're going to look to see what kind of new government they form and whether it's in accordance with the constitutions. And I'd just say this isn't the first time that we've confronted a very complex political environment in Lebanon.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But you say you want to judge the new government by – the new president, the new government by its actions. But if their first action is to meet with the Iranians, what does that tell you?

MR TONER: Well, again, I can't speak to that. And I wouldn't necessarily say that's their first action. Let's give it a bit more time.

QUESTION: All right.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Today is the anniversary of the takeover of the embassy. And once again, as they do every year, it's not really a surprise --

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: -- there were big demonstrations and lots of chants of "Death to America" and burning of flags, et cetera. I'm wondering, one, if you think that that is in keeping with the kind of relationship that you had hoped to promote, or improve, at least, in the wake of the nuclear agreement.

MR TONER: So you're absolutely right. It's – this day certainly brings out the overhyped rhetoric on the part of many in the Iranian Government. We don't necessarily want to engage in all the various statements that are made on a day like today.

I think in response to your second part of your question, I don't know that we ever held out hopes that our agreement with regard to – or the JCPOA would across the board change Iranians' – Iran's behavior overnight. And it speaks to the fact that Iran needs to choose what kind of role it's going to play in the region. All kinds of – and also it speaks to the fact that there's a certain political environment in Iran. Like any country, there's heated political rhetoric that comes out. And I'm just not going to respond to every instance of that in this case.

QUESTION: Right. Well, I mean, you may not have hoped, or if you did it was a – no, I won't even suggest that you did hope --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- but that it would change overnight. But I mean, surely there was – an opening was seen whereby what had been talks exclusively about the nuclear – the nuclear deal with the side talks on the American prisoners, then expanded to include Syria talks. So there was – but --

MR TONER: That's a valid point.

QUESTION: But --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- now you see, again, after this, and after you welcomed their chosen – or a guy they support as – to be president of Lebanon, you basically extended another kind of olive branch there, and yet you're met with the same vitriolic rhetoric.

MR TONER: So I wouldn't necessarily couch our support for the new government in Lebanon in that – quite those terms. I think what we're looking for in Lebanon --

QUESTION: You might want --

MR TONER: -- what we're looking for in – sure.

QUESTION: You might want to say that it's purely – it has to do with Lebanon, but people look at it much more broadly. And if --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And you have to recognize that they do. Because I mean, you basically welcoming Iran's guy as – to be – as president of Lebanon, and that's --

MR TONER: What we're welcoming in Lebanon is --

QUESTION: And that's the way that --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Iranians look at it.

MR TONER: What we're welcoming in Lebanon is a new government that we hope can restore basic services, stability to the country. And we're going to look at its behavior going forward, and we're going to judge it according to its actions.

That said, going back to your question about Iran and its behavior, of course – so a couple points. And the reason I said what I said is today is a – as you noted, an emotionally charged and politically charged day in Iran, so I don't want to judge comments necessarily made in the environment of today's anniversary.

QUESTION: These aren't comments that are just made today.

MR TONER: But let me finish. Let me finish.

QUESTION: They make them every day.

MR TONER: Let me finish. Let me finish, with respect to how we view our relationship with Iran going forward. And the other reason I said what I said in response to your initial question was we did the JCPOA because it took that nuclear threat off the table, and we figured that that was something worth pursuing in its own right.

That said, do we want to see Iran play a more constructive role in the region? Of course, we do. Could it, with regard to Syria and with regard to Yemen and other conflicts? Of course, it could. We're going to continue where those options look realistic to continue to pursue them.

QUESTION: Okay. But those are broad policy --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: In the short term, would you like to see them – I mean, they can turn this rhetoric off if they wanted to, presumably. Would you like to see them stop?

MR TONER: Well, again – and I'm – of course, we'd like to see the – no one likes to see this kind of hyper-charged rhetoric on the part of any government anywhere, and anti-American sentiments expressed. But again, we're not going to base our whole relationship going forward based on – or base our relationship going forward on these kind of heated political remarks made on the part of --

QUESTION: And I'm going to drop this shortly.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: But I mean, it's not just heated political rhetoric. This is like their policy.

MR TONER: Well, I mean, with regard to – you're talking about the remarks made today on --

QUESTION: I'm talking about the chants of "Death to America." I mean, it seems it's coming from the supreme leader. This is not just like some guy, one guy standing out there with – on speakers' corner or something with a tin foil hat on. It's thousands of people and very powerful parts of the government that are doing it. So it's not just rhetoric; it's policy.

But anyway, that's – we'll just --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

QUESTION: I just – go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Just, do you actually regard "Death to America" as being Iranian policy? Because Iranian senior officials sit down across the table in very fancy hotels, mostly in Europe, with senior American officials; they engage with them; they negotiate stuff with them over the course of the months, years. Do you regard "Death to America" as being – as truly being Iran's policy?

MR TONER: No. What I would say is we continue to see Iranian behavior in the region that is, frankly, not positive, that is unconstructive, with regard – and I'm speaking specifically with regard to Yemen, with regard to Syria, but other places as well – and that raise our concerns. And as much as we can engage constructively Iran on any of those issues, we're going to do so. But we're mindful of the fact that its behavior hasn't changed across the board just because we got agreement on the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Would you add Lebanon to that list --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in terms of their unconstructive and not-helpful behavior?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: So just last one. This will be brief, I think.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: And that is that there's been some attention paid to some comments that Secretary Kerry made in London earlier this week about the JCPOA, the nuclear deal, and the sanctions relief in terms of European banks doing business with Iran. He said in his Chatham House comments that the banks did not need to do any extra, additional due diligence before – they just needed to do the standard amount of due diligence that they would do for another country if they were looking to do business with – in Iran. And there's been some pushback, or seems to have been some pushback on that from Treasury, which says that no, in fact, you have to do enhanced due diligence because Iran is a high-risk market. Is that – what's going on here? Was the Secretary saying something that's different than what the actual policy is?

MR TONER: Without having seen how Treasury may have responded, I think the Secretary was just making the point that – and we've made an effort to explain this and we've – you're all well aware of some of the engagement efforts that we've made with regard to financial institutions and companies explaining what sanctions have been relieved and the – have been lifted as a result of the JCPOA and the fact that – what business can be done with Iran going forward. I just don't have the details of what the Department of Treasury may have tried to clarify there so.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Afghanistan.

MR TONER: Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Afghan officials say at least 30 civilians, including women and children, have been killed and dozens more wounded in a NATO strike in Kunduz. Any comment?

MR TONER: So yes, I do, obviously. It's a terrible event. I think the Department of Defense has already spoken to this. But as part of an Afghan operation, friendly forces around Kunduz received direct fire, and airstrikes were conducted in order to defend them. We obviously take any reports or allegations of civilian casualties very seriously. This was, however, an Afghan operation, and so we'll work – just let me finish – we'll work with our Afghan partners in order to investigate this incident thoroughly. But I would encourage you to go to them for additional details.

QUESTION: It was a U.S. strike, was it?

MR TONER: My understanding it was not. It was an Afghan-led operation.

QUESTION: Wait, wait. But do you – are there Afghan-trained pilots operating Afghan-trained – Afghan-owned or borrowed or leased aircraft that conducted the strikes?

MR TONER: My understanding is this, again – and I don't have the details. I just know the Department of Defense has said that this was an Afghan operation and that we – that they're conducting the investigation into the incident.

QUESTION: Are you – okay.

QUESTION: On --

MR TONER: I --

QUESTION: I didn't think that the Afghans had pilots that could fly aircraft of this sort.

MR TONER: If there's any change in that, I promise I'll update that. That's just – I'm going – operating with what I have. It's a valid question, but I just don't have any more details.

QUESTION: On October --

MR TONER: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: On October 22nd, on the outskirts of Mosul in Iraq, there was a coalition strike, which killed eight civilians according to a family member of the deceased. The coalition confirmed the strikes – the strike and they said that they're investigating the casualties. I heard you – Mr. Kirby say, I remember, one civilian casualty is too many. Is it the policy – is it the U.S. policy or is it something you say?

MR TONER: I'm sorry. You're saying is it our policy to -- or is it --

QUESTION: One too many.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you say one civilian casualty is too --

MR TONER: Not at all. I mean, it's not something we simply say. Let me clarify that. We take any civilian – let's put it this way – any credible allegation of civilian casualties very seriously, and we investigate it thoroughly. That's, again, the Department of Defense, and frankly, we hold that standard up to any other military in the world in terms of both following up on any credible allegation of a casualty or civilian casualty event and taking appropriate action with respect to consequences.

QUESTION: There is evidence that the civilian casualties are happening. So when you say, "one is too many," do I understand it too literally? Should I not --

MR TONER: Again, recognizing – so two points to make here: One is that whenever we carry out a military strike, whether it's part of the coalition or not, we take every effort and take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, to the point where we will choose sometimes not to take strikes against known enemy targets because it puts civilians at risk. We're pretty scrupulous about that.

That said, this is kinetic warfare, and sometimes accidents may happen. And when they do and there are credible reports of civilian casualties, we investigate those reports very thoroughly. And in fact, I mean, I think Kirby spoke to this yesterday at the Foreign Press Center, but we have a number of events, allegations – credible allegations of civilian casualty incidents that we've investigated and reported on and even posted the findings on Department of Defense website.

QUESTION: Well, the U.S. argument against Russia's actions in eastern Aleppo was that the fight against terrorists there was not worth the civilian casualties, not like that in Mosul. Do you think it's worth it? I mean, there is evidence that they're happening. And my understanding is that the operations are at their beginning. So it's just --

MR TONER: So – and I would make this clarification. What we have seen – and I think we've talked about this a fair amount last week – what we have seen in around Aleppo are indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, civilian targets that raise questions whether these are deliberate targets.

With regard to our operations in and around Mosul, of course we'll investigate and look into any credible allegation of civilian causalities. And I'm not sure what the status of this particular event that you've raised is, but if it's a credible allegation we will investigate it. We don't see the same on the Russian side, and certainly not on the Syrian regime side.

QUESTION: Do you really believe that Russia is deliberately targeting civilians there? So you don't believe when they say that they are targeting al-Nusrah in eastern Aleppo?

MR TONER: Again, when we look at the evidence that we've seen on the ground, it can only lead to the conclusion that civilians were being deliberately targeted in some of these actions in an effort to intimidate – I don't know – I mean, you tell me what the motivation is behind it, but perhaps in an effort to drive out the civilians from Aleppo in order to eventually take the city. Again, that's not what you're seeing in and around Aleppo – or in and around Mosul, not at all.

But I can never say in an operation, a military operation, that civilians won't get hurt, injured, or killed. But what I can say is that we make every effort, as part of the anti-Daesh coalition and as a leader in that, to avoid civilian causalities.

Yes.

QUESTION: Different topic.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Philippines. Secretary of State Kerry today at the swearing-in ceremony for Ambassador Sung Kim said that he hopes to visit Manila again before his tenure is up. Has there been some sort of olive branch by President Duterte or some other indications that reveal some sort of change of climate that would clear the way for such a visit?

MR TONER: So Secretary – and thank you for drawing attention. I do want to congratulate Ambassador Sung Kim and also thank Ambassador Goldberg for his service in the Philippines. I think the Secretary was making clear that this relationship matters to the United States. It's very important. And in fact, he emphasized the strong ties that our nations have, people-to-people ties. I think he cited some 30,000 Filipino Americans on active duty in our military; four million Filipino Americans live in the United States. This is – these are strong bonds. And I simply – I think he was expressing his desire not to see those bonds threatened in any way, shape, or form by some of the political rhetoric flying around. And he was emphasizing the fact that we're going to continue to work to strengthen our relationship with the Philippines, and we're going to continue to pursue a strong economic and security cooperation with them.

Thanks.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- can you – have you discussed the possibility of a visit with the Philippines yet?

MR TONER: Nothing to announce, no.

QUESTION: And then can you outline a bit of the priorities for Ambassador Kim in the Philippines?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, he spoke to it, obviously, today. And his remarks at least should be out there, if not they will be soon. Again, I mean, we've talked about it a lot. We already have a very strong security relationship with them, military-to-military cooperation. They're, as you've heard, a treaty ally of ours, and so we take that very seriously. We want to strengthen that military cooperation. We're working with them on their counter-narcotics efforts, mindful though that when they do carry out these kinds of efforts that they need to abide by international standards and international law. And we're also – again, people-to-people ties, economic ties – this is a vital relationship in the overall framework of our close ties to the Asian region, and we're going to continue to pursue those areas of cooperation.

QUESTION: Staying in Asia.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: It's about the recent Travel Warning issued from the U.S., and now the Australians have issued a travel warning. Did the Australians – you share any intelligence with the Australians (inaudible)?

MR TONER: I wouldn't speak to that. What I can clarify though – it wasn't a Travel Warning, and there's an important distinction to make there, Tejinder. The U.S. embassy did – in New Delhi did release a security message on November 1st that was highlighting recent media reports, frankly, that indicate ISIL's desire to attack targets in India. I think it talked about increased threats to markets, religious sites, and festival venues. And this is a pretty common thing for an embassy to do when presented with this kind of information. As I said, this is information that was in the Indian media, but we're certainly – when we have that kind of information, we're going to send it out via our networks to the American community.

QUESTION: My next question was going to be on that, that you – in the language it says "recent India media reports." There are thousands of channels and millions of newspapers out there.

MR TONER: Yep. It's a vital --

QUESTION: And it's a --

MR TONER: -- vibrant media scene in India.

QUESTION: Yes, and --

MR TONER: Of which you are a part.

QUESTION: And most of it – most of it is very sensationalism and fearmongering and anti-Pakistan, anti – kind of thing. So on the basis of that, are you not joining hands with the media? Or can you define or give us a list of the media that you have --

MR TONER: It's a fair question. I don't have the list of media in front of me. What I would say is that you are absolutely right, and I wouldn't say just India. Many media environments have a broad swath of viewpoints, shall we say. And I think that – I trust, in fact, that our embassy and its public affairs section and press section are able to evaluate that media market and assess whether the information is credible or not.

QUESTION: Just a --

MR TONER: Please go ahead, yeah.

QUESTION: -- quick one on that. That whenever there are state or any kind of elections in India, the media takes sides and there is a lot of fearmongering that starts and --

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: So I'm trying to see if we can find which are the medias your embassies – the able people did consult to come to this conclusion, because the – one of the elections is the UP, the (inaudible) Uttar Pradesh – these elections. So --

MR TONER: When I was in New Delhi a couple months ago, I was very impressed with the newspapers I read and the breadth of coverage. And frankly, there are some very, very good media outlets, including newspapers, in India that I'm sure figure into the assessment of the embassy when it's carrying out or evaluating this kind of information. And I'm not joking. I'm just saying that there's a very sophisticated media market, and that's what both our Foreign Service officers posted in embassies overseas but also the Indians who are employed by the embassy are paid to do. They're paid to evaluate and analyze that media.

Please, sir, in the back.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR TONER: Syria? Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. There are reports suggesting that the U.S. and Turkey agreed on clearing YPG forces from Manbij under U.S. and Turkey supervision. I was wondering if you can confirm this report.

MR TONER: I've seen those reports. I don't have anything to confirm them. It's the first I'm hearing about any kind of effort, so I can't confirm.

QUESTION: And what's your position on YPG forces being in Manbij, by the way?

MR TONER: What's our position?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: Again, we've worked with the YPG pretty extensively in northern Syria. They've been an effective fighting force against Daesh. We've talked about that fact. They're part of, frankly, a broad coalition of forces – Syrian Turks, Syrian Arabs as well – who have been effectively fighting against Daesh in northern Syria. What we have spoken to before is we understand Turkey's concerns with respect to some elements of the YPG, and we have asked them to live up to the commitments that they have made to us with regard to where they are based and where they are – yes, I would say based in Syria --

QUESTION: Did you make any --

MR TONER: -- in northern Syria. And what we've seen thus far is that they've lived up to those commitments.

QUESTION: So you're saying that they cleared the place?

MR TONER: I think it's our – was our assessment that they had cleared out, yes.

Yes. I'm sorry, yeah.

QUESTION: Sudan?

MR TONER: Sudan, yeah.

QUESTION: A letter was sent by members in Congress to Secretary Kerry expressing deep concern about the increased number of migration or refugees from Darfur, and also mentioning reports about the use by the Government of Sudan of chemical weapons against civilians. Are you aware of this and do you have a reaction?

MR TONER: Sorry, you're talking about a letter?

QUESTION: A letter to the Secretary from a number of members in Congress expressing concern about increased migration of people in Darfur and talking about reports of the government using chemical weapons against civilians and asking for investigation on this.

MR TONER: I mean, it – with regard to the use of chemical weapons, of course, if there were credible reports of chemical weapons use, we would take those very seriously and also call on an investigation. I'm frankly not aware of the letter you're referring to.

QUESTION: Humanitarian aid to people who are fledding Darfur?

MR TONER: You're talking about that we should provide more humanitarian --

QUESTION: No, no, there are – they are asking for the Secretary to help in making sure that people who are fledding to get humanitarian aid.

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, look – I mean, Samir, I don't have this – the number in front of me, but we provide humanitarian assistance to Sudan. We're the leading provider of humanitarian assistance in the world today. Can we do more? We may be able to do more, but I'm quite comfortable that we're doing our part.

QUESTION: They are concerned about the situation is getting worse.

MR TONER: And we are too. And we'll certainly look at the letter and respond to Congress, but I don't have any readout to give to you.

QUESTION: South Sudan, please.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: The UN has come out this week with a report about the violence in July. Firstly, can I get your reaction to the very difficult details that were contained in there of the failure to protect civilians and aid workers?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, you're talking about the independent special investigation that was conducted into the July violence in Juba. And they did brief today at the Security Council and we thank them for that. Couple things to say about it: First of all, it's absolutely critical that the South Sudanese Government protect civilians, humanitarian workers, and other international aid workers within its borders. And the government should act on the report that was compiled by the Terrain investigation committee and hold all the perpetrators of that violence accountable through a fair and credible process that's consistent with South Sudan's international human rights obligations.

The UNMISS peacekeeping mission, which was the focus of the report, and their actions is mandated under Security Council resolutions to use all necessary means to protect civilians under threat of physical violence regardless of the source of such violence, and within its capacity, certainly in the areas of deployment, with specific protections for women and children. And upholding that mandate enhances the faith in peacekeepers and the utility of peacekeeping missions everywhere. And we certainly express our gratitude to the peacekeepers who tried to stem the violence and extend our condolences to the families of those who lost their lives during the violence in July.

I think that we would say that we remain a proponent of UN peacekeeping. Peacekeeping missions, leaders are an indispensable tool for promoting peace and reconciliation in some of the worst spots of the world. And we're going to continue to make every opportunity to work with UN leadership, including the secretary-general, to hold peacekeeping operations to the highest standards.

QUESTION: Now, the commander at the time of UNMISS, a Kenyan man called Ondieki, has been deemed to be responsible for a failure of leadership and has essentially been sacked. As a result of that, and the reaction to the report, the Kenyans have withdrawn over 1,000 troops from South Sudan. How concerned are you?

MR TONER: So with regard to his sacking, as you put it, that's a decision for the UN secretary-general and we respect that decision. I'd refer you to the UN for more details. With regard to reports that Kenyan – Kenya, rather, has – intends to withdraw its peacekeeping forces from UNMISS, we have seen those reports. We certainly appreciate the invaluable role that Kenya has played in carrying out UNMISS's peacekeeping operations – peacekeeping mission, rather – and it's our hope that they'll continue to play a role. Kenyan troops also serve in several other UN missions, and we've continued to discuss the importance of Kenya's role and contribution to UNMISS with Kenyan authorities, so I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: Given that there's a lot of work being done to try to increase the size of the UN force, this looks very much to be a step in the wrong direction. Is it hampering your ability to step up that force, and therefore is it compromising to South Sudanese security going forward?

MR TONER: Well, again, we've seen reports about Kenya's intentions. We're going to continue to engage with the Kenyan Government. I think, drawing on the conclusions of this report, certainly we want to see reforms made to the peacekeeping mission in South Sudan. But you're correct in that it's absolutely vital that we maintain a robust presence there given the current climate.

QUESTION: When you say --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- you've seen reports, I mean, President Kenyatta has announced this.

MR TONER: Right. Sorry.

QUESTION: You don't believe him?

MR TONER: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying we're continuing to talk to the Kenyans about their intentions.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean you're hoping to convince him otherwise, or asking him to change his mind?

MR TONER: Again, we're going to continue to engage with him. We believe --

QUESTION: Yeah, but what does that mean? I mean, you can say we're going to continue to engage with him and then go have a cup of coffee with the guy and chat about the weather. That – I mean, are you --

MR TONER: Well, ultimately, they're going to make their own sovereign decisions.

QUESTION: Are you going to – I understand that --

MR TONER: But we --

QUESTION: -- but, I mean, would you prefer that they not withdraw their troops from – and when you – are – when you say "engage," are you going to say hey, President Kenyatta, we don't think this is a good idea?

MR TONER: We don't want to see UNMISS compromised – the numbers – in terms of troop numbers on the ground, peacekeepers' numbers. And we're mindful of that. Obviously, Kenya's going to make its own decisions, but we're going to continue --

QUESTION: Right, but those troops could come from --

QUESTION: Matt, (inaudible) – let him finish the sentence.

MR TONER: No, but we're going to continue to make the case that they need to – that we're appreciative of the role they've played there.

QUESTION: And would like them to continue?

MR TONER: Would like them to continue.

QUESTION: So, in other words, you will be – you are talking to President Kenyatta about reversing his decision to pull troops out.

MR TONER: Matt, we're in discussions with --

QUESTION: I don't understand why that's such a difficult question.

MR TONER: No, I'm just saying we're --

QUESTION: Either you like the decision or you don't, and if you don't like it, are you going to ask him to reconsider or not? I mean, that's all.

MR TONER: No, I get it, but, I mean, we're going to continue to talk to Kenya about its role in UNMISS. I'll leave it there.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a broader question about this, then?

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, it seems to me that the makeup of this UN force is still pretty much the same as it was in July. Many of those forces were – seem to be completely incapable of carrying out their mandate. Should we be looking at this in a much broader perspective and saying how do we resolve these issues?

MR TONER: I think in the sense that – well, look, first of all, we've long supported reforms to UN peacekeeping missions to strengthen them, and we're going to continue to pursue those reforms. But I think you're right in the sense that this report and – certainly shine a light on some failings, and we're going to continue to push for reforms to strengthen peacekeeping across the board.

Is that it, guys?

QUESTION: No. I got --

MR TONER: Okay. Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: -- brief ones. Venezuela. I'm just wondering, do you have any kind of a readout from the conclusion of Tom Shannon's trip down there? Did it come out and I miss it? Which is possible, as I was watching nothing but baseball last night.

MR TONER: I think we might – I mean, his last day was yesterday, but I mean, he's obviously – he's back here. He did meet with senior government officials. I don't seem to have a list in front of me of who – is that what you're looking for, who in fact he met with?

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: What are you looking for?

QUESTION: What he actually did. I'm not interested in the New Light of Myanmar's caption of every general and whatever he met with. I don't want a list of people he met with. I want the substance – as much substance as we can get of what the --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- what the subject of the conversation was.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: And specifically whether or not you think that this dialogue that they have going on --

MR TONER: Well, of course, we think it's --

QUESTION: -- is worthwhile.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What he said about that, if it's --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Does he encourage – was he encouraging them to continue?

MR TONER: So first of all, I mean, I think his visit did show that our continued support for the ongoing dialogue process, as well as, frankly, our interest in the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people, who are enduring some very difficult times right now. And we would call on both sides to maintain the dialogue and strengthen it and work to determine solutions to – cooperate to determined solutions to Venezuela's very urgent problems and respect the will of the Venezuelan people. I mean, ultimately the responsibility for this kind of dialogue rests with Venezuela's leaders, but it was a productive couple of days, and we're going to continue to engage.

QUESTION: Okay. But --

QUESTION: How was it productive?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, he – I mean, this is something, obviously, Secretary Kerry as well as Ambassador Shannon have pursued over the last few months. It's productive in the sense that we're trying to establish, maintain, strengthen this dialogue between the Venezuelan Government and the opposition, because there's a very urgent economic crisis facing the country and political crisis. And we believe it's, obviously, in our national security interest and the region's interest to engage.

QUESTION: But --

QUESTION: What – sorry, if I may follow up.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: What outcome – I understand that you believe in the dialogue.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: But what outcome was produced by his productive visit --

MR TONER: Well, look, I mean --

QUESTION: -- in terms of furthering that dialogue.

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, Arshad – so first of all, as you well know, diplomacy can sometimes take a while to produce concrete outcomes. What was beneficial from his visit was that he was able to meet with opposition leaders, able to meet with civil society leaders, able to meet with senior government officials, and make clear to all of them that the United States wants to help Venezuela work through its current political and economic crises as a friend and as someone who's concerned about some of the challenges that are facing the people of Venezuela.

Now, we're going to continue – this is a step in the process. We're going to continue to engage. We're going to work towards trying to strengthen that dialogue. But ultimately – and I said this – it's up to the government and the opposition to work together to come up with a plan.

QUESTION: Critics of the Administration's policy in Venezuela and more broadly, which I think is a somewhat larger universe, critics of President Maduro himself have said that – or argue that this dialogue is essentially a waste of time, and that you shouldn't be encouraging the opposition to take part in what they say is kind of a sham process. Obviously, based on what you've just said, you don't believe that it is a sham process. But – so why is it that you have hope for this? Is it just if you keep them talking there is less likely to be tumult and unrest? Is that the idea here?

MR TONER: Well, I --

QUESTION: Or do you actually expect and think that it is possible for these two sides, which appear to be irreconcilable, to come together for the good of the country?

MR TONER: Well, we're always going to, obviously, promote and advocate for a peaceful political process to resolve any political crisis. And a necessary part of that is an effective dialogue between or among Venezuelans on how to, from across the political spectrum, on how to resolve those – the crises facing the country.

QUESTION: Well, the question is then --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- do you believe that the dialogue, as it exists right now, is effective, is an effective one?

MR TONER: So I think our assessment is that it's worth pursuing.

QUESTION: All right. Last thing. Just my standard email question: Still no contact with the FBI?

MR TONER: Still no contact with the FBI.

QUESTION: And you're going to release some this afternoon? I believe the court has a November 3rd deadline for you.

MR TONER: Yes. So, that I – yes, I can say that today at approximately 3:30, we are going to make publicly available online approximately 350 documents, totaling approximately 12 – rather, 1,250 additional pages of emails that were sent or received by Secretary Clinton in her official capacity during her tenure as Secretary of State. And these documents, as you all know, were the ones provided to the State Department by the FBI this past summer, and we've been reviewing them using FOIA standards for public release.

QUESTION: Did the court order you – I'm just checking right now --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but from memory, I thought the court had ordered you to produce 1,400 pages by today.

MR TONER: We were ordered by the court to process 1,850 pages of material received from the FBI by today.

QUESTION: Excuse me. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Right.

MR TONER: And we've met that requirement. We're releasing approximately 1,250 pages of that 1,850 pages we processed.

QUESTION: And when will the --

MR TONER: And why is that?

QUESTION: Yep.

MR TONER: Because – I'm anticipating your question.

QUESTION: Please.

MR TONER: Yeah, that's okay. So in processing these documents for release, the Department identified a number that were exact duplicates of those released in our previous productions. And so those documents were processed but won't be – we won't re-release them. We also processed a number of exact duplicates within the number – within the material that was provided by the FBI; that is to say, in that tranche, there were actually duplicates of emails within that same tranche. So not duplicates of what we'd already released, but within that – the tranche that the FBI --

QUESTION: Multiple copies --

MR TONER: Yes, thank you.

QUESTION: -- of the same document within the same tranche.

MR TONER: Thank you. Yeah, within the same tranche, right.

QUESTION: Got it.

MR TONER: So we're not going to really re-release any of those that are duplicates.

QUESTION: So, but you have met the 1,850.

MR TONER: We have.

QUESTION: And is the number that you're – the 1,250 that you're releasing today, don't you have to release some more tomorrow?

MR TONER: We do.

QUESTION: And can you walk us through that, and whether you've met the courts requirements on that?

MR TONER: We have, we will. I mean, we haven't yet, but we expect to with regard to releasing the additional – I'm trying to think of what the number is. I don't have that in front of me, but we expect to meet that deadline for tomorrow, as well.

QUESTION: And then one last question.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Just so I'm clear, vis-a-vis today's release, the number that you are releasing today reflects all 1,850 pages that you processed excluding duplicates, correct?

MR TONER: Yes. And so – sorry, I actually do have – so today, we were required to meet, as you noticed, or required to process, rather, 1,850 pages of emails. And we are going to meet that requirement. And as you noted, we're – but we're actually going to release only 1,250, because of the duplicates.

QUESTION: So the other 600 were all duplicates and previously released?

MR TONER: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Great.

MR TONER: Tomorrow we're required to process 350 pages of emails, and we expect to meet that requirement, as well. Sorry --

QUESTION: And do you have any idea how many pages you'll actually be releasing tomorrow?

MR TONER: No idea yet. We're still finalizing that.

QUESTION: All right. Thanks.

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR TONER: Please, of course.

QUESTION: -- anything on Baghdadi's latest message, any comment on that, or any concern about him calling for terrorist attacks in new countries around the world?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look – so I don't think we have any reason to doubt the authenticity of it. We still haven't made a final determination on whether it's an authentic tape. But as I said, we don't have any reason to doubt that it isn't. He made a lot of comments or statements about the state of things, or how he'd like to see them. But look, I'd just say no audiotape can change the reality of what's happening on the ground in Mosul currently, and also can change our determination to continue with the operations that are currently underway to destroy and degrade Daesh in both Iraq and Syria. We've made tremendous gains over the past year. We're on the verge of liberating Mosul. That's not to say we're there yet, but we're making progress. We're talking about Raqqa next, and that's the – what ISIL purports to be the seat of its caliphate. We're going to keep the pressure on them, and no audiotape's going to change that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:58 p.m.)

DPB # 189

[1] from