• 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 17, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL
DEPARTMENT
YEMEN/REGION
TURKEY/PAKISTAN/REGION
SYRIA/RUSSIA
DEPARTMENT
PAKISTAN/INDIA
SECRETARY TRAVEL
IRAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:19 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Okay, guys. Just a quick update on the Secretary's travel. I think you saw that – you know that he's in Lima today leading the State Department's delegation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Ministerial Meeting. He will have, or by this time has had, a number of meetings today including bilateral discussions with the Japanese foreign minister, the Philippine foreign minister, the Taiwanese APEC special envoy, the Peruvian foreign minister, the Russian foreign minister, and the Canadian foreign minister. Now, some of those haven't happened yet. Some have. I think the team on the ground will be putting out readouts. I think they've already put out a readout of the meeting with Foreign Minister Kishida. So you'll see those rolling along.

QUESTION: For each one?

MR KIRBY: That's my understanding they'll do one for each one, so you'll see those from Mark out on the road.

With that, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. Let me start with my daily transition --

MR KIRBY: I have nothing to update you on.

QUESTION: Wow. That was fast.

MR KIRBY: Yep. Next.

QUESTION: There has been some reporting out there that there is – with people expressing concern that the president-elect is – and his staff are – or vice president-elect and their staffs are having conversations by phone with foreign leaders that are not on secure lines. I'm just wondering, one, does the State Department have any idea what kind of phone lines are being used? And two, does it care? Is this an issue for security or otherwise? Is it an issue?

MR KIRBY: Well, the answer to the first question is no, we don't have visibility into the method of transmission here in terms of how the calls are being set up and facilitated. I don't think it – I mean – and you know this, Matt, that it is possible and it's fairly routine – not in every case, but in many cases – for the phone calls even that we have with the foreign counterparts are sometimes done over unclassified telephone systems. Not every one, but I would say a majority of them are done that way. And obviously, we would leave it to the transition team to speak to --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- the degree to which – what they were discussing and the degree to which any of that might have been sent.

QUESTION: So anyway – so what you're saying is, basically, there isn't a concern from the State Department about how these calls are being done?

MR KIRBY: It's not for us to comment on that right now.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, it might be if it was a problem.

MR KIRBY: Again, I don't --

QUESTION: And I'm just trying to figure out --

MR KIRBY: We don't have visibility into the content and --

QUESTION: I understand that, but --

MR KIRBY: -- we don't have visibility into who's being – who they're calling and when.

QUESTION: Right, but --

MR KIRBY: And so, I mean, obviously, one would have to assume --

QUESTION: Do you have --

MR KIRBY: -- that the transition --

QUESTION: Right, right.

MR KIRBY: -- that the transition team understands the limits of unclassified discussions.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: But that's really for them to speak to.

QUESTION: I understand that, but I want to know from the – this current Administration's perspective, is this a potential problem, or is it not something, as you said, that – is it not something that you're at all concerned about because, as you said, a vast majority or a majority of phone calls --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. I mean, it's --

QUESTION: -- right now take place over unsecure lines?

MR KIRBY: It depends on what's being conveyed over an unclassified network. I mean, it's hard for me to say, "Is it a problem or not" when we don't have visibility into what's being discussed.

QUESTION: Well, I'm not asking if it's a problem or not.

MR KIRBY: Well, you --

QUESTION: Is there a concern that it might be a problem?

MR KIRBY: Well, again --

QUESTION: That's the question.

MR KIRBY: We're going to rely on the judgment of --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- the president-elect's team to determine the appropriate nature of their conversations.

QUESTION: All right. So I just want to make sure then that I got this straight: That it is not a particular concern of the State Department how the president-elect and the vice president-elect speak with foreign leaders.

MR KIRBY: It is up to the president-elect --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- and his team to determine the nature of their conversations with foreign leaders.

QUESTION: And then last one – and sorry, Lesley, I'll – thank you. And then the last one on this. So the Secretary met with the foreign minister of Japan in Peru. The readout that you guys sent out didn't say anything about the prime minister of Japan meeting with the president-elect today. I'm wondering, did they talk about that at all? Has the Government of Japan been in touch with the Administration about Prime Minister Abe's visit today?

MR KIRBY: Well, two different questions. I'm not aware of any contact that we've had with the Government of Japan in any kind of formal way about the visit, and I would just point you to the readout. I obviously wasn't there when the visit happened, so Mark gave a readout that I thought was pretty complete, and I simply won't go beyond that.

QUESTION: Okay. So as far – so we don't know if it was --

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, it's just – I would just have to point you to the readout.

QUESTION: Well, yeah, I know, but --

MR KIRBY: I wouldn't go into any more detail than this, and I just --

QUESTION: -- can we find out if it was? I mean, maybe it wasn't discussed, I don't know, and that's why it wasn't in the readout.

MR KIRBY: I can ask the question, but I don't think that we're going to go beyond the readout.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you aware --

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that.

MR KIRBY: Hang on. Lesley first, then --

QUESTION: Are you aware of any briefing notes being shared with them at all on Japan or any of these countries?

MR KIRBY: I am not.

QUESTION: And a follow-up on the Japanese one – and you say you haven't had any contact with the Japanese regarding any events out there?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of any contact with the Japanese Government --

QUESTION: But that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

MR KIRBY: -- with respect to this meeting today.

QUESTION: But – yeah, that doesn't mean it isn't – hasn't happened, right?

MR KIRBY: I have no knowledge of any contact between the State Department and the Government of Japan when it comes to this meeting.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did you prepare briefing material for the Trump team for the Japan meeting for the prime minister?

MR KIRBY: As I said yesterday, there was no briefing materials shared with the president-elect's team.

QUESTION: That hasn't changed --

QUESTION: Yeah, on this issue --

MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Nike.

QUESTION: Right. On the Abe and Trump meeting, do you have any expectation of the meeting? I know it's defined as a private meeting. Do you have any expectation?

MR KIRBY: That's really for the transition team – for the president-elect's team to speak to.

QUESTION: Do you expect that the, like, recommitment to a stronger alliance --

MR KIRBY: Nike, you're asking the wrong guy. That's really for the president-elect to speak to. The conversations he's having, the meetings he's having, that is for him and his team to describe, to characterize, to comment on, not for us.

QUESTION: Do you have any kind of information on when was the longest transitional contact period that we've had in recent presidential history?

MR KIRBY: The longest --

QUESTION: The longest period without contact between the transition team and so on?

MR KIRBY: I don't have that kind of history. Look, it's – I've been through a couple of these.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: Now, not here at the State Department of course. But I mean, it varies. Each incoming administration has their own inner workings and their own team and organizational approach. And there's no right or wrong way to do it, and there's no right or wrong time period to put teams in place at various agencies. Each transition team has to decide that for themselves. And again, I'd point you to the president-elect's team to speak to their thinking on this.

What I will tell you – again, what I've said yesterday – is that we are ready to receive them here at the State Department and to provide all of the support that they need once they're ready for it. But it's really for them to decide that, and I just don't have the history of just presidential administration change over the last 10, 12 years. I just don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. I just have a quick follow-up. At one point – I mean, considering that tomorrow is the last day of the week, next week is really a very short week, and then we probably roll into December and so on – at what point, if they don't contact you during that period, it becomes disconcerting or a concern to you in this case?

MR KIRBY: It's – the – it's not about concern for us, Said. I mean, we're ready to support them in any way that they deem fit. And we've got folks here at the State Department that are teed up and ready to do that. It's really the timing and the timeline, the way it's structured – all that is for the president-elect's team to decide. It's not about concern here; it's about their plans and how they want to run the transition efforts. But again, that's – those are their decisions.

QUESTION: But are they aware of how thick your book is that you have there and --

MR KIRBY: My book? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, your book – I'm talking about – no, I'm serious. I mean all of these issues that you guys deal with daily and so on and that they require a great deal of briefing.

MR KIRBY: I don't – I can't speak for where their heads are on different issues about foreign policy, Said. I'm quite certain that they're mindful of the larger world around them and the scope of the issues that they're going to be grappling with very soon after the inauguration. But I can't speak to their level of expertise on all – I can't even speak to my level of expertise on all this stuff. (Laughter.) All I can tell you is that we – we're ready, as I've said, to receive them and to offer them materials as they need to start to begin and build out their foreign policy agenda.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the --

QUESTION: Can you give us a figure on the --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, Lesley.

QUESTION: -- number of people that will be coming in or replacing --

MR KIRBY: No idea. You'd have to talk to the president-elect.

QUESTION: Like is it 300, 400, 200?

MR KIRBY: I have no idea. I don't know, Said.

QUESTION: What issues do you think are the most – are the very first ones that you think that the – a Trump transition team needs to get a handle on at this department? Some officials are talking, saying that the fight against Daesh is one, that you can't wait until the 20th for a transition to happen, that you could – if – as soon as they name someone now, that the next day they can come in and start working with the team, because you can't have any pause in that fight.

MR KIRBY: It's not for me to – it's not for us to lay out an agenda of items that --

QUESTION: Well, you can recommend. I understand --

MR KIRBY: But it's not for us to lay out an agenda of items for the transition team to focus on. They will have to make decisions about what they want to prioritize in their foreign policy agenda. All I can tell you is that on the foreign policy agenda of the Obama Administration and the one that Secretary Kerry is committed to continuing to pursue for the remainder of time that he's in office, obviously the fight against Daesh is right up there at the top. And I think you – that there was in Berlin over the last couple of days another counter-ISIL coalition meeting Brett McGurk attended a good, wide-ranging discussion about our progress in that fight and also some of the challenges that remain.

I would say the conflict in Syria certainly is going to continue to dominate the Secretary's time for the next two months. Climate change – and I think if you haven't, again, seen the Secretary's very eloquent speech yesterday from Marrakech, I encourage you to look at that – but obviously, continuing our focus on the Paris Agreement and on climate change will remain front and center. International trade and economic development obviously will continue to be a key focus of the Secretary going forward here over the next couple of months. And then, obviously, the situation in Ukraine and in Europe will continue to be, I think, dominant on his agenda.

Not to mention – and I left it off and I shouldn't have – is, of course, Yemen and the conflict in Yemen and trying to see a peaceful resolution to that conflict and, just as importantly, humanitarian aid getting to so many Yemenis who have – who are in desperate need of it.

So there is an awful lot on the Secretary's plate for the next two months. Those are the things that he will continue to prioritize. I'm sure I missed a few. But as for what they will focus on and what they will choose to highlight, that's really for them to decide.

QUESTION: I wasn't really – I was thinking of issues – I mean, and I think that's why everybody's asking about the transition questions is because you can't have people walking off the job on – in January 20 and just say, okay, there you go, Mosul and Raqqa.

MR KIRBY: Well, that's the whole purpose – frankly, that's the whole purpose for a transition process is so that one team can hand off to the other context and information to help them make these kinds of decisions. Ultimately, how they approach these – the issues will be up to them. Ultimately, in what priority they want to put them will be up to them. But that's why we are ready and willing to receive them here and to provide them – to answer any questions they have about these issues and our approaches to them and what we've been doing, our successes and also some of the challenges that we face. So we intend to be – as the Secretary has made clear, we will be fully candid and open with them about the full scope of these issues. But again, ultimately, what they choose to prioritize is up to them.

But again, that's the whole reason for a transition process, is so that you've got a couple of months there to take advantage of the experience of an outgoing team, to avail yourself of the information and context to make your own decisions going forward.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Yemen since you mentioned it last --

QUESTION: Can I ask one --

QUESTION: -- I just wondered – on Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Go ahead. Are we still on transition?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: I understand this is similar to what it is that Said asked, but just in order for people to have context over this – the way this transition is happening compared to past administrations, are you able to share at all when it is that the transition began between the Obama – the handover from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration within the State Department, or from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration?

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, some members of the – and this is just from talking to staff members here. As I understand it, some members – a very small number from the Obama team – came to stay early on in the – within days of the election, but that it took – it's not like – it didn't happen all at once. And so the whole transition team – I think it took a couple of weeks or so before the whole transition team really kind of got up and running here. But they had some – a small number – who came over, again, within days. But – and from President Clinton to President Bush, again, that's going way back, but again, you know there was a – that was a contested election, so it took much longer for transition teams to get into place because we didn't have a result for so long.

So it really depends. There's no right or wrong approach here. It really is up to the president-elect's team to decide how they want to do this and in what manner. They have spoken to this very publicly over the last couple of days about their approach to the transition, and I'd point you to their comments about their confidence in the process so far.

But it – but Abigail, it is their process, and that's important to respect. It is their decisions to make about how they're going to approach the transition. All we can do from our end, as the Secretary, again, has made crystal clear to everybody here, is we're going to be fully cooperative and helpful and we're going to be ready. So when they're ready, we want to make sure we are. They've got office spaces here at the State Department that are set up for them, we have experts across the agency that are fully prepared to brief them on whatever they want, and we're going to be as open, as candid, as forthright as we can, because we want to make this as seamless a transition for them as possible.

QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Transition, please?

MR KIRBY: One more on transition? Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. The transition team had a conference call this morning and which they said that they – they're releasing the names of the State Department guys tomorrow. They will be coming here. Have they informed you about it?

MR KIRBY: I don't have any contact to read out to you today.

QUESTION: And secondly, has Secretary spoken to the President-elect?

MR KIRBY: Has – I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Has Secretary spoken to President-elect?

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: No. He's always traveling globally, and when the election was going on he had – he has said publicly that he has been hearing concerns about some of the rhetorics during the election campaign from the various world leaders. After the elections, is he hearing the same kind of concerns? What's the feedback --

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak for – I'm not going --

QUESTION: What's the feedback you're receiving from the world leaders?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to speak to the discussions he's had since the election. Now, we've put readouts out on almost all of these discussions. I would refer you to those readouts, and those foreign leaders can speak for themselves. But you're right; broadly speaking, without going into individual (inaudible) before the election, he was open about the general concerns that he was hearing from foreign leaders about the campaign rhetoric. Since the election, I think I'd have to point you to those leaders that he met with to speak to their views of it. That wouldn't be appropriate for us to do.

Said.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Could you update us on the status of the ceasefire in Yemen that was brokered in Muscat, Oman a couple days ago?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Hang on one second.

So what I would tell you is we recognize that the Houthis have publicly committed to the cessation of hostilities, provided that all sides implement the same commitment. We also understand that the Saudi-led coalition has also expressed a willingness to return to a cessation of hostilities. We're working very hard to get all the parties now to agree to this. And we have seen reports – I know today is the day that it was supposed to begin; I get that. We've seen reports that there's been some continued fighting, and again, we urge all parties, including the Republic of Yemen Government, to quickly and publicly announce their support for the cessation.

So we're still working this very, very hard. We want this to be done, as we've said before, under UN auspices under the special envoy and through his leadership.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about the content of a letter in the meeting between, I think, Assistant Secretary Tim King, I believe, with the Yemeni President Hadi in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, I believe? What was the content? Was there some sort of an American apology in that letter?

MR KIRBY: What I would say is that as part of our ongoing engagement, senior Department officials did meet today with Republic of Yemen Government officials to discuss the U.S. position toward reaching a durable settlement to the conflict. Our position, again, towards the conflict remains the same: We want all sides to return to a cessation of hostilities and to accept the UN roadmap as a basis for discussions. So Ambassador Tueller and Deputy Assistant Secretary Tim Lenderking did meet with President Hadi to convey those messages.

QUESTION: So the Yemenis or Yemeni sources claim that the Secretary of State Kerry may have been in a bit of a hurry to conclude a deal, that it was not well thought out or well conducted. Do you agree with that? Was he in a hurry to conclude some sort of a deal?

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary would make no apologies for having a sense of urgency here --

QUESTION: Right, of course.

MR KIRBY: -- to try to end this conflict. You want to call it in a hurry? Fine, you can call it in a hurry. But he certainly --

QUESTION: No, I mean, I'm not saying it. They're saying it.

MR KIRBY: No, I know. But obviously, he has a sense of urgency here about trying to end this conflict and to doing so peacefully. And I don't – again, he would make no apology for that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism and separatist terrorism." What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?

MR KIRBY: No, I do not.

QUESTION: Could you --

MR KIRBY: Do you have another question? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I do – actually, I do have another question, but you think it's a completely unreasonable statement and he's --

MR KIRBY: Any such notion, I think, is just – it doesn't really merit a response. I mean, the United States in particular has been at the leading edge here of countering terrorism around the world, and there's a coalition now of some 67 entities, mostly countries, that are aligned against Daesh. As I said, there was just a meeting in Berlin – a counter-ISIL coalition meeting that went through an enormous amount of progress that we're making against this group. I think the record speaks for itself.

QUESTION: And Turkey's a member of that coalition too, isn't it?

MR KIRBY: They are indeed.

QUESTION: Okay. My other question on Turkey: At yesterday's briefing at the Pentagon, the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve pointed to disputes between the U.S. and Turkey over the Turkish-backed offensive on al-Bab in Syria. The U.S. had been supporting that offensive by the Turkey's ally – Arab allies with airstrikes, now it's not and some other things. And the spokesman said that these differences between the U.S. and Turkey were being dealt with in diplomatic channels. He wouldn't speak to them. So could you help us understand what those differences are and what progress, if any, has been made on resolving them?

MR KIRBY: Well, I would point you to the spokesman for Inherent Resolve to go into more detail here about what he's referring to. What I would just say is what we've said before. We continue to want the activity, and particularly in that part of Syria, to be coordinated. And that we've said that uncoordinated military activity hasn't been – we don't deem it to be constructive and helpful to the overall effort against Daesh. So I have nothing more to add to that.

QUESTION: Well, he --

MR KIRBY: But are we having constant communication with Turkish officials about the campaign in Syria? Absolutely, we are.

QUESTION: He wouldn't speak about the – when people asked, he wouldn't speak. He says diplomatic channels, which is why I've asked you. Well, if one can guess at it -- is, is the Turkish offensive on al-Bab causing problems for the campaign to isolate Raqqa?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I'm not going to talk about operational matters. I think you know that I won't do that. That is a better question posed to my colleagues at the Pentagon. What we have said here is that we continue to want coalition efforts to be aligned and arrayed against Daesh. That's the – that is the common threat, that's the common enemy, that's the purpose the coalition exists, and as I said, we just had a very useful set of discussions in Berlin about the progress we're making. Doesn't mean that there aren't challenges to it. And one of the challenges we've talked about is the potential for uncoordinated military activity to not necessarily be helpful to the overall effort.

Okay? Yeah.

QUESTION: Will you take my questions today despite my being a reporter with RT?

MR KIRBY: I took your questions yesterday, I've taken them before, I have every intention of taking them today. If I hadn't thought that I would take your questions, I wouldn't have called on you when you raised your hand.

QUESTION: I appreciate that. Thank you. Your colleague, a State Department official, emailed me the list of hospitals, which you didn't have at the briefing yesterday. The list included three hospitals struck in rural western Aleppo and two in the Idlib province within the past few days. For your information, my colleagues at RT in Moscow did ask Russian officials about the hospitals on that list.

MR KIRBY: Good.

QUESTION: The information comes from the World Health Organization, which indeed says five hospitals in Syria in those locations were attacked. The WHO told us that it was not their job to assign blame, but since the accusations are so serious, they must be looked into, I think. With that, I want to ask a few questions: Did you – and I mean the State Department – draw the conclusion that Russia hit the hospitals based on their location, knowing that Russia was carrying out operations in Idlib in the past few days? Was it based on the location?

MR KIRBY: What I said yesterday was these hospitals – we had information that these hospitals were hit from credible aid agencies. You mentioned WHO. We know it wasn't the coalition aircraft, so it had – there had to be Syrian or Russian aircraft. I don't know and wouldn't get into, as I never have from this podium, a specific discussion of each and every airstrike and who and how it was conducted. That's not for me to say.

QUESTION: So do – is that – just to make it clear, are you or are you not accusing both Russian and Syrian militaries of hitting the hospitals?

MR KIRBY: What I'm saying is that --

QUESTION: Both --

MR KIRBY: -- that there have been credible accounts of hospitals that were hit – hospitals. Let's not forget that as we – you and I go in this little back-and-forth – hospitals, medical care facilities. These were credible accounts of them being hit. We know that they weren't hit by coalition aircraft, so that leaves only – now, wait a second – that leaves only two other potential players here, and that's either the Syrian regime or their Russian backers. They're the only other ones that are flying tactical aircraft over Aleppo and have conducted airstrikes. Now, if you're asking me to tell you --

QUESTION: Which one --

MR KIRBY: -- what kind of aircraft on each hospital and how many – I don't have that information.

QUESTION: And do you --

MR KIRBY: All I was doing yesterday was saying that we've seen these credible allegations and claims and they are extremely worrisome.

QUESTION: Do you distinguish between – well, obviously, you said you don't know which air force hit which hospitals. But do you distinguish between the two or do you accuse them both together of that?

MR KIRBY: I wasn't – Gayane, I wasn't making accusations. I was simply expressing concern that we had seen from credible aid agencies – and I think the World Health Organization is credible – about continued Syrian and Russian-backed airstrikes in and around Aleppo where innocent people are being killed, people that are going to hospital to get better and they're being killed. And let's not forget that. This isn't about accusations, and I'm not making accusations. I was yesterday expressing serious concern that we still have, because we saw another report today from Doctors Without Borders that another two hospitals were struck today. You can go look at Doctors Without Borders on their website and see that. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I just do a quick follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Why is it so difficult to determine who struck what? I mean, in this kind of environment, we know the combatants, as you said; we know who was carrying out airstrikes and so on. So why is it so difficult to determine that this was hit at this particular time and so on? I mean, you had definitely all kinds of --

MR KIRBY: We don't have perfect visibility – we don't have perfect visibility and – Said, look, I don't want to get into a military discussion here.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Again, I think this is a better question put to my colleagues across the river. But we don't have perfect visibility on the tactical situation in and around Aleppo or even in many areas of Syria. The fight – the military effort in Syria is dedicated to Daesh and to the fight against that terrorist group. And on those issues, on those strikes, on those operations, our colleagues in the military have been very candid and forthcoming with detail, but we don't have perfect visibility.

QUESTION: Because apparently, I mean, rebels or opposition sources and so on, they make all kinds of claims. They claim that there is no ISIS, let's say, in eastern Aleppo, there are no militant groups and so on. They make these – how do you determine what is credible and what is not when you don't have your own assets on the ground?

MR KIRBY: We do the best we can knitting together a fabric of information sources that we have. Some of it can come from intelligence sources --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- some of it comes from press reporting, some of it comes from credible aid agencies and organizations, some of it comes from the opposition groups that we're in daily communication with. I mean, there's a variety of sources that allow you to put together the best picture possible, but it's not perfect, and I've never said that it's perfect, our information is --

QUESTION: And my last one on this: Was there any contact between the Secretary of State and the Russian foreign minister today?

MR KIRBY: As I said at the outset, they're expected to meet in Lima. I don't think that meeting has happened yet. As I understand it, it's happening later this afternoon and I'm sure that Mark will put out a readout when it's over.

QUESTION: You think there will be some sort of resurrection of the September 9th agreement?

MR KIRBY: The September 9th agreement is --

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I mean the ceasefire agreement that was – that's gone?

MR KIRBY: I mean, that's still – no, I wouldn't say that it's gone.

QUESTION: Completely.

MR KIRBY: I mean, it's still the – it's still what we're trying to achieve there, Said, but obviously it hasn't met with success so we wouldn't be having this particular exchange. But the multilateral discussions in Geneva continue. I think the Secretary's hope, and frankly, his expectation is that we'll be able to get there, but we'll see.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: So, John, your counterpart at the Russian foreign ministry said that Foreign Minister Lavrov would be raising with Secretary Kerry the incident, shall we say – the exchange that happened yesterday over Syria and the hospital strikes from this room. Do you – have you been in contact with them about this? Do you know anything about it? Do you – has the – is the Secretary --

MR KIRBY: Have I been in contact with who about this?

QUESTION: With either the Secretary or with the – has – have any Russians been – Russian diplomats been in touch?

MR KIRBY: I'm not aware that there's been any --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- contact from the Russian side on this. We've seen tweets and press reporting that this is going to be raised in the meeting. And I know that Mark's aware of that, but the meeting hasn't happened yet. So we'll see.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I go to --

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Back there.

QUESTION: Oh.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Since the election of Mr. Trump as the next president of the United States of America, sir, the immigrants of these countries have a lot of concerns, and as you know, that there are more than 400 racism-related incidents all over the country and we are witnessing more on the social media and on the websites, while Mr. Trump also announced to suspend the Syrian refugee program. So does this Administration, the Obama Administration, have a concern if such a thing happening here? That --

MR KIRBY: Is – that some – abolish what program?

QUESTION: Syrian refugee program.

MR KIRBY: The refugee program.

QUESTION: Yeah, Syrian refugees program. He announced that he is going to suspend that program.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I – the new administration, they will make whatever foreign policy decisions, whatever national security decisions they believe are appropriate and that is for them to speak to. And I don't know how they're going to approach that or any other foreign policy challenge that will be facing them on the 20th of January. And it's not our place here at the State Department to speak for them or to characterize whatever decisions they're going to make, whether it's with taking in refugees or the conflict in Syria or climate change. That's for them to speak to.

What we're going to do is two things. We're going to stay prepared and ready for when their team gets here to provide them all the information and context that they require to be informed as they make those decisions. And number two, for the 60-some odd days that the Administration has left in office, we're going to continue to pursue the foreign policy agenda and priorities and objectives that we have before us, that President Obama has set in place, and that is what the – that's what the Secretary is going to be focused on for the next couple of months.

QUESTION: Sir, I have one more on Pakistan. Sir, they are – the tensions at the Pak and India borders are on rise. Like two days ago, more than 10 Pakistani soldiers were killed at the border, while same number of Indian soldiers were also killed. Sir, you always urge both the countries to restart the dialogue process and to solve their problems with a – with the dialogue, but what kind of diplomatic efforts are going on from U.S. side to calm down the situation when both the countries have the nuclear assets and nuclear bombs, and so it's a very tense situation there?

MR KIRBY: We remain in close communication with our counterparts in both countries, and again, as we've said before, urge them both to work bilaterally to try to reduce tensions. Okay?

Nike.

QUESTION: Can we go to APEC?

MR KIRBY: APEC?

QUESTION: Yes. I just want to make sure I understand – did you said at the beginning that the Secretary Kerry is planning to meet with the special envoy from Taiwan during the meeting?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I think that's what I said in there. Yeah. The Taiwanese APEC special envoy, James Soong. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you have more details on that? When is the meeting and --

MR KIRBY: I don't know. As I said, these – I gave you a list of the meetings that he has today. Some of them have happened, some of them are happening as we speak, and again, I think you'll hear more from Mark, who's out there with the Secretary. He'll provide readouts of these meetings as they happen. The only one that I know we've read out so far is the meeting with Foreign Minister Kishida.

QUESTION: What does United States want to get out from the meeting with – what should we set our expectations for?

MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of it since I don't even know if it's happened, Nike. So why don't we just wait for the readout and I'm sure Mark will provide you the context on the back end of the meeting, okay?

QUESTION: Could you at least give us some sense of the status of U.S.-Taiwan relations?

MR KIRBY: There's been no change to our relations with Taiwan and there's been no change to our "one China" policy. I think you know that.

QUESTION: Can I go to Iran?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So as I promised Mark when he was up on the podium last week --

MR KIRBY: I think I know where this is going.

QUESTION: Yeah. I'm going to return to my line of questioning about the nuclear agreement and the IAEA finding, which is now fully public, even though it was fully public last week.

MR KIRBY: Fully public by being leaked, you mean.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: Well --

QUESTION: -- it was out there.

MR KIRBY: Right, it was out there.

QUESTION: So it's out there now for real, not a leaked copy.

MR KIRBY: That's right.

QUESTION: It finds that Iran for the second time was not in compliance/violated the nuclear deal by overproducing heavy water. Why – Mark last week was reluctant to call this a violation. In fact, not reluctant; he refused to say that it was a violation, and I'm wondering if that's – now that the report is public, is the Administration willing to accept that this was a violation of the nuclear deal?

MR KIRBY: Well, we certainly agree with the IAEA that they slightly exceeded the 130 metric ton heavy water stockpile limit by something of a tenth of a metric ton. And as I think Mark said, we certainly made clear to Iran that it should take quick action to resolve this issue without delay in keeping with its JCPOA commitments. It is our understanding that they're working to do just that.

QUESTION: Is it or – is it a violation or is it not a violation?

MR KIRBY: I think, again, we agree with the IAEA that they did exceed by a small amount the heavy water stockpile that the deal requires them to have. But – and we have made it clear to Iran that we want to see this resolved quickly. Iran has taken steps to do just that.

And the other thing I'd say is – and I know you won't fully appreciate this --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, you might be surprised.

MR KIRBY: -- but this is – this in-excess stockpile, I mean, one of the reasons we were able to know about it was because of the regimen that's been put in place by the deal. When we were having the debate on Capitol Hill about the deal and we talked – and the Secretary talked about this, that we're going to know. And so we know. And the concerns have been expressed to Iran, and they're dealing with it.

QUESTION: Yeah, but everyone in the Administration – even the President said the other day that Iran has been in compliance with the JCPOA since it was implemented, and the IAEA has found now twice where it wasn't in compliance. Why is that – how is that – how are those not violations?

MR KIRBY: I – again, I'm not going to parse words here.

QUESTION: I mean, it's just calling it what it is, right?

MR KIRBY: They – in – well, I would also say that in removing this extra – and it is a small amount --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- that the removal itself is in keeping with their commitments under the JCPOA to, if they exceed it, they've got to get rid of it. And so that's what they're doing.

QUESTION: And so – what do they do? They ship it out and then they sell it, right?

MR KIRBY: That's one way to do it. I mean, to find --

QUESTION: So they're actually making money off of violating the agreement.

MR KIRBY: -- to find places to sell it or to transport it. So I'd have to – I --

QUESTION: Isn't that an incentive for them to violate the heavy – at least the heavy water element of the agreement?

MR KIRBY: Actually, I mean, our understanding is that that's a difficult task.

QUESTION: What?

MR KIRBY: To find buyers for that.

QUESTION: To sell it?

MR KIRBY: It's not easily done.

QUESTION: Well, you guys bought a whole bunch of it not that long ago. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: It's not easily done. It's not easily done. So look, I don't want to – look, I'm not trying to justify them being in excess or make any excuses for that, Matt. We've – we're concerned about this, and we've expressed that concern. And we expect them to stay inside the limit that the JCPOA requires of them. So I'm not making light of this at all.

QUESTION: I --

MR KIRBY: But --

QUESTION: Go ahead.

MR KIRBY: But this is an example of how the system is supposed to work. When they exceed, when they don't meet every single – each of the commitments, the IAEA will know and will call them on it.

QUESTION: Right, but --

MR KIRBY: And they are now resolving.

QUESTION: But you're – but in – but in fact, you're not calling them on it, because you're not saying they violated it when they did. And the way it's --

MR KIRBY: The IAEA said they slightly exceeded it. We agreed with that assessment.

QUESTION: But is that a – but I don't understand why you can't call that what it is, which is a violation of the agreement.

MR KIRBY: I think we've been clear about our expectations for --

QUESTION: So – and how – then all right, so let's leave that aside then. Getting back to this, hasn't this agreement been set up in a way that if, instead of being punished for noncompliance or violation, Iran is actually being rewarded for it because they're going to make money off of it?

MR KIRBY: No. As I said – look, I'm not an expert on the heavy water marketplace. As I understand, that's not an easy thing to sell. So I don't see that as an incentive to Iran in any way. I just don't.

QUESTION: So is the United States no longer in the business of buying heavy water from Iran?

MR KIRBY: I'm – I can't speak to future decisions. I don't know.

QUESTION: Well, you – but at the time, people said that it was a one-off that – the last time it happened, it was --

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: -- explained to us as a one-off deal.

MR KIRBY: I know of no – I know of no decisions pending for us to purchase more.

QUESTION: Right. But someone is going to buy it, right? Or you don't know that?

MR KIRBY: I don't know that.

QUESTION: It's just going to sit in where --

MR KIRBY: I don't know. You'd have to talk to Iranian officials about what they're doing to do with the excess.

Said.

QUESTION: Can I squeeze in a couple questions on the Palestinian-Israeli issue?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: It's the same thing we talked about it before, but it seems that yesterday the bill to legalize – according to Reuters, the bill to legalize the settler outpost advanced in the Israeli legislature. I wonder if you have any comment on that. I know you commented yesterday and the day before, but it seems to be --

MR KIRBY: And so --

QUESTION: And the day before. But this is the thing: It keep – seems to be advancing. I mean, that is not being held back. So --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, Said, we obviously are deeply concerned by the advancement of this legislation that would allow for the legalization of illegal Israeli outposts that are located on private Palestinian land. Israel's own attorney general has reportedly expressed serious concerns about the constitutionality of this proposed legislation. If this law were enacted, we believe it could pave the way for the legalization of dozens of outposts that are illegal under Israel's domestic law deep in the West Bank, and it would represent an unprecedented and troubling step that is inconsistent with prior Israeli legal opinion and break longstanding Israeli policy of not building on private Palestinian property.

QUESTION: On that answer, can I just make – that's exactly the same answer that Elizabeth gave. It hasn't been changed since their initial vote over the weekend, has it?

MR KIRBY: No. No, our position on this proposed legislation hasn't changed --

QUESTION: No, I know that. But if you had not --

MR KIRBY: -- except that it's now advanced and --

QUESTION: It hasn't been – I know that, but your language hasn't been updated to reflect the new vote.

MR KIRBY: I did not read with great specificity Elizabeth's transcript. As I understand it --

QUESTION: You did not?

MR KIRBY: No, I didn't. And I --

QUESTION: Really?

MR KIRBY: No, I didn't.

QUESTION: Boy.

MR KIRBY: I trust her. But I don't know that the language has changed.

QUESTION: Was it? It's exactly the same.

MR KIRBY: She says it's the same.

QUESTION: All right. Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Let me just follow up very quickly. Also the supreme court turned down a village request to show documents that they do own the land and so on. I am saying that they took 100 dunam which is like 25, 30 acres of land – agricultural land from a village near Qalqilya.

The point is with the peace process and negotiations are in a coma and there is no restraint, the Israelis are not restrained. Would you consider, like the major power in the world, maybe being the arbiter to see what is the legality of this thing? I mean, to look into it yourself. Is that something that can be done?

MR KIRBY: Look, Said, I think – I mean – we --

QUESTION: Is that something that can be assumed by the United States?

MR KIRBY: I think we've been exceedingly clear about our view on settlements, on demolitions in the West Bank, and I – I mean, I just don't have anything more to add. I mean, we have been very clear and we continue to have discussions with Israeli leaders about that.

QUESTION: Should there be, in the absence of direct negotiations or something that you – under your guidance that you have shepherded in the past – should there be anything that ought to be done at the level of the United Nations to look into this matter, the land confiscation, the settlements, and so on?

MR KIRBY: I think we've – well --

QUESTION: We're not – no, we're not talking about a two-state solution; we're not talking about recognizing Palestine. We're talking about something that is actually tangible and physical, which is the land, the settlement.

MR KIRBY: I know.

QUESTION: Shouldn't there be something done?

MR KIRBY: I'm very aware that it's a tangible issue.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: And, again, we continue to talk to all sides here to take the kinds of steps to ratchet down the tensions to get us closer to a two-state solution. I'm not going to get ahead of action inside the UN one way or the other, but we have been exceedingly clear about our position on settlements and that hasn't changed.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:02 p.m.)

DPB # 197