Daily Press Briefing
John Kirby
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
November 22, 2016
TRANSCRIPT:
2:12 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody. How are you all doing? I do not have anything to start us out with, so we'll get right to it.
QUESTION: Do you have anything from the transition to update us with? (Laughter.) I figured in the spirit of my colleague I would ask.
MR KIRBY: You're smiling. You're grinning --
QUESTION: The first question. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: -- like a possum eating a sweet potato with that one.
QUESTION: Come on, Matt.
MR KIRBY: No, I don't have any update. They are here in the building today and as I understand it they are – they're beginning their work, but I don't have any update.
QUESTION: The president-elect made a comment about how he would like to see Nigel Farage, the leader of the Brexit effort in the U.K., as U.S. – as British ambassador to the United States. Is that something you would support? Or were you surprised by the statement?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn't characterize our reaction one way or another to the comment. I think Prime Minister May has already spoken to it and I think I'd leave it at that. I mean, obviously, the decisions of who becomes ambassador belongs to the country appointing. And again, I think they've spoken to that.
QUESTION: But you don't see any pressing need for the current ambassador to be replaced?
MR KIRBY: We have a great relationship.
QUESTION: I imagine you have a good relationship.
MR KIRBY: We have a great relationship with the U.K. ambassador to the United States and I think – again, I think I'll just leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can I follow-up – a change of subject, unless somebody wants to ask on the transition?
Iran? You probably saw that Treasury today said it's issuing licenses to Airbus to sell commercial vehicle – commercial planes to Iran. Is there – first of all, do you have any reaction to this development given the Secretary has been pushing for business to flow back into Iran?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean --
QUESTION: Specifically for banks, number one.
MR KIRBY: We're continuing to implement the deal. I'd refer you to Treasury for details on this particular --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- these particular licenses. It's really for Treasury to speak to, but it's very much in keeping with our commitment to meeting our obligations under the JCPOA. And I think my colleague at the White House addressed this a little bit today and reinforcing the fact that these are decisions that have been weeks if not months in the making and been working through the normal process of implementation.
QUESTION: Is it the – it is their concern that the next administration – well, the president-elect has threatened that – to tear up the JCPOA. Is there a concern in this – in this building that these decisions could be reversed?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I can't and won't speculate about what the next administration will do with respect to the Iran deal. All I can reinforce is what we have done and will do. And we're going to continue to meet our obligations. These licenses that we're talking about are part and parcel of that effort. We still believe very, very strongly that the Iran deal is good, not just for our friends and partners in the region, but for the world, and certainly are in – very much in keeping with our own national security interests.
And as the Secretary has said many times, an Iran without nuclear weapons capabilities only helps make – helps reduce the other problems that we have to deal with in the Middle East. They haven't gone away. Iran's destabilizing activity is still a major issue of concern for us, but removing their ability to obtain nuclear weapons capabilities certainly makes those other problems a little bit easier to deal with. Not completely. So we obviously continue to strongly support the Iran deal. We will continue to implement it appropriately as we are required to under the JCPOA. Whatever decisions the next administration makes is obviously – it's for them to speak to.
QUESTION: But it must sit uneasy – uneasily in this building that these kinds of things could be reversed. I mean, some – some would believe that this is being done now so that it's – so that these decisions aren't left until after January 20th, so --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I've heard talk about that and speculation about that. I absolutely can fundamentally assure you that we're doing nothing other than meeting our obligations and our commitments. And the kinds of things that we're doing, such as the licenses that we're talking about today, have been weeks if not months in the planning. I mean, this isn't the kind of thing you throw on like a light switch. It takes time and planning to do it. And the Treasury Department – again, without speaking for them – have been working on this very, very hard. There's no final push. There's no sort of concerted effort here to sort of make things irretrievably complete. It is about meeting our obligations.
And I think it is important – again, without speaking to what the next administration might or might not do, it's important to remember that this isn't just a – this isn't a bilateral agreement between the United States and Iran. It is a multilateral international agreement. And that character of it, the truly international scope of it, I think needs to be taken into account. But again, we continue to firmly believe in the soundness of this deal, in the security that it gives our friends and partners in the region as well as the American people.
QUESTION: Just explain to me what this obligation is. You're obliged to license requests for commercial aircraft sales to Iran?
MR KIRBY: It is – when I talked about obligations, Brad, I was talking about broadly speaking our obligations to meet our commitments under the deal. But as you know, the deal did call for the lifting of some sanctions and it did allow for the resumptions of some licensing, particularly with civil aviation, and that's what this is regarding to.
QUESTION: But why is it such a complicated, many-month process if it's an obligation? What's the difficulty?
MR KIRBY: Well, just because something – just because something is a commitment or an obligation doesn't mean it's easy to do right away. And again, I can't speak to the --
QUESTION: Or that it's hard to do --
MR KIRBY: I can't speak to the process here. I just know that the Treasury Department has been working on this for some time. There had been previous licenses issued. I think we've talked about that. I don't know the – I'm not an expert on the licensing process. Again, I'd refer you to Treasury.
But the point, the larger point I'm making, is that this decision, the one we're talking about today, had nothing to do and the timing was not at all related to our own presidential election.
QUESTION: But you saw the letter from Speaker Ryan, I'm guessing, about asking --
MR KIRBY: Yes, I have.
QUESTION: Do you – do you feel that the lame duck period is appropriate for introducing or taking decisions that fundamentally alter the situation regarding investment and business in Iran?
MR KIRBY: Sure, fair question. So we have seen the letter. I won't speak for the White House because the letter was addressed to the President, obviously. I'm quite certain that the letter will be responded to appropriately by our colleagues at the White House.
And the second point I'd make is we will, as we have, continue to have an ongoing dialogue and communication with members of Congress about implementation of the deal.
And the third thing I'd say is that this particular license that we're talking about today isn't new. It is something that has been in train for quite some time, as other licenses have been as well. And again, I ask you to forgive me because I'm not an expert on Treasury Department processes and procedures, so I really don't know how long and what it takes to get this thing granted. But the point is it's nothing new, and --
QUESTION: No, I understand.
MR KIRBY: And look, we are – we have seen the Speaker's letter. We're aware of the Speaker's concerns. And I'm sure that our colleagues at the White House will respond appropriately.
QUESTION: I understand the deal, what was first announced in January, so it'd be silly to argue that this is a new process that just started after the election. But your insistence that this is months old and that this is many months in the pipeline or whatever, to me seems to be an acknowledgement that it would be wrong to introduce anything new in this lame duck period, that that would be either unseemly or not in the spirit of a good transition.
MR KIRBY: So what I would tell you is we're – there's no effort, there's no Machiavellian intent here, to sort of – to push in any way outside the bounds of our normal commitments and obligations here in the final months of the Administration. What we are committed to doing is meeting our obligations in a consistent, forthright manner, and this license that we're talking about today is one of those obligations.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. First of all, there was a call between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov today?
MR KIRBY: Yes, there was.
QUESTION: Okay. Could you give us a read?
MR KIRBY: So yeah, there was a conversation today over the phone with Foreign Minister Lavrov. Obviously, Syria was the main topic of discussion. And the Secretary and the foreign minister talked about the importance of continuing to work towards a cessation of hostilities, in trying to find ways to get that cessation of hostilities in a place where it can lead to a resumption of political talks, and to try to build a framework that can make sense for that cessation of hostilities to actually work. And obviously, this is – all of this conversation, as previous ones, have been done in the context of the continued bombing and bloodshed in Aleppo and the urgency that the Secretary feels to try to get the cessation of hostilities in place as soon as possible.
QUESTION: And according to the foreign ministry in Russia – the Russian foreign ministry, forgive me – they also say that the Secretary and foreign minister discussed getting eastern Aleppo back to normal conditions, I guess, without, let's say, the militants like Jabhat al-Nusrah and others. Could you explain that? Because I did not understand --
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: -- what they were saying. But they're saying they want – they discussed getting Aleppo back to normal.
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I would let the Russians characterize what they mean by normal – or normalization is, I think, the word that saw phrased in their readout. They can speak for what they think that means. What I can tell you is on our side – and I've spoken to the Secretary since the call – that what the Secretary was interested in pursuing was ways to stop the bloodshed in Aleppo, and that – and that they focused very much on that and on getting a cessation of hostilities that can be maintained and sustained, not just in Aleppo, but elsewhere throughout the country, so that political talks can resume.
Now, clearly, they talked about the continuing threat that's posed by al-Nusrah, as they have almost every time they've talked about certainly the situation in Aleppo. But what the Russian foreign ministry described as normalization, I think I'd let them describe. What we would like to see – I won't slap the label "normalization" on it, but what we would like to see is for the violence to stop, for the bombing to stop, for the shelling to stop, for humanitarian aid to get in, so that people can live a safe, secure life, and that Aleppo can get back to a sense of calm and peace. And as you look at the images coming out of here – out of there today, I mean, you can see that there's a long way to go.
QUESTION: Now, going back to the UN Security Council meeting yesterday, the American ambassador, Samantha Power, she cited a source who said that there was 180 raids, air raids conducted by the Syrians and the Russians. And she cited one source, to which, obviously, the Syrian representative (inaudible) says how could you possibly be so sure of 180 raids. So I must ask this question again. I know I asked it yesterday. What other sources do you have other than someone, let's say, who might be in eastern Aleppo, who might represent the opposition, who might have their own agenda, and so on? How do you --
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, you --
QUESTION: Okay. How do you establish the veracity --
MR KIRBY: Ambassador Power did cite her source --
QUESTION: Yeah, right.
MR KIRBY: -- and she cited as a source. She didn't claim that – the information for herself. She cited the source.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And it was an example of the continued airstrikes that we see in and around Aleppo.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And then she went on, of course, to talk about the atrocities and those that we believe need to be held accountable for that. But look, Said, I don't have a different answer for you today than I did yesterday. We – look, while I said yesterday knowledge is imperfect – of course it is, and I've said that from the get-go. But it doesn't mean that we can't, through stitching together various sources of information, get a pretty good sense, a pretty good mosaic of the information that's coming in.
So yes, it comes from some credible aid agencies like the World Health Organization, like Doctors Without Borders, like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. It comes from individuals that we're in contact with. It comes from groups that we're in contact with. And yes, to a degree, it comes from intelligence sources that we have that obviously I'm not going to speak to here from the podium.
But we have a pretty good sense. Is it absolutely perfect and infallible? No. But it's certainly strong enough and convincing enough to tell us that bombs continue to drop on innocent civilians in Syria, that hospitals now – according to various sources, there are no working hospitals in Aleppo, and so people have nowhere to go for the medical treatment that they're so desperately in need of as the bombs continue to rain down on top of them. That's what we need to focus on and that's what the – that's why it was so important, I think, for the Secretary and the foreign minister to talk today about trying to – how we can get to a cessation of hostilities that can change the lives of the innocent Syrians that are trapped there in Aleppo.
QUESTION: And my last one – and my last one on this. She also cited a number of names as committing – having committed war crimes and so on. They're all in the Syrian army. Surely, you don't – you don't disagree that there are also war crimes committed by the opposition, right?
MR KIRBY: Look, I'm not going to – Said, I'm not going to elaborate. I'm not --
QUESTION: I'm saying there were names from the Syrian army, but we did not see or hear any names from the opposition that may have committed war crimes and targeted civilians.
MR KIRBY: The purpose of – I'm not going to elaborate more on what the ambassador had to say yesterday. The purpose was to lay bare the information that we have with respect to violations by and atrocities committed by Syrian officials and Syrian military units. And I'm not going to get into another debate here with you, or anybody else, about the definition of war crimes. The Secretary has talked about the fact that we believe that war crimes should be investigated; Ambassador Power has talked about that. She laid out some of that case yesterday, I think very, very eloquently. I don't think – and we talked about this yesterday in terms of humanitarian aid. And when we have seen issues with the opposition not abiding by the cessation of hostilities, not allowing humanitarian aid, we've been very quick to bring the issue to their attention and to express our deep concern over that.
But without question, Said – back to the question – back to the conversation we were having about a mosaic of information – without question, this mosaic of information and the information that we continue to glean from various sources, including intelligence sources, are that the vast majority – and I mean the vast majority – of violations of the cessation of hostilities, of bombing of innocent civilians, of destruction of innocent property and infrastructure, and the obstruction of humanitarian aid getting to desperate people are caused by the Syrian regime and their Russian backers, period. It's not in dispute.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah. Continue on Syria. Russian media quote their deputy foreign minister as saying that Syria's Kurds need to be included in any resumption of the political talks in Syria.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Quote: Kurds should be included in the negotiating process. Kurds are a real military and political force, having control of a considerable part of Syrian territory. They actively participate in the fight against terrorism. What is your view on that?
MR KIRBY: Our view hasn't changed on that. I think we've talked about this before, that, A, first we realize that Kurdish forces have fought bravely against Daesh in Iraq and in Syria. No question about that. And the support that they predominantly get – at least mostly in Syria – is through air – coalition airpower, and where we can support competent, effective fighters on the ground, we're going to continue to do that.
As for the political process, we continue to support – as does every other member of the ISSG, at least those who signed the communiques, and that would include Russia, on paper, anyway – support a UN-led process by which the opposition and the regime can begin to have political discussions about a negotiated solution.
Now, obviously, we haven't had those discussions in quite some time because the bombs keep dropping on innocent people. But that's where we want to get to. We want it to be UN-led, which means that the special envoy – Mr. de Mistura – will decide, in concert with talking to the opposition and the regime, about composition at the table.
Now, on the opposition side, that has been largely a function of the HNC, the High Negotiating Committee[1], which we continue to support and endorse. And as of the last time that they talked, it was the special envoy's view that while there were Kurdish representatives kept informed, but that it wasn't – we weren't at the point where he believed they needed to be represented at the table.
Now, look, that was months ago. And we can't even – so it's interesting to have this nice little academic argument about who's at the table. We would love to be able to get to the point where we can actually sit down and have a conversation about the table. Right now you can't do that because there's no working hospitals in Aleppo, there's been no aid that's gotten in in more than a month, and people continue to die.
So while it would be entertaining to have an academic debate about this, what we're focused on, what the Secretary's focused on, is on getting a cessation of hostilities that can get us to a point where we can have political talks. And then when we get there, if we can get there, then we can have this – we can have another discussion about who is represented. But so far in the two rounds we've had, it was the special envoy's view that while the Kurdish representatives will be kept informed – and he did that religiously; he did a very good job with that – it was not his view that we are at the point where they should be necessarily an active part of the proximity talks.
QUESTION: So if we were to get to the point where there was discussion at a table, you would be open to the idea that there should be more Kurdish involvement than there has been so far?
MR KIRBY: What we would be open to is the special envoy having a discussion with the HNC and the regime about who would be represented. And believe me, that is a conversation we would love to be able to have today, but we can't because of what's happening in Aleppo.
QUESTION: I can understand that. I have a second question, which is yesterday you issued a Europe Travel Alert that includes, quote – the warning: "Terrorists may employ a wide variety of tactics, using both conventional and nonconventional weapons." By nonconventional, did you mean something like CBRN?
MR KIRBY: We meant nonconventional.
QUESTION: What would include chemical, biological --
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to – I don't think it would be wise for me to try to give you a laundry list of what conventional and nonconventional – what – the main point that we were trying to convey to potential travelers is to be vigilant and to recognize that, especially during the holidays, at large public gatherings or in places where many visitors and tourists visit, attend, that they should stay informed and stay safe, and that terrorists have proven in the past – and we have to assume that they will prove capable in the future – of using a variety of means, lethal means, to hurt, kill, and damage innocent people and innocent property. And that's all we were trying to do.
QUESTION: Because I spoke with two experts to prepare myself for this question. They had differing views on what nonconventional would mean. One thought that really nonconventional would mean chem, bio and people should carry around little masks if they're concerned about this.
MR KIRBY: Look, we – I want to – again, I'm not going to parse the difference between conventional and nonconventional. The main point that we were trying to make is terrorists have in the past and we have to presume will look in the future to use a variety of means to hurt people and to kill people, to sow fear.
That said – and we've also made it clear – nobody's saying that Americans shouldn't travel to Europe over the holidays. By estimates, more than a million – some people say more than two million – Americans are planning to travel to Europe over the holidays, and we encourage that travel. We think that that's a healthy way to see the world, explore cultures and history, and to enjoy time with your family and friends. All we're suggesting is to recognize that at the holidays that public events and public institutions could be targets of those who wish to wish us will – wish us ill – sorry. And so we want people to stay vigilant and we want them to sign up for our smart travelers program too, so that we can help keep them informed as they enjoy the holidays.
QUESTION: Could we go back to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I just have one or two. (Inaudible.) Did you see this report by IHC in London, I think, about --
QUESTION: IHS.
QUESTION: -- IHS in London about chemical weapons attacks by ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: What is your comment on --
MR KIRBY: So we are deeply concerned about reports of chemical weapons being used in Aleppo. I would say we take those reports, obviously, very seriously. Of course, there are no valid excuses for any party to use chemical weapons or chemical agents as a weapon, period. And again, this goes – and this goes back to our view that parties that do that will need to be held to account.
QUESTION: This report tries to document cases going back to, I think, early 2014 of mustard and chlorine attacks by the Islamic State.
MR KIRBY: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong thing. You're right. On ISIL --
QUESTION: Since you --
MR KIRBY: You're right. No, I apologize. I --
QUESTION: That's fine.
MR KIRBY: -- did not – didn't pay attention enough to the question. Yes, we've seen this report as well. I think we're still examining this particular one by the IHS, that you talked to. So I can't confirm the veracity of it. What I can tell you, though, is that we have, ourselves, talked about our view that in the past Daesh has proven capable of trying to use chemical agents, whether it's mustard and/or chlorine. And DOD has spoken to their view that they have at least attempted to do that in the past. So this is very much in keeping with a methodology we've seen out of these terrorists. But again, we just – we're still working our way through their report.
QUESTION: So in August 2013 when the Syrian military supposedly used chemical weapons, I think the U.S. Government spoke out in a matter of hours that they had pretty concrete evidence that chemical weapons had been used. But I did a look back, and well into 2015 at least, you were still saying there was no credible reports that the Islamic State had used chemical weapons. This would be well over a year after some of these early reports and this report are documented.
So why – one, I don't know if this has ever – do you have concrete evidence or what you would call highly credible evidence that the Islamic State group has used chemical weapons? And two, why have you been so much slower to confirm their attacks than you were the Assad government's?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I don't have – as I said, we've talked in the past about our view that they have at least tried to. I think we've been, I think, careful about our statements on this, because you don't want to levy such a charge unless you know you're 100 percent sure about it. And so it's not about reticence. I mean, clearly this is a group we're not afraid to talk strongly about it and to act strongly against. I think it's really about information and wanting to be careful. But obviously, I mean, if they did, it would certainly be in keeping with their methodology. I think we're just – we're telling you what we think we know when we know it. I mean, it's not about --
QUESTION: But just you see the --
MR KIRBY: It's not about --
QUESTION: You see the disconnect. One you can do it within hours, and another it's been two years since the first reports and you can't confirm any of them.
MR KIRBY: I can't speak for what we can't confirm, Brad. I mean, we're just in receipt of this independent organization's assessment. We'll take a look at that. And if we have something to add, we'll do it, but I can't make up a fact or anything. We're obviously concerned about this.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Two topics I want to ask about; both on Europe. So yesterday, you said Russia's deployment of --
MR KIRBY: Can we stay on Syria? Is there anymore on Syria?
QUESTION: Just one.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about Turkey bombings on the west of Manbij and you said you were going to take a look. I was wondering if you have any further comments on those.
MR KIRBY: I don't. I mean, again, we would – what I've said in the past is we want to see activity against Daesh and Iraq and Syria be coordinated. And uncoordinated military activity such as some of these actions around al-Bab and Manbij are not, in our view, constructive to the larger goal.
QUESTION: And I have one Turkey-EU question. Today at the European Parliament, there is discussion whether to suspend Turkey's EU membership talks. U.S. has been supporting Turkey's membership to EU for a long time. I was wondering if you have any --
MR KIRBY: I would refer you to members of the EU to speak to ongoing discussions and consultations they've been having.
More on Syria? Syria?
QUESTION: So I would like to go back to a mosaic of information, as you said. So it looks like you have some information, but maybe you have some evidence, for example, of Russian airstrikes on hospitals in Aleppo, for example. But you're not ready to share it public – make it public. And so I would like to know: Do you have real evidence of these strikes conducted by Russia, as you claim? And are you ready to discuss it with Russian side, for example in Geneva talks or something else?
MR KIRBY: Well, I've talked about this several times over the last several days, so let me just restate: It is not the United States making these claims. It is reputable aid agencies. And you can go look for yourself on the website of the --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: Hang on a second. Let me finish now. I let you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- World Health Organization or Doctors Without Borders, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. You can turn on CNN today and look at some pretty gripping footage of what's going on in Aleppo. You can read reports out of the Associated Press who are quoting doctors who now have no place to work or are being used – are being forced to operate and to treat patients in basements with unsanitary conditions.
This isn't the United States leveling claims and allegations. This is an international consensus of reputable agencies and organizations and news outlets that are seeing for themselves and talking to people on the ground about the bombing of hospitals and care facilities. And I said just the other day, sir, that I'm not saying it's Russian planes or Syrian planes. It's got to be one or the other. And even if it's not Russian planes – if it's just Syrian planes – as we've said before, Russia bears the ultimate responsibility for the influence that we know they have over the Assad regime, which they can – which they can utilize to stop this.
Now, the second part of your question – are we waiting for Geneva? We have been – I've been nothing but open about our concerns about Aleppo here from this podium every single day for the last week. There isn't a single time that the Secretary hasn't talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov, certainly in recent weeks, where he hasn't talked about Aleppo, including when we were in Lausanne a month or so ago. So this is not something that we're waiting to talk about with Russian officials. We're doing it on a routine, regular basis.
Now, obviously, the Russians have chosen for whatever reason not to use the influence that we know they have on Assad to get this to stop. And as I went through yesterday with Matt in quite some detail, that doesn't mean that we aren't going to continue to try to reach some progress in Geneva. And again, that was a topic of discussion today when he talked to the foreign minister.
Okay?
QUESTION: But the point is that Russia doesn't agree with these accusations.
MR KIRBY: They can speak for themselves, and these aren't accusations. These are observations and claims by a number of reputable aid agencies who are there on the ground or have representatives on the ground.
QUESTION: But just for example, we contacted with one of these organizations that reported last week. A Health Cluster Turkish Hub reported about five hospitals bombed in Aleppo and Idlib, but they don't have information who did that. So just, actually, the question is --
MR KIRBY: Well, who do you suppose did it, then?
QUESTION: Huh?
MR KIRBY: Who do you suppose did it?
QUESTION: They don't know, because they have a report and there are no words about Russian --
MR KIRBY: And as I said yesterday – as I said yesterday – look, I don't want – I really don't want to get into a rhetorical debate about this. Somebody's bombing these hospitals, right?
QUESTION: Yes. That's --
MR KIRBY: We agree on that, right? We agree that hospitals are being bombed, right?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: And they're being shelled. We know it's not the coalition, and it's certainly not the United States doing it, right?
QUESTION: You know --
MR KIRBY: Okay, so we're good there. So that means that there's only two sources: the Russian military or the Syrian military. Actually, three: or both, right? It could be one or the other or both. And as I said yesterday and as I think I said to other colleagues from the Russian press, I don't know and I'm not going to get into haggling over the order of battle or the tactical operations being done every day. I don't know whose country's airplanes are dropping these bombs or whose forces on the ground are shelling. And frankly, it's either the Syrians or the Russians or both.
Given that that's the universe of possibility, it's kind of in a way irrelevant who's actually pulling the trigger. The trigger is being pulled, people are dying, hospitals are being destroyed, and that needs to stop. And the Russians have it within their power and their influence to do that, because we've seen in the past when cessation of hostilities have been put in place and have been observed, that when the Russians are willing to do it they can use their very strong influence on Assad to reach – to achieve a better outcome, to stop the bloodshed and the violence.
Did you have a question?
QUESTION: On Europe.
MR KIRBY: Europe. Go ahead.
QUESTION: So yesterday you said Russia's deployment of missiles to its Kaliningrad region is destabilizing to European security. Do you think the largest buildup of NATO forces near the Russian border since the end of the Cold War and the deployment of the missile defense system, which Russia sees as designed to contain Russia, have in no way contributed to the environment in which Russia is --
MR KIRBY: You'd have to speak to Russian officials for – you'd have to speak to Russian --
QUESTION: So Russia is pointing to these things as contributing to its actions. Do you think those things have in no way contributed to the environment in which Russia is putting these missiles?
MR KIRBY: NATO is a defensive alliance. It's always been a defensive alliance. It remains a defensive alliance. There's no reason why Russia should view NATO in any way, shape, or form as a threat. Now, if they do, they can speak to that, not me.
QUESTION: Do you think – do you think that troop buildup in – near Russia and the defense system near Russia help lower tensions with Russia?
MR KIRBY: Again, NATO is a defensive alliance, always has been. There's no reason for anybody in Russia to feel threatened by NATO's military activities or preparations. And I would tell you, just in terms of recent months and years, there would have been no reason for NATO to advance and commit additional capabilities on the European continent – to include American capabilities – had it not been for Russia's move in Ukraine.
QUESTION: Why do you think Russia's deployment of these systems on its own territory is destabilizing and threatening?
MR KIRBY: I addressed this yesterday.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Now on Turkey.
QUESTION: I – actually a different topic.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
QUESTION: It's likely different on --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. No, all right.
QUESTION: On Turkey, during yesterday's briefing, you commented on President Erdogan's remarks on anti-American sentiments in Turkey that sparked following the coup attempt and Turkey says --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- Gulen was behind it. And your comment is, quote: I think many members of Turkish media didn't do anything to stop that impression from growing, quote. And I was wondering, do you think, rather than the role of Turkish media, Gulen being here in the U.S. could be the main reason for Turkish people to feel that anti-American sentiment?
MR KIRBY: I – again, we talked about this yesterday. I can't get inside and I won't get inside the minds of the Turkish people or Turkish officials. All I can tell you is that we had no – absolutely nothing to do with this coup. We continue to support the democratically elected Government of Turkey and we continue to work closely with Turkey as a member of the coalition to counter Daesh.
QUESTION: And a couple of Turkish ministers including the justice minister said that Gulen is planning to escape from the U.S. and I was wondering if you have taken –the U.S. is taking any security measures in order to make sure that Gulen --
MR KIRBY: I haven't seen that charge and I couldn't speak to one way or another Mr. Gulen's situation. That's really a question for the Justice Department, not for the State Department.
Carol.
QUESTION: John, an email question. Do you have any reaction to the decision by the – the apparent decision by the incoming administration not to continue investigating former Secretary of State Clinton? You've spent a lot of time up here talking about emails.
MR KIRBY: Yes, I have.
QUESTION: What is your reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: No, I don't --
QUESTION: Do you think this is the end of this?
MR KIRBY: The State Department's not going to react to that. We've seen the comments of the president-elect. That's for him and his team to speak to. Our focus here, I think as you know, Carol, from the very beginning was to make public through the Freedom of Information Act the email traffic that we received from former Secretary Clinton, number one. Number two is Secretary Kerry also continues to be focused on improving our own records management here at the State Department and our own commitment to transparency. And that's where our heads have been, not on the legal aspects of this situation.
QUESTION: What about your internal – you had an internal review that you reopened after the FBI --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, that's – as far as I know, that's still ongoing.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Europe and the missile defense question, just for a second?
QUESTION: Can I ask my question first?
QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.
QUESTION: That's okay.
QUESTION: Oh, Nicole. My God.
QUESTION: You don't have eyes in the back of your head. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Sorry, I didn't see you. Welcome back.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Nicole.
QUESTION: Sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you. No. I just wanted to ask about TPP. The Secretary has worked on it for a number of years and over the years he's spoken about the various advantages of having TPP in terms of setting standards and benefiting the economy here. I was wondering if you could just speak to the implications of stepping out of TPP, of the U.S. leaving TPP.
MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary obviously, and you've heard him talk about this many times, continues to believe in the importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the fact that it will help our economy, it will help grow the economies of those nations that are signatories as well, and it will help raise the standards for workers and employees. So we obviously still believe in the power of TPP and, look, I mean, the World Bank itself talked about – TPP will raise member country GDP by an average of 1.1 percent by 2030, that consumers are likely under TPP to enjoy lower prices and greater variety of products and services as well. So, I mean, there's – it's not just the United States. It's not just this Administration that believes in the power of TPP, but so do many others. Many other international signatories, as well as – as I said, the World Bank.
So we still believe in the power of it and the – and I think this – and broadly – more broadly speaking the power of trade and what trade can bring to not just one, but many economies in a part of the world, by the way, where the economic gravity – center of gravity is moving inexorably more towards than it is even now. So I think you'll hear, for the remainder of the time that the Secretary is in office, a continued full-throated endorsement of TPP and its importance.
But look, what the next administration decides to do, that's really for them to speak to and to articulate. What we're going to do is continue to articulate our belief in the strength of the – of TPP.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I just want to go back, briefly, on the missile defense in Europe question.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: And that – this is something that has actually gnawed at me for a year --
MR KIRBY: Well, then I just can't wait to talk about it.
QUESTION: -- or so. But it's not going to be a rambling thing. I just want – if – when you guys sold this, sold the whole idea of missile defense, it was always pointed – even the last administration always pointed to Iran as the threat. If – and that the Russians shouldn't worry about it. But if the Iran deal is such a huge success, as you say it is, why is it still necessary?
MR KIRBY: Because Iran continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities.
QUESTION: But you guys got into the deal that the ballistic missile – you bragged about it at the time, that you kept the ballistic missiles --
MR KIRBY: I don't think we bragged about anything, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, you said it was a success that you got the ballistic missiles --
MR KIRBY: I would say that's fact-sharing, not bragging.
QUESTION: Okay. All right, whatever. You made a point of --
MR KIRBY: But look, I mean Iran continues to – but look, Iran --
QUESTION: -- saying that the ballistic missile sanctions --
MR KIRBY: Iran continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR KIRBY: And so we continue to believe in the value of missile defense.
QUESTION: But they are still banned from doing ballistic missile activity, right, for eight years, seven years now?
MR KIRBY: It is certainly part of the deal. But we have to --
QUESTION: Well, if the missile defense system that you want to put in Europe is aimed at only Iran, why would you not want to make it not necessary? And why wouldn't you have pushed harder to keep the ballistic missile restrictions in place?
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to re-litigate the deal.
QUESTION: No, I'm just saying --
MR KIRBY: We continue to believe in the power of the missile defense on the continent because Iran continues to pursue ballistic missile capabilities. That's one. Number two, which I think is getting at the larger meaning of your question, we have, on many occasions in the past and continue to be willing to share information about the missile defense systems and capabilities that we want to continue to pursue in placement with the Russian Government. As far as I know – and I'm happy to check on this – I don't believe that that offer has been taken up.
Yeah. Nike.
QUESTION: Or taken off the table.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: All right. Wait. I have one more. But it's on Yemen. But I'm sorry, I'm late. Did – have you already talked about Yemen?
QUESTION: No.
MR KIRBY: I have not.
QUESTION: I just wanted to know if you had – there was any update.
MR KIRBY: I don't. Unfortunately, obviously, violations, violence, attacks continue to occur. The Secretary continues to stay engaged.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. A quick follow-up to Nicole's question on TPP. You said that the U.S. still believe in the power of trade. Now after the United States withdraw – well, if the next administration do what it said, that it will withdraw the TPP, then what seems to be left one of the trade blocs is RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
First of all, I understand the United States is not a member of it. Do you have a position – do you have a view on the RCEP? If so, what is it?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I'd let nations that are considering and talking about the RECP[2] that you're talking about speak to it. We continue to believe in the strength of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and that multilateral trade deal.
QUESTION: But do you believe some – do you share the view that RCEP will be left to be the only major trade bloc to dominant Asia Pacific region?
MR KIRBY: Well, we – I don't want to hypothesize here about outcomes. Again, it's for the incoming administration to determine what they decide to do about TPP. But for the remaining weeks of the Obama Administration, we're going to continue to advance what we believe is the strongest and best alternative for international trade in the Asia Pacific region, which is TPP. And I can't – I just don't think it would be a useful exercise to speculate about what decisions might come later and what that might mean.
It's important to remember that – and I get the gist of this, is that China is pushing RECP[3] – nations have to make these sovereign decisions for themselves, in terms of how they want to trade with the region and with the outside world. And we respect that, but we aren't the only ones who want to see TPP advanced. There are other nations as well, in the region, that are signing up to it. So I mean, there are larger international consequences here. But again, I can't speculate for what might happen.
QUESTION: I don't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just curious --
MR KIRBY: No, I think you do.
QUESTION: I'm just interested to hear how would you respond to some of the analysis that the U.S. is actually pushing its Asian allies to RCEP.
MR KIRBY: The U.S. is pushing --
QUESTION: Its Asian allies to RCEP as a trade bloc.
MR KIRBY: If you mean by hypothetically pulling out of TPP, that would push them towards – is that what you mean?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MR KIRBY: Well, again, you're asking me to comment about a decision on behalf of the incoming administration one way or the other. I don't – I can't do that. I won't do that. What we want to continue to see is TPP enter into force, and we believe that it is – that it's the right approach.
QUESTION: But John, he said he's going to do it on day one. Surely you can say you think that that's a bad idea.
MR KIRBY: We – obviously, we would continue to argue for the soundness – I just did – logic of TPP. I've seen the president-elect's comments, but I am simply not going to get into the habit of --
QUESTION: Well, you think there's some way that you can --
MR KIRBY: -- of debating or commenting on it. We continue to believe in the power of trade. We continue to believe in the strength of TPP. We think that that's in the best interest of the United States and other signatory nations.
QUESTION: Right. So why can't you say that you think that ripping it up on day one – is that a good idea?
MR KIRBY: Obviously, we don't favor leaving the TPP. Of course not. Of course not.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: But the question was: What do I think about forcing other nations to RECP[4]? That is a potential outcome of us pulling out of TPP that I can't possibly predict. That was the nature of the question.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: Well, but – but I mean --
QUESTION: But you can deal with the ramifications now that TPP won't be passed. I mean, this notion that there's still a chance is – it's absurd, no?
MR KIRBY: Well, I --
QUESTION: I mean, beyond --
MR KIRBY: We're certainly mindful of the hurdles, okay? But that doesn't mean that we don't still believe in it.
QUESTION: And beyond the president-elect's pledge, you have to realize that if you take the two leading candidates in the presidential election, who both oppose TPP, that's 95, 96 percent of America voted for candidates that opposed TPP. So you have very little leg to stand on, if any at all. (Laughter.) I mean, what – where is this belief coming from that you have any chance at all?
MR KIRBY: Because – well, again, it's not just us. It's the World Bank. I mean, there are – we still believe in the soundness of TPP. I understand – I mean, I'm not ignorant of what's being said out there and what the president-elect has said his stated intentions are. Those are decisions that he and his team can speak to. Doesn't mean that we don't still believe in the importance of the United States remaining engaged in a very rapidly changing, very economically diverse world. And we believe that it's critical to strengthen ties between the United States and regions like the Asia Pacific. So you've heard the President. The President has talked about the case for international trade when he was in Athens, and I think you'll expect to see him speak about that for the remainder of his time, as well as Secretary Kerry.
But the question specifically was, if I'm – because I don't want to – I just want to make it clear I'm not unmindful of the reality of what the new administration has said.
QUESTION: Good.
MR KIRBY: But the question was: Are we concerned that this, in fact, forces other countries to go into RECP[5]? And I don't know that that would be the outcome of pulling out of TPP.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: But not only --
MR KIRBY: It might be, but those are sovereign decisions that those nations have to make.
QUESTION: Not only is it a possibility, but the Chinese have been pushing this. They were pushing it in Lima.
MR KIRBY: Well, that's fine. They can do that.
QUESTION: So why don't --
MR KIRBY: But I can't tell you what other sovereign nations will do.
QUESTION: Well, I know, but you could say that you – that yes, one of the reasons that we're continuing to pursue TPP against these hurdles – which I would say are not really hurdles but, like, insurmountable, mile-high brick walls – but one of the reasons that you're doing that is because you would not like to see a rival trade pact --
MR KIRBY: I would just say in general --
QUESTION: -- that is run by the Chinese, that you have said over and over again would have less stringent standards --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, right.
QUESTION: -- environmental and workers' rights and --
MR KIRBY: So again, I would – without getting into the specifics of RECP[6], what I – what we have said in the past – and I won't – so I can't talk to that particular arrangement. But as a general matter, we want to see trade that – trade arrangements that are open, that are transparent, that encourage commerce and trade that enhances stability and security and that meets high labor standards and meets high human rights standards, as we believe the TPP does.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Also on TPP --
QUESTION: Can I ask --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there any discussion at all with the other members of TPP that it can somehow be salvaged without the United States?
MR KIRBY: I'm not aware of individual conversations like that. Again, I think – well, I think I've spoken to it quite enough today.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Very quickly on Palestine – Palestinian-Israeli peace potential, in response to Brad's question on the lame duck – granted, I think you were talking about the – it was particular to Iran. You said that you will refrain from any renewed effort to – in that realm. Let me ask you about the Palestinian-Israeli versus the lame duck. Would you have – is it inconceivable to have any kind of renewed effort on that track, maybe to launch or to bring it back to life? Any kind of peace process?
MR KIRBY: I mean, as --
QUESTION: Is it completely inconceivable?
MR KIRBY: As I've said many times here, Said, I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that haven't been made yet. We're going to continue to stay focused on trying to see us all get closer to a two-state solution.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: We're mindful of the clock, mindful of the challenges. We're mindful of the fact that thus far, there hasn't been strong leadership in the region to try to see that reality, but it doesn't mean that we're not still committed to it.
QUESTION: Because there is – there is precedent. I think President Clinton in the last days of his administration basically introduced something.
MR KIRBY: I'm simply not going to get ahead of President --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) process.
MR KIRBY: I'm not going to get ahead of President Obama on this.
Okay. Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Appreciate it. Hey, we need to talk about whether we brief tomorrow. If I don't brief tomorrow, have a great Thanksgiving.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:03 p.m.)
[1] High Negotiations Committee
[2] RCEP
[3] RCEP
[4] RCEP
[5] RCEP
[6] RCEP
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
