Department Press Briefing - June 29, 2017
Heather Nauert
Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 29, 2017
TRANSCRIPT:
3:31 p.m. EDT
MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone. Good afternoon.
QUESTION: Afternoon?
MS NAUERT: Yes, it is.
QUESTION: It's almost evening.
MS NAUERT: We have had a lot of stuff going on today, so thank you for your patience. We wanted to make sure that we were able to get you all on that call today with the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and also State on the executive order resulting from the Supreme Court announcement earlier this week. And also you probably saw what took place at the White House, and that was the announcement of sanctions on some Chinese entities. So thank you for your patience. We wanted to get you all that information before we got up today.
A couple things I want to start with. And first, tomorrow is an important day. It'll mark one year since U.S. citizen Josh Holt was detained by Venezuelan authorities. Medical and consular access to Mr. Holt has continued to be slow and grudging since February. We've made multiple calls for the Venezuelan Government to release him on humanitarian grounds. The protracted delays in providing him even a preliminary hearing and filing formal charges cast serious doubts on the merit of and the lawfulness of his detention. His detention has been made all the more difficult and painful due to ongoing medical ailments, which have worsened by delays and denials of proper care.
Through private discussions, dozens of diplomatic notes, and public statements, we've repeatedly raised concerns about his health and his conditions of his detention and his treatment with Venezuelan authorities. His case has been raised at the highest levels of the Venezuelan Government by numerous U.S. officials. With the anniversary of his detention tomorrow, we again call on the Government of Venezuela to immediately release him on humanitarian grounds so that he can return to the United States.
Second thing I wanted to bring up before we get started with questions today is something that has taken place in Vietnam. And we want to say that we are deeply concerned about the Vietnamese course and its conviction of the 2017 International Woman of Courage awardee and peaceful blogger, Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh. She's also known as "Mother Mushroom." She was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the vague charge of conducting propaganda against the state. You are probably, many of you, familiar with her story. She was here at the State Department, and that's where the First Lady, Melania Trump, presented her with the 2017 International Woman of Courage Award.
The United States calls on Vietnam to release Mother Mushroom and all other prisoners of conscience immediately and to allow all individuals in Vietnam to express their views freely and assemble peacefully without fear of retribution. We've seen some positive steps on human rights in Vietnam over the past few years. However, the trend of increased arrests and convictions of peaceful protests since early 2016 is deeply troubling. Progress on human rights will allow the U.S.-Vietnam partnership to reach its fullest potential.
And with that, I'll take your questions.
QUESTION: I'm not trying to make light of the – Mother – I missed the ceremony the other day. Her name – her real name is --
MS NAUERT: This was a couple months ago.
QUESTION: -- Mother Mushroom?
MS NAUERT: That is what she is popularly known as in Vietnam. Her given name is Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay.
MS NAUERT: And she was presented with the International Women of Courage Award.
QUESTION: Got it. And then just one other very small item before we get into something else. You just – you opened by discussing the medical condition of Josh Holt. And I just want to point out that not three weeks ago, two weeks ago --
MS NAUERT: I knew you would go there. Yeah.
QUESTION: -- you said you never discuss the health conditions of any Americans --
MS NAUERT: Let me preempt you there --
QUESTION: Now, I realize that there's --
MS NAUERT: -- Mr. Matt Lee --
QUESTION: I realize there's a Privacy Act waiver issue here --
MS NAUERT: Yes.
QUESTION: -- but it is not true that you never discuss the health of Americans held abroad, right?
MS NAUERT: If you want --
QUESTION: You do in certain cases.
MS NAUERT: If you want to get into an issue of semantics, we are calling for his release on humanitarian grounds. You will not hear me get into the specifics of one's medical condition. You will not hear me characterize one's medical condition. However, we are able to say, on humanitarian grounds, we are calling for the Venezuelan Government to release him immediately, so that he could get medical care back here at home.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks. Now, on the Supreme Court order and the guidance that went out to embassies last night, I know that there was the call earlier, but I didn't get a chance to ask this. I don't really expect you to have the answer, but I want to put it out there --
MS NAUERT: I will do my best.
QUESTION: -- just to make sure it's on-the-record. And that is the fate of Iraqis who worked for or with the U.S. military in – and the status of the P-2 refugee admissions, because they are not at all addressed in the guidance. And there are questions now about whether or not they would be – even though Iraq is not in the – it's not among the six countries – these people would be refugees. And once the 50,000 cap has hit, all refugees have to do this – get the – show a bona fide relationship. The reason I'm asking this is because one would presume that working for the U.S. military would be a bona fide relationship with an American entity. But I'm – no one will – I can't get anyone to say that. People say, "It's a case-by-case basis, and it's speculation." So --
MS NAUERT: So, this --
QUESTION: -- is there an answer to this question about the --
MS NAUERT: I don't have an answer to that question.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS NAUERT: It's a good question; it's a valid question. I know lots of Iraqis, and particularly those who have worked alongside the United States, will have questions about that. This is all very new. We were in a rush to pull this call together today with our experts so that we could get you all the answers that you want and that you deserve. That one, I'm going to have to get back with you on. And anybody needs – has any questions on that --
QUESTION: Okay. Please do. That's it for me.
MS NAUERT: -- I would just ask you to hold, please.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS NAUERT: Okay. Let's stay with the executive order first before we go onto something else. Hi, Michele.
QUESTION: Okay, so – thank you. On the refugee issue, as to what would be some scenarios where they would have a relationship with an entity – I know that there was no guidance given on that, but we were told on the call that the guidance was coming. So I don't understand why that isn't better spelled out. They referred to the ruling itself, but obviously in a ruling that doesn't give guidance specifically there's room for interpretation. So why hasn't that been interpreted to include something like a resettlement agency? And when will the guidance be coming. It seems like it's pretty necessary.
MS NAUERT: Okay. So there are a couple components to this. There are the visa applicants under this executive order and then there are also the refugees and that component of it. In terms of the refugees, some of that we do have a little bit of extra time to do that. That is until we reach the cap of 50,000. So we have a little bit more time in order to fully dig into this.
And in the coming days, we'll be able to provide additional guidance. As you all know, this is very new; it's 72 hours old. The worker – or the lawyers here at State, Justice, and DHS have been working nonstop to try to get all the information and the understanding and the legalese all put forward. So we're going to work in the coming days to provide additional guidance. We do still have a little bit of time left.
QUESTION: And one more quick question on that. At the beginning of the call it was emphasized again that safety of the country is the number one issue here. But when you parse out the allowances, you could have a scenario where someone who doesn't really have close ties to anyone in the country but is basically an adult who is attending a university here, that's okay to come in, but someone who is a three-year-old grandchild of somebody else – n =ot allowed. Do you see how this, in the end, might not equal greater safety for the United States? And do you agree that there's an arbitrary element to this?
MS NAUERT: I'm not going to define – I'm not going to characterize your view as arbitrary in any way. This has been one of the President's top issues. He has talked consistently about how he believes the United States needs to do more to enhance our screening procedures and to take a better look at people who will be coming into the United States because the safety and security of Americans comes first. Some of this enhanced screening – there are review procedures that are taking place. Some of those started just a week ago; some of those will have 120 days to be reviewed and all of that.
I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about different family variations and whether or not they should be coming into the United States. I think you're talking about the bona fide relationship, and the bona fide relationship and who falls under that category. I think it's fairly broad. But I'm not going to get into grandparents and all of that.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on the EO?
QUESTION: Just a point of clarification on that.
MS NAUERT: Sure.
QUESTION: You said that there's a little bit of time with the refugee cases because you haven't fit the 50,000 cap yet.
MS NAUERT: Correct.
QUESTION: But there's still the 120-day suspension. So does that not kick in until the 50,000 cap is met?
MS NAUERT: My understanding is that until we reach that 50,000 cap that we still have time – I was talking with some of our lawyers and folks upstairs about this very thing – that we still have time to get all of the details in place.
Hey.
QUESTION: On the bona fide relationships --
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you explain exactly what – how is the State Department and U.S. Government I guess interpreting this bona fide relationship language? And what exactly – how does somebody establish that?
MS NAUERT: You mean in terms of paperwork?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, what – yeah.
MS NAUERT: So a lot of that will be determined by the consular officers when they actually do their visa interviews for that. I can tell you a little bit more about what's considered to be a bona fide relationship. I know a lot of Americans, a lot of folks overseas, will have questions about that. It's considered a close familial relationship. It covers a parent; it covers an in-law, a mother-in-law, a father-in-law; a spouse; a child; adult son, daughter; son and daughter-in-law; a sibling, a whole or a half, including step relationships[1]. Those are considered to be bona fide relationships, close familial relationships. And one of the things that we talked about a little bit on the call is that is under the Immigration and Nationality Act. And that's where we took that definition of that.
QUESTION: What about – because it also said entities, not – I believe it also said entities, not just families. So does it refer to, for instance, students in universities and people who have been invited by jobs or by some kind of organization?
MS NAUERT: Those very examples it would include: someone coming over here to study at a university – this is my understanding – and also people who have been offered jobs in the United States.
Okay. Anything on the EO?
QUESTION: Can we stay on it?
MS NAUERT: Hi.
QUESTION: So just on the vetting. I mean, there was a fair amount of criticism about the need for review of the vetting on refugees, especially given that there have been reports showing that of 780,000 or so refugees brought into the United States since 2001 there have been three people arrested on allegations of potential terrorist attacks. So what is the current State Department view on the vetting procedures for refugees? Is this an acknowledgment that those vetting procedures are not thorough enough?
MS NAUERT: I know that we are always looking for additional ways to enhance our screening, whether it be for visa applicants or if it's for refugees. Refugees are vetted pretty significantly, among the highest, in terms of people who are vetted to come into the United States.
One thing we haven't talked a lot about right here is the memorandum that went along with the executive order, and that puts into effect enhanced screening and vetting applications – vetting requirements for visa applicants. And that's a really – actually an interesting angle, because that's something that folks worldwide would apply to potentially anyone in any country around the world, and that is where we, in the past, have asked for information, for example, five years of travel history, family relationships, that type of thing.
And now our consular affairs officers – again, in every country, it could apply to any person – if our consular officers want to get additional information because they think that they would need more information to better screen someone, then they have the ability to ask certain questions and get that kind of information. And that's, again, something we haven't talked about a whole lot, but I have a form here in front of me if anyone's interested in that, and that's the DS-5535 and additional forms.
So that is just one example of how we're constantly looking at ways of improving our screening to be able to make sure that Americans here at home are safe and we're allowing in the kinds of folks who don't want to do us harm.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: So just to follow up on that.
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, the President and the State Department have both said that these are based on efforts to improve national security, and that's the top priority, but you've never given us direct evidence that refugees coming into the United States pose a threat to national security. So does the U.S. have evidence that refugees pose a threat to national security?
MS NAUERT: I think that would be more of a Department of Homeland Security issue, on that.
QUESTION: Can I just ask --
MS NAUERT: Okay. Sure.
QUESTION: -- if you already have – and I raised this in the call – but if you already have these enhanced – this enhanced ability to do extra vetting for anyone in any country applying for any visa, why do you need this?
MS NAUERT: I think this is a matter in which the United States is always looking for ways to continue to enhance, alter, and improve its security procedures.
QUESTION: Yeah. But --
QUESTION: Heather, so is the 120-day clock started already or is it going to start on July 6th? And why do you guys need a 120-day clock to examine the vetting procedures and the refugees? Couldn't you have started that in January or February, even when the EO was suspended?
MS NAUERT: I believe – and I'm going to do my best to try to answer this for you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: I believe the part that you were talking about with this enhanced screening, those review procedures started about a week ago. One hundred and twenty days and how that timeframe was selected was part – my understanding is – a part of the executive order. If I can – I can put you in touch with somebody who could probably better answer that question than I can. That – some of that predates me. So I wasn't involved in the process then, but if you want any more on that I can try to get that for you.
QUESTION: But just so the – so are – I just want to make sure which questions you're not answering. Is it --
MS NAUERT: Gardiner, come on.
QUESTION: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
MS NAUERT: Look, I just told you. I'm --
QUESTION: I want --
MS NAUERT: I'm doing my best.
QUESTION: I am too. I am too.
MS NAUERT: This is all new. This is a part of the executive order. Why 120 days was selected, that I don't know off the top of my head.
QUESTION: No, I'm not asking that, but --
MS NAUERT: If you want me to try to get you an expert who can answer that question for you --
QUESTION: I'd love that.
MS NAUERT: -- I can.
QUESTION: But I just want to know, do you have any notion (a) about when that clock starts? Is that now or July 6th?
MS NAUERT: My understanding is that it started about a week ago – the review process for enhanced screening.
QUESTION: Oh, before the executive order was even lifted by the Supreme Court then?
MS NAUERT: Some of this review procedure that was required under the executive order --
QUESTION: Right.
MS NAUERT: -- my understanding is that it started about a week ago because that – and I don't know why that was – that timeframe was selected. Let me --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: Let me just get you somebody on that who can best answer that, okay?
QUESTION: He's asking you about the 120-day suspension of the refugee program, which begins once you hit the cap.
QUESTION: Don't know --
QUESTION: Or does it?
QUESTION: That's true. That's what I'm asking. When does the time clock start? Does it start when you hit the cap?
MS NAUERT: So you weren't asking then about the review procedures?
QUESTION: Well, so in the executive order, it lists that there is a 120-day suspension of refugee entries while the administration examines the program in its entirety, right?
MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And so I think this is separate from the enhanced – my understanding – I'm not talking about the enhanced vetting procedures that you guys have already done. I'm simply talking about in the refugee program you're supposed, to under the executive order, suspend all refugee entries. And of course this is complicated by the fact that the Supreme Court has said, well, that's true but we're going to let you – we're going to let some people in who have a bona fide relationships; you guys have defined what that is. I'm just sort of – I – so I'm puzzled about when the 120-day suspension of the entire refugee program would go into effect and why you would need that if you have already had five and some-odd months to sort of look at the program.
MS NAUERT: Well, with the refugee program there's a cap on the number of refugees, and that's a cap at 50,000 and we're very close to reaching that cap. We're about 800 or so, 900 or so, away. And that's why when I was talking earlier about how we have a little bit more time in order to get that definition completely tied down.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on the executive order?
QUESTION: But (inaudible) 120 days in the original executive order. So are you saying that when the cap is met, that's when the 120-day suspension kicks in? They're not concurrent?
MS NAUERT: Let --
QUESTION: Or is it tonight at 8:00 p.m. when (inaudible) --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS NAUERT: Guys, instead of everybody chiming in about what they think this might mean, let me please get back with you with one of our lawyers who's been working with DHS and DOJ to best answer that question. Okay? So let me just take the bulk of that question and get back with you. And any folks watching on TV, they're probably like, "What on Earth are you guys talking about?" So let me get back to you with a good, concrete answer on that one. Okay?
Anything else on the EO that's not related to the 120 days?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, how are you?
QUESTION: On the EO question, I think we've all gotten sort of into the legal nuances a lot.
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: But we've still, like this press corps, the American public, have not really been given a clear answer as to why these six countries and people from those six countries presents a real threat to the United States. That call today started off saying that we want to prevent mayhem and terror in the United States. People from these six countries have not carried out those attacks in the United States. It just hasn't happened. There's – some countries you could say maybe, if you want to argue for a travel ban in some form, should belong on that list. Some don't. But it – the policy as it is hasn't really been fully explained.
And then if you want to get into the grandparents, grandchildren, I mean, what percentage of terrorist attacks have been carried out by grandparents from these six countries? I think that is something that we deserve an answer to that hasn't really been – and other than saying – and that was asked today on the call, and the official just pointed to President Trump's comments about this. That's not really an answer.
MS NAUERT: Well, there were people on that call from State, White House, DOJ, and also DHS.
QUESTION: And they couldn't justify the policy.
MS NAUERT: I don't know that I would agree with that. You all had the opportunity to ask the lawyers and ask folks more – the experts who were involved in putting this together – more questions about that. And I really didn't hear too many questions about that very topic.
QUESTION: We were – we asked. Reuters asked what is the danger of a grandparent from one of these six countries coming into the United States. And the answer was --
MS NAUERT: And we're talking about the definition.
QUESTION: -- this is the guidance --
MS NAUERT: And the definition --
QUESTION: The answer was this is the guidance we've been given by the President. That's not an answer as to how that individual harms the United States or presents a terrorist threat to the United States.
MS NAUERT: Well, I'm sorry that you're not pleased with that answer. That's the answer that the experts gave you. I can tell you that we received the family definition from federal law, and we received the family definition. And for whatever reason it doesn't include grandparents, but we were just going along with what federal law states.
Okay, next question.
QUESTION: Was there any sort of risk assessment in deciding what bona fide relationships are, or was it strictly a legal interpretation of past law like the INA?
MS NAUERT: There have been three days to get through this and to try to put that together, so I'm not sure that anyone was able to do a risk assessment, as you suggest, about grandparents. But the lawyers have been putting together --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS NAUERT: -- putting this together and working on it for the past few days.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on the executive order?
QUESTION: On her question, her point, though, that it is true that there was, shall we say, not a lot of enthusiasm on the call from the officials, except for one official who was from the White House, for this. And when asked what specifically this would do to improve security, all of the – all of the officials, four of the five officials who were on the call, basically said we're doing this because the court has told us to and did not offer an explanation of how it does make it safer.
MS NAUERT: Look --
QUESTION: So if there is an answer --
MS NAUERT: Their jobs --
QUESTION: I know.
MS NAUERT: -- is to implement.
QUESTION: Their job is to carry out – exactly.
MS NAUERT: Okay? Their job is not to be a person who will come out and advocate for or against something in this fashion. It wouldn't be appropriate for them to do so. These are civil servants and Foreign Service officers. You know they're not going to get into the politics of this kind of thing. Their job is to execute and implement, and they were given the – some direction by the Department of Justice. They all worked together to come up with this, and they professionally put something together and gave you the answers. You're saying that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm. That's your opinion. But these folks have been hard at work doing their jobs.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: But can you offer just a justification for it? I mean, you are a political appointee. I mean, this is your administration. So can you tell us why this country is safer having this executive order and banning people from these countries that have never committed attacks on the United States previously except in, what was it, the --
MS NAUERT: Gardiner, as far as I'm going to go is saying that with some of these countries – and we would take issue certainly with the Government of Iran and some other nations – that there can be concerns. And the American public could have legitimate concerns about their safety when we open our doors. And we want to open our doors to people who are willing to go through proper screening measures and who want to be here and want to be productive members of our society. I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: The people of Iran are very pro-American people (inaudible).
MS NAUERT: I know that. That's why I said we take issue with the Government of Iran, not the people of Iran, certainly. Okay?
QUESTION: But the people are the ones that are banned.
MS NAUERT: Look, I know you guys want to push me to say something about this.
QUESTION: To defend the policy. That's it.
MS NAUERT: Yeah. Okay.
QUESTION: I'm not trying to – it's not a gotcha question.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on the executive order?
QUESTION: No.
MS NAUERT: No. Okay.
QUESTION: Okay, China and North Korea?
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: Okay. Today Secretary of the Treasury talking about sanctions on China. And these – regarding these – will the United States ask to South Korea for support these sanctions? Did you – U.S. ask to – ask to Moon Jae-in – tomorrow summit will the U.S. ask for --
MS NAUERT: Will we ask for South Korean support on sanctions against North Korea?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS NAUERT: I know that we have asked a lot of countries to do more. A lot of countries have influence, a great deal of influence, especially their neighbors, with the DPRK, so we continue to ask nations to do more to try to ratchet up the pressure on the DPRK.
You referenced the sanctions that were announced at 2 o'clock today by the Treasury Secretary and taking a look at some Chinese entities. We believe that those entities have a role in getting money to the North Koreans, and that money doesn't go into the pockets of normal, regular North Korean citizens. That money goes into the pocket, we believe, of their illegal ballistic weapons programs and also its illegal nuclear weapons program, so that – or nuclear program.
So that is a big concern of ours. And that is one of the reasons that the Treasury Department chose to sanction those Chinese entities, and that is something that we have continuously, especially with regard to the Chinese, to put the pressure on them to do that. Secretary Tillerson has talked about that, where the Chinese have done a notable job, but he has characterized it as uneven, so we'd like to see them do more.
Anything else on DPRK? Hi.
QUESTION: So with this announcement, are you sending the message to China that U.S. will move forward on North Korea issues without Chinese cooperation?
MS NAUERT: I'm sorry, say that again?
QUESTION: So are you sending a message to China that United States will work on North Korea issues without Chinese cooperation?
MS NAUERT: Well, I didn't say that the Chinese weren't cooperating. I said that they – it's been uneven. We'd like to see them do more, and they know that. We've had conversations about that in the past at the highest levels. And so we'd just like to continue to call upon them to do more. Okay.
QUESTION: So even with this (inaudible) --
MS NAUERT: Anything else DPRK?
QUESTION: Iraq?
MS NAUERT: DPRK?
QUESTION: China?
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: I've got a brief one on China, but --
MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead. Hi. How are you?
QUESTION: Thank you. So I wanted to ask about Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist. And Ambassador Branstad said that he would like to help Mr. Liu to get cancer treatment overseas, and we are wondering whether the United States supports that. Are you talking to the Beijing government about it?
MS NAUERT: So one of the things we've done is, as I've said in other instances, that we have conversations at the highest levels of government with government officials on areas where we have a great deal of concern. Among those would be human rights issues, this one for Liu Xiaobo, who's a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a writer as well – he unfortunately is battling cancer at this time. We would like to see him – get additional information about how he is doing.
He's not a U.S. citizen, he's a Chinese national, but we'd like him to have access to international medical specialists if he chooses to do so. One of the important things we see is give him the opportunity, if he wants to seek medical treatment elsewhere, to be able to seek medical treatment elsewhere.
You referenced something Ambassador Branstad said, and along with that he said our heart goes out to him and to his wife, and we'd like to see him have the opportunity for treatment elsewhere if that would be of assistance to him.
QUESTION: This is related to China --
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but it'll be extremely brief. You guys today notified Congress of a rather large arms sale to Taiwan.
MS NAUERT: To Taiwan, yeah.
QUESTION: Can you talk about that a little bit?
MS NAUERT: Yeah. So let me just get all the details here because I want to get everything straight. But we – normally we wouldn't talk about this into – until it is submitted to Congress, and Congress was notified today about that. Give me just a minute, please. Okay.
QUESTION: Is the book getting bigger?
MS NAUERT: Kind of like a messy former journalist. You keep a lot of papers around.
So the administration had formally notified Congress of seven proposed defense sales for Taiwan. It's now valued about 1.42 billion. The notifications are consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act. It shows, we believe, our support for Taiwan's ability to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. There is no change, I should point out, to our longstanding "one China" policy, which is based, as you all know, on three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. There is continuity here; the United States has been doing defense sales with Taiwan for 50 years or so, so nothing has changed.
QUESTION: Iraq?
QUESTION: On Syria?
QUESTION: One more on DPRK?
MS NAUERT: Anything else on the Asian region that anyone wants to talk about?
QUESTION: Yes. So you said that we'd like to – the State Department, the United States – would like the – to see China do more.
MS NAUERT: Mm-hm.
QUESTION: Are they even doing what they said they would do regarding – because they said that they would – that they were going to limit the coal, I guess, buying – buys from North Korea and fuel shipments to North Korea. Is that even happening?
MS NAUERT: So some of this is classified, so some of that I cannot talk about. I do have a list of something that is public. I don't have it at my fingertips right now, but some of the things that we have been asking other nations, including China, to do and some of the ways that we have seen those countries take steps in the right direction.
I've talked a little bit here about guest worker programs and how there are North Korean guest workers in many countries around the world. We have asked many of those other countries to limit the number of North Korean workers that can work in their countries. The reason why: we see the money not going into their pockets, but it goes – the government confiscates it, and it goes into the pockets of the Government of the DPRK. And we believe that that money is then being used to fund its illegal weapons program and also its nuclear program.
So we continue to talk to all of these nations about sort of putting the squeeze, if you will, on North Korea, and that would be one example of it.
Okay. Anything else on Asia?
QUESTION: South Korea?
MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.
QUESTION: I wondered if you had a readout for the Secretary's meeting yesterday with the Korean foreign minister.
MS NAUERT: I don't have an actual readout for you on that meeting. I was in that meeting, and I would just describe as it was a pleasant meeting. We had a lot of areas of agreement. I know that the President and the Secretary look forward to hosting President Moon here in Washington, certainly. Among the things that they talked about was the threat from North Korea and the alliance that we have with South Korea, and the importance of that.
QUESTION: Quick follow-up.
QUESTION: Syria?
QUESTION: North Korean human rights issue been discussed at the meeting yesterday – Kang and Secretary Tillerson?
MS NAUERT: I'm not – beyond what I just told you about that meeting, I'm not going to be able to get into any additional specifics.
Okay, so let's move on from Asia. What do we have now?
QUESTION: One on Syria.
QUESTION: Syria.
MS NAUERT: Okay, let's go to Syria then.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: Sir, I'm sorry, tell me your name.
QUESTION: I'm Caleb with RT. Caleb Maupin.
MS NAUERT: Oh, right. Caleb, hi.
QUESTION: So this recent statement from the White House alleging that the Syrian Government was planning an upcoming chemical attack, are you concerned that that could have created an opening for terrorist groups to carry out a chemical attack?
MS NAUERT: No.
QUESTION: You're not concerned even though al-Nusrah, al-Qaida groups, have been using chemical weapons in Syria that's documented?
MS NAUERT: No. Next question on Syria.
QUESTION: Just um – well, I mean, they could carry out a chemical attack, and then with the White House saying, "Oh, Assad was going to do it," that would create a cover for them to do such a thing.
MS NAUERT: Do I have to do this again? We know that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, and he's done that repeatedly including --
QUESTION: Well, hasn't the United States convinced the world that that --
MS NAUERT: Including women and children --
QUESTION: -- Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
MS NAUERT: -- and we have all seen that. We have all seen the video, and there is no debate about that. Okay? I'm going to --
QUESTION: So didn't Assad give up his chemical weapons in 2013?
MS NAUERT: No.
QUESTION: Didn't that happen?
MS NAUERT: No.
QUESTION: That didn't happen? So the --
MS NAUERT: Hayvi.
QUESTION: The OPCW is not being --
MS NAUERT: Hayvi, let's go over to you.
QUESTION: Thank you. So we know that ISIS is almost defeated in Mosul, maybe even similar situation in Raqqa. We know that phase two is Deir ez-Zor. The Assad regime forces, along with the militias, Iranian proxies and militias in Syria, are trying to go to Deir ez-Zor and have backups, basically confronting the United States efforts with its – with their allies to defeat ISIS and Deir ez-Zor, maybe have some sort of partnership or trying to just impose themselves being there in a strong position. What do you expect or what we are going to be seeing from the United States confronting the Iranian militias, the Assad regime, the same way we saw in Tanf, which is in the northern – sorry, in the southern, eastern part of Syria?
MS NAUERT: So let me try to give folks an update on where things from our viewpoint – I'm not going to get into defense, DOD related issues, but in terms of Raqqa and what we can talk about.
The first piece of news I have is that our Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk was in Syria. He was in Syria for the past couple days, I believe, and he talked with some of the local partners of the global campaign and the coalition to defeat ISIS. He – and we're very proud to say that he was able to witness some of the humanitarian and stabilization work and assistance that's now underway in the liberated areas north of Raqqa. And think about this: in the past – a few weeks ago, we were on the outskirts – when I say "we," I mean coalition partners backed by the United States in an advise-and-assist capacity were outside of Raqqa. And now, we're already getting into that portion where we can do some humanitarian and stabilization efforts, so we're proud of that.
One of the things that Special Envoy McGurk has talked about is that once Raqqa is liberated, that we believe it's critical for local officials from the area to take over responsibility and take over responsibility for post-liberation security, but most importantly, governance down the road. This campaign is trending in a positive direction. We are pleased with that. But it's certainly not over and will take a lot of work in order to tie it up.
QUESTION: Are we going to see Assad regime forces go into Raqqa or try to govern and take these areas?
MS NAUERT: We would certainly hope not, and that is an area that is of great discussion, because the United States wants to be able to stabilize these areas, eventually be able to bring the Syrian people – whether it's in Syria or whether it's in Mosul in Iraq, we want to be able to bring our – those folks back in their communities. That's where they want to live. Conditions are not ripe for that just yet. There is a lot of demining work that has to be done – electricity, water, all of those things, so we are – folks are a long way off from seeing that just yet, and that's one of the reasons we talk about local control of those communities that is handled by a governance that is agreed to by the local people there. And so that will be one of the priorities that we would be working toward.
QUESTION: Just to clarify --
MS NAUERT: Anything else on Syria?
QUESTION: Just to clarify --
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- what you said before, are you saying that al-Qaida has not used chemical weapons?
MS NAUERT: I'm not going to get into this conversation with you about this because --
QUESTION: Well, this is a concern.
MS NAUERT: No, no, no, no. You want to have a debate, okay, about a hypothetical, okay, and I'm not going to get into a debate.
QUESTION: If you announce that there's a pending chemical attack --
MS NAUERT: I am not going to get into a debate --
QUESTION: -- and it's going to be done by the government --
MS NAUERT: -- about a hypothetical, but what the --
QUESTION: -- if you announce that, then they could carry out an attack and it would look like the government did it. I mean, isn't that a real possibility?
MS NAUERT: If you want to try to make excuses for the Assad regime, go right ahead.
QUESTION: I'm not talking about Assad.
MS NAUERT: You've got a lot of cameras on you right now, okay?
QUESTION: I'm talking about terrorist groups. I'm talking about al-Qaida and al-Nusrah.
MS NAUERT: And I'm not going to spend all our folks' time having that conversation. We all know here in this room that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for chemical attacks on his own people, including women and children.
QUESTION: And isn't al-Qaida --
MS NAUERT: We are not going to debate it --
QUESTION: Isn't al-Qaida responsible for such things?
MS NAUERT: -- beyond that. Al-Qaida horrible too, but --
QUESTION: Uses chemical weapons.
MS NAUERT: -- what we're talking about right now is Assad and Syria.
QUESTION: Well, I asked you about al-Qaida.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Next question.
QUESTION: That's what I was asking for a clarification on.
MS NAUERT: Something else on Syria?
QUESTION: Russia?
MS NAUERT: Okay, let's go to Russia.
QUESTION: Okay, so --
MS NAUERT: All right.
QUESTION: Why not?
QUESTION: One more question on Syria, sorry.
QUESTION: So – sorry.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Michele, just hold on one second.
QUESTION: Yeah, sure.
MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.
QUESTION: So the Turkish forces have announced that they attacked U.S. partners SDF, especially YPG in Syria, and they threatened they would do so in Afrin. Are you concerned about this new Turkish bombardment of your partners in Syria?
MS NAUERT: Our – the reason that the United States is involved in Syria is to take out ISIS. That's why we care and that's why we are there. Our focus is on liberating Raqqa right now. Our forces aren't operating in the area that you're talking about. I don't want to get into DOD territory. That is theirs. But our focus is on another part of Syria right now.
Okay. Michelle, you had something on Russia.
QUESTION: I wanted to ask this one at the top. Just one last thing about Syria that's --
MS NAUERT: Let's just talk about it after because we've got to wrap it up and I know we have some other questions from other regions.
QUESTION: Yeah, I'll be really quick. With the meetings that are coming up now, does the Secretary of State --
MS NAUERT: You're referring to the G20?
QUESTION: Yeah, with Russia.
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: Does the Secretary of State expect and want the President to bring up continued Russian cyber meddling in the United States during this meeting? And will Tillerson bring that up with Lavrov?
MS NAUERT: I don't know. That's a good question and that's a valid question that a lot of Americans will want to know the answer to. We've not had deep discussions about specifically what might happen in any given meeting. I know that General H.R. McMaster, the National Security Advisor, announced that the President would be meeting with – with Vladimir Putin, thank you – at that meeting coming up, but I don't have any meetings or any schedules to go into beyond that.
QUESTION: Do you know if the Secretary would like him to bring up that issue?
MS NAUERT: That I don't know.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS NAUERT: That I don't know. I haven't – we've been talking so much about other things lately that that one hasn't come up.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Heather, thank you.
MS NAUERT: Hey, how are you?
QUESTION: The Secretary said earlier today he'd like to see staffing approval move at a faster rate at the White House --
QUESTION: Excuse me, can we stay on Russia?
QUESTION: Actually, let me finish my question, please.
MS NAUERT: Wait, hold on. Let her finish this one, yeah.
QUESTION: Thanks. The Secretary said on camera today that he would like to see approvals of his staff positions go more quickly, frustrated that they haven't been at the White House. Has he received any assurance that they will?
MS NAUERT: Well, part of this is a bureaucratic process, and I know everyone would like to see this go faster, from the Secretary down to regular folks here at the State Department. That is something the Secretary has – as you heard, he spoke about earlier today. One of the issues is certainly the paperwork, and I know I went through some of that paperwork myself, including over at the Office of Government Ethics, and it takes time. It takes time to do that. It takes time to go through lots of resumes and people's applications and all of that.
So I know that the Secretary is very engaged in it. I know that the Deputy Secretary John Sullivan is very focused on this as well and trying to – in trying to speed things along. And so we're optimistic that we'll be able to do that now that we have more people in place.
QUESTION: But without an assistant secretary of state for Asia, for Europe to handle these Russia issues – I mean, has that impacted diplomacy? The Secretary made clear he knows who he wants.
MS NAUERT: I have seen some fantastic people here in this building who are what some would deride as holdovers, and they're terrific. I mean, they really are. They're committed to their jobs. They're professional every day. You all know a lot of them. They have just dove into the issues, stayed engaged in the issues. Even those who are retiring have stayed as engaged as I understand that they were even a couple years ago. So I'm tremendously impressed with what a terrific job that they're doing, and frankly hope some of them will stick around because they're a real attribute to this building and have worked hard on behalf of the Secretary and the folks here at the State Department.
QUESTION: So you're saying no damage to diplomacy that you can detect?
MS NAUERT: Me personally, that I can detect, I – look, I think the Secretary and his words speak for themselves that he would like to see things moving along at a faster pace. Sure, we'd like to be able to fill those positions, and that is happening, and anticipate that it will happen at a faster pace. But the people who have been doing those jobs in the meantime have done a fantastic job, and I've had the good fortune of being able to work with a lot of them so far.
QUESTION: One quick question.
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Henry Kissinger is meeting with Vladimir Putin today ahead of the upcoming U.S. meetings. He was in the Oval Office after Russia's top diplomats were meeting with the President. Is he playing any diplomatic role with this administration, either with the Secretary or in some other role?
MS NAUERT: I don't have an answer to that. I believe they know one another, but I can try to look into that and see what I can get for you. Okay.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS NAUERT: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify if the Secretary and the foreign minister will have a full-scale meeting or just pull-aside at the G20. Point one. And point two, is there any movement over the dachas issue?
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: Because the Russians --
MS NAUERT: To your first point, and as you all know, the Secretary will be traveling over to the G20 summit. We had a meeting that had been scheduled with our Under Secretary Tom Shannon, and that was canceled by the Russians. The topic that was on the agenda were some of those smaller issues, such as the dachas that I know are very important to the Russian Government. That meeting was canceled. I know that we are certainly open to having that meeting rescheduled and would look forward to that to get some of these so-called irritants out of the way and deal with some of those things.
In terms of any meetings at the G20 with regard to the Secretary's schedule, I just don't have any meetings or any information to give you on – at this time.
Okay?
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS NAUERT: Last question.
QUESTION: The Secretary spent a lot of time on the GCC crisis this week.
MS NAUERT: That's right.
QUESTION: Did he make any progress?
MS NAUERT: So yeah, that was a big topic of conversation around here, certainly. I know that we continue to urge all of the parties to work together and resolve this issue. The United States continues to stand by and say we will help you in a manner in which you need. The Kuwaitis have done a terrific job of taking the lead as mediators. As you know, the Kuwaitis were here earlier this week. The Secretary met with them and talked with them about the importance. Everybody gets it. I think everybody gets it that this needs to be resolved. When it will be resolved, we're not certain of that at this time, but we're hoping that the parties will all agree to work together and recognize that there's going to be a negotiation that needs to be had.
QUESTION: Well, they're saying – especially the Saudis are saying – no negotiations. So where is the process if no one is negotiating?
MS NAUERT: Yeah, I think I'd have to refer you to those governments to talk specifically about that, but the Kuwaitis remain what I would consider to be sort of the lead mediator, and we're standing by ready to help and advise, if and when we can.
Okay.
QUESTION: Just one question on Iraq?
MS NAUERT: Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you. The Kurdish president, Massoud Barzani, yesterday had an op-ed published in The Washington Post making the case for Kurdish independence. He said the referendum is binding, contrary to previous media reports. He also said that it will not be a unilateral step by the Kurds; it will be a result of a negotiated settlement with Baghdad. So my question is: Would the United States support it if the Iraqis, like, do it in a negotiated settlement among themselves?
MS NAUERT: I think what we would continue to say about that is that the fight against ISIS is on and that would be the top U.S. concern and probably the top Iraqi concern, I would imagine, at this time. We support our partnership with the Government of Iraq. We continue to support that. We want to see the sole focus stay on ISIS. You've had far too many Iraqis who have had to leave their homes because of ISIS and the horrific things that they have done in that country. So we would like to see ISIS out and then, once Iraq has stabilized and people can go back to their homes, a referendum if Iraq decides to do that, if the Kurds decide to do that. That would be an internal Iraqi matter.
We've got to go, folks. Thanks a lot.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 4:14 p.m.)
[1] Upon further review, fiances are now included as close family members.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
