| You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. 10/29/2015 05:10 PM EDT John Kirby Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC Index for Today's Briefing TRANSCRIPT:
2:11 p.m. EDT MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody. Just a couple of things here at the top. Today, as you know, Secretary Kerry arrived in Vienna, where he has been meeting with various individuals bilaterally – the Austrian foreign minister, UN Special Envoy de Mistura, and as I think you know, he met briefly with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. Shortly – very shortly Vienna time – he’ll be having a meeting with his counterparts from Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. This is the so-called Quad. We’ve talked about this group before. They met, as you know, last week in Vienna as well. And all this will be preparatory – the meeting tonight – preparatory to a larger multilateral set of meetings tomorrow in Vienna to discuss, obviously, the ongoing crisis in Syria and the options for pursuing a political transition there. On Belarus, in coordination with the European Union, the United States is providing sanctions relief for nine Belarusian entities in light of the positive move by the Belarusian Government to release all six of its political prisoners on August 22nd. This limited reprieve from sanctions opens the door to expanded commercial ties for the Belarusian economy. We encourage the Government of Belarus to take additional positive steps to improve its record with respect to human rights and democracy. With that, Matt. QUESTION: I want to start in Vienna. The meeting that the Secretary had with Foreign Minister Zarif today was about what? MR KIRBY: It was about the JCPOA and work ongoing by Iran to continue to complete the steps required of it to get to implementation day. QUESTION: And it – there was no discussion on the main event, basically, of what’s – there was no discussion of Syria? MR KIRBY: The meeting was designed to talk about the JCPOA and implementation. There was no discussion about the conflict in Syria. QUESTION: Can I ask you, then, why this – there is a photograph of this meeting that I’m looking at right now at my phone, which shows Foreign Minister Zarif standing next to Kerry, and then standing next to the Secretary are Rob Malley from the White House, Jon Finer from here, and then Brett McGurk, who is many things, but is not – does not have anything to do with the Iran nuclear deal. MR KIRBY: You’re right. QUESTION: In fact, he – I believe his title is “Special Envoy for the Fight Against ISIL and Extremism.” So why would he – why would the Secretary bring him to a meeting about the Iran nuclear deal? MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen the picture your -- QUESTION: Well, here it is. MR KIRBY: I trust -- QUESTION: I mean, if it’s not him, it’s his twin brother. MR KIRBY: I’m sure -- QUESTION: And I don’t know if his – if he has a twin brother, and if he does, if his twin brother has anything to do with the State Department or not. MR KIRBY: No, no. Listen, I -- QUESTION: But -- MR KIRBY: -- love talking about Brett and I really enjoying talking about photography. I can’t tell you who -- QUESTION: Well, is it a fake? MR KIRBY: I’m sure that it’s not. (Laughter.) I haven’t seen it. I have no reason to doubt that it’s an authentic photograph, and I’m sure everybody looks stunning in it. But the purpose of the meeting was to talk about the JCPOA and implementation. I have since – I mean, before coming out here I actually had an opportunity to talk to some of the Secretary’s staff members, some of whom were in the meeting, before I came out here so that I completely understood -- QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: -- what was discussed. And it was made plain to me that the topic of Syria and political transition was not discussed. QUESTION: Why wasn’t it? QUESTION: Well, did then -- QUESTION: A simple question: Why wasn’t it? MR KIRBY: Well, I think you’d have to talk to the participants about why they didn’t discuss a specific topic. But what I can tell you is the purpose of the discussion for this bilateral setting was the JCPOA and implementation, and there’s a lot to talk about just with regard to that. So the Secretary wanted to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif about that topic. They did meet; they discussed it. And that’s where I think we’re going to leave it. QUESTION: Well, I mean, I don’t, unfortunately, have the opportunity right now to talk to participants in the meeting, but you said that you just did talk to participants in the meeting, which is why I’m asking you. And Counselor Tom Shannon said in his nomination hearing this morning that what the Secretary is essentially trying to do is to call their bluff and to see if Russia and Iran are genuinely willing to explore pushing or nudging, encouraging – “convincing” I think is the word he said – Assad to leave power as part of a transition. And so what I don’t fully understand is why, if that – and I get that the JCPOA is a big, important thing to implement. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: But I don’t understand why you wouldn’t avail yourself of an opportunity to directly engage with the Iranians on Syria, since you feel like they’re important to the process. Why wouldn’t you? MR KIRBY: All of that’s true, Arshad. They – we believe they’re important to the process. We talked about this yesterday, the significance of them being in Vienna to – in these multilateral settings. All I can tell you is the focus of the bilateral meeting today was on the Iran deal. And the Secretary’s more than comfortable with the fact that he’s going to have plenty of time to listen to Foreign Minister Zarif in the multilateral settings tomorrow to talk about what’s going on in Syria. There will be ample opportunity to – not just with Iran, but with the more than a dozen other participants in this multilateral meeting tomorrow – ample opportunity to hear everybody’s perspectives and views on this very important topic. QUESTION: Do you expect any additional bilateral conversations between the Secretary and Foreign Minister Zarif while they’re in Vienna? MR KIRBY: I can’t rule that out, Arshad. I do not have his dance card for the entire day. Most of the day will be spent in multilateral settings with all these participants. But I certainly couldn’t rule out additional bilateral discussions with Foreign Minister Zarif. And if there are, obviously we’ll let you know. QUESTION: Is this -- QUESTION: And one other for me on this. What is the reason for having the Quad meeting that’s going to begin shortly? MR KIRBY: Well, you might recall last week in Vienna, before there was – at the – before there was the Quad meeting, there was a trilateral meeting. And I think the leaders from Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and of course Secretary Kerry thought that, given that this is the first meeting, multilateral, of this size, this many participants, many of whom have never been in the room to discuss the issue of Syria’s political transition – I shouldn’t say many, some haven’t. QUESTION: Well, just one, right? I mean, there have been zillions of Friends of Syria meetings -- MR KIRBY: There’s been lots of -- QUESTION: -- with everybody except the Iranians. MR KIRBY: -- meetings, but not in this format, not like this. And I think all of the foreign ministers from those four countries, to include ours, felt it would be beneficial to do a pre-meeting of those four before they meet with the larger group. QUESTION: But why? I mean, I don’t -- MR KIRBY: I think – look, I’m not going to get into internal discussions that haven’t even happened yet. But I think you can imagine that these four, who have been working on this problem so closely together for a long period of time, can find value in sort of checking signals with one another before you meet multilaterally with a much larger group. QUESTION: Since you spoke with people who were in the meeting, what did Special Envoy McGurk do during this meeting? MR KIRBY: I did not ask that specific question, Matt. QUESTION: Did he sit and stare and look at the ceiling and twiddle his thumbs, or was he – can you find out -- MR KIRBY: I do not know -- QUESTION: -- if he was an active participant? MR KIRBY: -- and I did not ask that question. I’m really – I’m going to be careful not to want to read out every little detail of the meeting. QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But the Iranians have made a big deal about the fact that Zarif is not authorized to talk to the U.S. about anything other than the Iran deal. And you guys either – looks like sandbagged him by bringing in your special envoy on the Syria, Iraq, ISIL situation, or the Iranians are just – excuse me – or the Iranians are lying and Zarif is able to speak to subjects other than the Iran deal. And I think it’s kind of important, since everyone’s in Vienna for a meeting about Syria – not about the Iran deal – to know why he was there and what he was doing. Anyway -- MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to get to -- QUESTION: -- I have a non-personnel question. MR KIRBY: -- every detail of every person. Hang on a second. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: Look, I’m just going to read out those meetings to that level of specificity. What I’m telling you is the meeting bilaterally with Foreign Minister Zarif was about the JCPOA. And there is plenty to talk about on that. And then I would also add there are technical teams in Vienna specifically and long-planned specifically to be there -- QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: -- during this timeframe to talk about the JCPOA. So it’s – it was, to some degree, a target of opportunity for Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif. But it wasn’t, in the fact that there were technical teams already planning to meet in Vienna on this issue. QUESTION: I have a broader question, just about the whole idea of -- QUESTION: One quick thing on this. Who in – at the – because we were asking this yesterday. Who invited the Iranians at the end of the day? How did that eventually go down? MR KIRBY: We’ve talked about this before. The – I’m not going to get into who called whom. QUESTION: So you – what -- MR KIRBY: But it was a – as I said before, in a previous briefing this week, which maybe you might have missed or you were not paying attention when I gave the answer -- QUESTION: Yeah. Maybe. Maybe asleep. Who knows? MR KIRBY: -- if Iran were to come – and they have, obviously – that you can assume from that that it was the consensus view of all the participants there that it would be good to have Iran at the table. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: And I think we – and I think what I – and I’ve said that before, but I also – I could – speaking for Secretary Kerry, that he believes it’s important to, at this stage in the discussion and where we are in the process of trying to get at a political transition, that it’s important to have Iran at the table and it’s important to have them as part of this conversation. QUESTION: It’s important because you’ve acknowledged – a lot of people have acknowledged – that Iran has an interest in what happens in Syria, correct? My question – I mean, it is a player. Whether it’s a good or a bad player, it is a player in Syria. MR KIRBY: I went so far the other day as calling them a stakeholder in what happens in Syria, yeah. QUESTION: Right, okay, a stakeholder. Does the Administration regard Iran’s interests in Syria as being legitimate? In other words, should they continue to be allowed to play that – to play the role that they’re playing now? Is that okay with the United States? MR KIRBY: What I’ve said – if you’re asking me are the activities that they are currently performing inside Syria – to wit, the support of the Assad regime, support to Hizballah – are we okay with that, are we comfortable with that? Absolutely not, and we’ve said that many, many times. We aren’t completely comfortable with the role Russia’s playing inside Syria right now, and we’ve been honest about that. That doesn’t mean that at this stage in the discussion on political transition that either should be excluded. QUESTION: No, no, but what I’m asking is that – Iran’s support for Hizballah predates any problem with – internal Syrian problem with Assad. It has been a -- MR KIRBY: And has long been an issue of concern to the United States. QUESTION: So my question is that – do you think that that is a legitimate interest for Iran to continue to pursue post an agreement, if there is one? MR KIRBY: We – I don’t know that I’m going to spit back the word “legitimate” to you. We obviously find their activities inside Syria – specifically the longstanding, as you mentioned, support to Hizballah – to be malign and to be manifestly unhelpful to security and stability in the Middle East. And we’ve long made that case. That’s why there are unilateral U.S. sanctions against some of the support to terrorism that Iran continues to involve themselves in. QUESTION: Right. So does that mean that the Administration would like to see as part of any arrangement that comes out of these meetings on Syria for Iran to pledge not to continue its support for Hizballah and not to continue to contribute to what you say is destabilizing behavior inside the country? MR KIRBY: We want – we would like that activity to stop on the face of it. What we’re looking for out of this meeting – so let’s put that in the box. That activity we want to see stopped, and if it doesn’t stop, we have tools and vehicles at our disposal and will continue to have at our disposal to deal with it. So we just – it needs to stop on the face of it. The focus of the meeting tomorrow is about trying to arrive at a framework for a political transition in Syria that can work. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: A framework of a government that doesn’t include Bashar al-Assad and can be enduring and stable – that’s what we’re going after. If you’re asking me, are we going to hang conditions on Iran to get to that, I know of no such effort or intent to do that. We’re going to continue on the face of it alone to press Iran on their activities. QUESTION: John -- QUESTION: John, the U.S. policy in Syria, it used to be to – as was expressed to me by people in the State Department and it has been written about also – to kind of disconnect Iran from Hizballah and from the Syrian Government to try to get Iran out of there altogether. Is that still the policy? MR KIRBY: The policy as you stated is to – say that again? To -- QUESTION: To try to disrupt or separate Iran’s influence in Syria and to Hizballah and its connection to Hizballah. MR KIRBY: I don’t know that that – I don’t think that I – you’re asking me the question like, “Well, that’s your policy. Is it still your policy?” I don’t know that that’s correct – a correct reading of U.S. policy with respect to Iran and its support for terrorist groups in the region. I don’t know that I would agree with your assessment of our policy, and I’ve never seen any indication that we’re carving things out for Iran’s malign activities in the region – in fact, quite the contrary. I mean, we’ve been exceedingly clear about the whole scope of Iranian activity with respect to terrorism, not just in Syria but elsewhere; about our concerns about it and about how we’re going to use various instruments of national power to get at that. I mean, there’s been no carving out that I’m aware of. QUESTION: John, just -- MR KIRBY: Yeah, Said. QUESTION: -- to follow up, considering the history and the depth of Iran’s involvement in Syria, is it conceivable actually to arrive at a – some sort of a settlement or a resolution – a political resolution to the Syria crisis without having Iran as a full member of those who are negotiating towards such a settlement? Is it conceivable that you can have a political settlement without Iran’s active involvement? MR KIRBY: I think – the Secretary has talked about this, President Obama has talked about this – that we recognize that in order to get at a enduring, practical, sustainable political transition in Syria, you have to have a conversation with Iran; you have to bring them into the dialogue, as you do Russia. Now, we’ve said previous weeks we weren’t there yet, we weren’t at a point where we felt like we could bring Iran to the table. We now think that we are; we now believe we are. Otherwise, obviously, we wouldn’t be doing this meeting tomorrow. So if you’re asking me do I think or does U.S. policy hold that you’re not going to be able to get at a political transition without some involvement by Iran, I would say you’re right; you’re not. You’re not going to get at a successful political transition there in Syria that doesn’t include Iranian participation. And that is why they’re at the meeting in Vienna. And then we’ll see where we go from here. As I said yesterday, I think you can expect there’s going to be more meetings on the back end of this one. How many, I don’t know; when they’re going to happen, I don’t know; and I don’t know where, but I can assure you that there will be more, and whether Iran participates in those or not, well, that’s obviously yet to be determined. But Secretary Kerry’s been clear for weeks now that Iran was going to have to be a participant and at the table at some point. QUESTION: So on the issue of legitimacy, it is really – it is fair to say that Iran – neither more legitimate or less legitimate a role it can play than, let’s say, Saudi Arabia or Turkey and so on? They have no more legitimacy and – nor less legitimacy, since they are all involved in this process, right? MR KIRBY: There’s the word “legitimate” again. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: If – I want to be careful here, and I’m not going to spit back the word “legitimate” and give you or anybody else the impression that we’re comfortable with Iran’s behavior in the region, because we’re not, and we’ve been very clear about that. Iran has an opportunity, they have an opportunity, to be a more constructive power in the region and to help the international community do the right thing here, which is create a process by which the Syrian people can have a representative, inclusive, responsive government at their head and looking after their interests. Iran can be a part of that. Now it’s – these are decisions Iran has to make, but Iran can be a part of that. To the degree they’re willing, then they’re going to find a willing partner in us to move towards that end. To the degree that they’re not, we are still going to continue to press our concerns. And I don’t just mean vocally; I mean we’ve got tangible levers at our disposal to deal with Iran’s malign activities in the region. So if those activities continue to the detriment not just of the Syrian people but to other people in the region, well, we’re going to deal with that, and we’ll be ready to deal with that. QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that question: You said a few weeks ago you weren’t there with Iran participating and now you are. Why the shift? What has changed? MR KIRBY: There’s been a series of discussions since the last time I said that, and I think there’s been movement diplomatically to the degree where we believe, Secretary Kerry believes, that now is the right time to bring Iran to the table. It’s been a confluence of events, a confluence of progress made. I mean, when he got up and talked to the press last week after his meetings in Vienna, which were of a smaller multilateral nature than the one they’re going to do tomorrow, I think he was very clear that he felt that there was important progress made and productive discussions had, and that it was his view – and obviously, the view of Foreign Minister Lavrov, Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, as well as the foreign minister from Turkey – that we were at a point now where we could broaden the discussion. And so this wasn’t – I mean, this was a true consensus view by – certainly by the quad, as we call it, as well as other leaders from other nations that we were at a point now where it made sense. And the other thing I want to now – and I recognize – I completely recognize the significance of having Iran at the table. I’m not trying to diminish that. I understand why you’re asking me so many questions about it, and those are all fair. But I think it’s important to remember that they’re one – they’re one participant in a much larger meeting which will include more than a dozen, probably upwards of 15 or so, participants to include the EU will be represented. That’s not insignificant, and there’s a lot – I guess what I’m trying to say is there’s going to be a lot of voices at the table tomorrow with a lot of different perspectives on what a political transition means and what it look like and where it can go. Iran’s voice will be heard; it will be important. And the Secretary is pleased that they are going to be in attendance, but they are just one. QUESTION: Is the U.S. – sure. Is the U.S. okay with Iran participating because it can’t really stop it from participating? In other words, is the U.S. forced to include Iran in the process? MR KIRBY: No, this isn’t about – this isn’t about being forced either to include or exclude anybody nor is it about, certainly, coercion to attend. An invitation was extended to Iran and they accepted it. There’s not – this isn’t about force. It’s a – I think it represents where we are in the political, diplomatic process. I think I know where you’re going with your question. If you’re trying to imply that Russia’s military activities in Syria sort of drove us to this end, I would disabuse you of that notion right off the bat. QUESTION: I wasn’t even implying actually. I was -- MR KIRBY: Well, okay. Well, then, good. Then I got my point out anyway. QUESTION: She was going to say it straight out. No implication was needed. (Laughter.) MR KIRBY: Well, we – (laughter). You got me, Matt. QUESTION: Everything has to come back to Russia, right? Just -- MR KIRBY: Well, I’m just assuming that with you it kind of does. (Laughter.) And that’s fair. That’s completely fair, but – for you to ask the question, even though you didn’t. (Laughter). We are getting into Never Never Land here today. (Laughter.) But I think – again, I think we – I think the Secretary believes, and I don’t want to speak for the other foreign ministers, but I think it’s fair to say that many of them feel we are at a point now with the diplomatic process that it makes sense to include more participants. And then we’ll see what the next meetings hold. It doesn’t mean that every multilateral meeting after this one is going to have as many participants. I think you’re going to see participation come and go as appropriate. There will be smaller meetings; there will be larger meetings. And believe me, as I said yesterday, there’s going to be much more discussion to be had here. This is a – we – very complicated process, certainly a very complicated situation in Syria. Everybody’s mindful of that and everybody’s mindful that not everybody shares the same view on Bashar al-Assad or what the future of Syria should look like. That’s why it’s so important to get these players at the table to talk about it. QUESTION: Just one more. Thanks for -- QUESTION: John, can I ask you -- QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: No, let me – she -- QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, but -- MR KIRBY: Let me go to her still. QUESTION: Oh, I thought she was saying thank you. MR KIRBY: She was saying thank you but -- QUESTION: Oh. MR. KIRBY: -- she had her hand up like – because she wanted to say thank you and then ask another question. QUESTION: That’s right. That was right, yes. QUESTION: I thought she was saying thank you for your response. MR KIRBY: No, I’m sorry. QUESTION: Well, thank you for answering the question I didn’t ask. But just another -- MR KIRBY: Nick, just tug on his sleeve and wake him up every now and then, just so he stays with us. QUESTION: Thank you, yes. QUESTION: (Off-mike.) QUESTION: This morning RT interviewed -- MR KIRBY: Go ahead. QUESTION: Can I? MR KIRBY: Go ahead. QUESTION: May I? Thank you. This morning RT interviewed the director of operations at the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dominik Stillhart, and we asked him about allegations that Russia bombed hospitals in Syria. And he said that Red Cross personnel on the ground in Syria have not reported any such incidents. Do you have any evidence that Russia bombed hospitals in Syria? MR KIRBY: We have seen some press reporting to that end. We have seen some Syrian civil society groups say that. And I would tell you that we have other operational information that lead us to believe that Russian targeting has not only not been focused on ISIL but has, in fact, caused collateral damage and some civilian casualties to include some civil infrastructure. And – so yes, we’ve seen some information that would lead us to believe that Russia – Russian military aircraft did hit a hospital. QUESTION: Can you share evidence of that? MR KIRBY: No, I -- QUESTION: Those are very serious allegations. Reports are not enough, are they? Can you offer -- MR KIRBY: I think I just did. QUESTION: -- something more solid than reports? MR KIRBY: I think I just did. I said we have operational reporting that would lead us to believe that that’s the case. QUESTION: Can you share that evidence? MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to talk about – I’m not going to share intelligence and operational information here from this podium. You asked me a very direct question; I gave you a direct answer. We have reason to believe that that happened. And like we would do when and if – and as you know, we recognize that in Afghanistan U.S. aircraft had struck a hospital, and so we’re holding ourselves to account for that by having multiple investigations look at it to see what happened and what lessons can be learned and how we can avoid it. We’ve owned up to that, and we would expect the same from any other nation that had reason to believe that it might have caused collateral damage or civilian casualties. We would want to see that nation investigate, and if possible, if need be, if practical, hold itself or anybody else to account should that have happened. QUESTION: Well, Russia denies that, but those are very serious allegations. Don’t you think that evidence needs to be public about – do you – well, you’re saying the U.S. Government believes that Russia targeted hospitals. Do you have evidence? MR KIRBY: I said we have information that lead us to believe that they did – they did. And I’m -- QUESTION: Can you share that information? MR KIRBY: I’ve answered your question. QUESTION: What is the source of that information? MR KIRBY: Ma’am, I’ve answered your question. I am not going to talk about intelligence information or operational information here from this podium. I’ve answered your question as honestly as I can. Okay? Samir. QUESTION: Yes. Is there any Syrians invited to the meetings in Vienna tomorrow? MR KIRBY: No. And we’ve talked about this before. Special Envoy Ratney continues to meet with Syrian moderate opposition groups, has done so just recently within the last few days, will continue to do so. And at the appropriate time and when it makes sense, obviously, opposition groups will be a part of this larger conversation. We know they need to be. I’ve said so as recently when – after the meeting in Doha in the summertime when, at that point, it was Russia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia meeting just trilaterally. And coming out of that meeting, all three recognized that there has to be a role by opposition groups in whatever transition takes place. We all recognize that it won’t be successful, it won’t be enduring, it won’t be sustainable, if the opposition groups aren’t represented, their voices aren’t heard, and their perspectives aren’t taken into account. I just don’t think we’re at that stage right now. I mean, as you know, Samir, they’re not all unified right now around single purposes and objectives, and I think one of the reasons – one of the things that Special Envoy Ratney is trying to do is to try to help bring them a little closer together so that more meaningful, practical, tangible discussions can be had. QUESTION: There was a press report sent from Moscow that the king of Saudi Arabia expected to visit the Kremlin before the end of the year. Do you see the Russians are accommodating the Saudis now against Iran in Syria? MR KIRBY: I would let the Russians and the Saudis speak for whatever objectives they’re trying to gain out of meetings. But it’s not at all unusual for sovereign nation-states to meet bilaterally with any number of other powers and partners, friends, and even folks that you’re not so friendly with. I mean, that’s the business of diplomacy. And we, from – for our perspective, we welcome other nations having these discussions, particularly if they’re going to be discussions around something as important as a political transition in Syria, and particularly if those discussions can lead to some good ideas and some progress. Yeah. QUESTION: John, have you had a chance to look at this report that Russian cargo aircraft are running Iranian weapons into Latakia and have been for the past 10 days – which, if true, would obviously be in violation of the UN arms embargo against Iran? MR KIRBY: Yeah. So we’ve seen press reporting on this, Justin. And what I would say is: One – and I’ve said this earlier – we’ve long spoken about how Iran’s activities in Syria as well as Russia’s are only prolonging the civil conflict and enabling Assad to further attack his own people; and as I also said earlier, that’s all going to be part of what the discussion tomorrow in Vienna is all about – getting at a political transition that moves us away from Assad and not emboldening him. In terms of Iranian arms transfers into Syria, as you know, we’ve imposed targeted sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security for their support to the Assad regime. Those targeted sanctions remain in place. In addition, I would add arms exports from Iran are prohibited under UN Security Council Resolution 1747. And we’ll be looking into these press reports, and if Russia is found to be facilitating those transfers, we’re going to raise that in the appropriate channels both bilaterally and at the UN if warranted. QUESTION: But you can’t confirm that that’s accurate at this time? MR KIRBY: No. I mean, these press reports are only hours old. QUESTION: Yeah. MR KIRBY: So we’ve seen them and we’re looking into them, and as I said, if they pan out to be true, then we’re going to take the appropriate steps. QUESTION: Doesn’t sound like it would – doesn’t sound like it would surprise you if it were true. MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate about whether they are or they’re not or how surprised we would be. We’ve just now seen these press reports and we’re looking into them. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Said. QUESTION: Change topics? MR KIRBY: You’re welcome. Said. QUESTION: Can we change topics? QUESTION: Can we just stay – I got one more and this is also relatively recent, so you might not have anything on it, but there’s – apparently Camp Liberty in Iraq is being shelled pretty, pretty hard right now. Are you guys aware of this? Do you know if there’s any -- MR KIRBY: I – as of the time I walked out here, Matt, I didn’t have anything on that. Yeah. QUESTION: Can we go to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is ongoing? MR KIRBY: Sure. QUESTION: More on this -- QUESTION: Yeah, please. QUESTION: -- if you don’t mind. You kind of shot down what I was saying earlier, but – and I’m reading here from what Fred Hof wrote in – just a few days ago. And he says, “Back in 2011, it seemed possible not only to avoid upheaval in Syria but to alter the country’s strategic orientation in a way that would counter Iran’s penetration of the Arab world and erase Tehran’s land link to its murderous Hizballah militia in Lebanon.” Then he goes on to say, “Much of my State Department time during the two years preceding Syria’s undoing was thus spent shuttling back and forth,” and he goes around – goes on talking about how he tried to bring that U.S. policy to be through diplomacy. And now we’re talking about Iran being – playing a role in Syria’s future and it sounds like there is a change in policy, so I’m trying to understand -- MR KIRBY: No, there’s no change -- QUESTION: -- why that’s not the case. MR KIRBY: There is no change in policy. There’s no change in policy. QUESTION: So the United States is not interested in erasing Tehran’s land link to Hizballah? MR KIRBY: Obviously, we are. Of course we want to – I just talked about this, about – we’re not going to turn a blind eye to their support to terrorism. We still have tools and mechanisms at our disposal to deal with that, and we will continue to use them. Nobody is – nobody’s changing a policy or a view about Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. Now, what the Secretary also has said in the wake of the Iran deal was – the Iran deal was designed to do one thing, and that is to cut off all their pathways to a nuclear weapon, because the Secretary believes, the United States believes, that an Iran without nuclear weapons will be easier to deal with and will be obviously safer for the region than an Iran with nuclear weapons. It was never intended to do any more than that, to cut off their pathways to a nuclear weapon. But the Secretary also said when asked about, well, could this be an opening, right – could this be a way to get at a new relationship with Iran – and he said, well, that’s up to the Iranians. And if they want to, in the wake of the Iran deal, change their behavior and become a more accepted, more productive member of the international community, particularly in the region – well, that’s to the betterment of everybody and we’d be willing to have those kinds of conversations with them. And I think that that still holds, but to the degree – and I said this – I don’t know whether it was to you or to Said – to the degree they’re not willing to turn in that direction in the wake of the Iran deal, well, we’re – we still have all the tools at our disposal and all the will, the political will, to continue to oppose them in their support for – whether it’s Hizballah or Hamas or any other extremist organizations and terrorist organizations in the region. Nothing’s going to change about that. On Syria, as we talked about, what we’re trying to do here is to create space for a political transition in Syria so that the Syrian people have a responsive government at their head in Damascus instead of one that drops barrel bombs on them. And for a long time as we were working our way through how you would work this political track, Iran was not invited to be at the table, was not desired to be at the table. We are now at the point where we realize they have to be, they need to be; that if – because of the influence, the long – as Matt pointed out in his question, the long influence that they’ve had in Syria and the long support for the Assad regime, we recognize that – and we recognized months ago that there was going to have to be a conversation with them at some point, and we’re now at that point. Now, we’ll see where it goes tomorrow. We’ll see how productive the discussion is and how much they contribute to it or not, and whether they’re really serious about trying to contribute to a political transition. If they are, well, again, that would be – if they are in a meaningful, tangible, real way, that would obviously be welcome and we’d be interested in having that conversation with them. But we need to wait and see. But just to be very, very clear, there is no change in our policy or our views about their destabilizing activities which continue today, even as you and I speak, even as there’s a meeting in Vienna. We’re not blind to the continued destabilizing activities that Iran is capable of and continues to perform in the region. QUESTION: But the political transition in Syria used to be seen in the State Department as a way to – again, to – I mean, are you saying that a transition that allows Iran to – where Iran maintains its – some kind of influence in Syria but doesn’t take part in that kind of behavior would be acceptable, but if that kind of behavior is not addressed that it would not be acceptable? MR KIRBY: No, you’re taking the discussion 10 leagues down the field. We’re not even there yet. I mean, what we want is a legitimate – I’ll use the word now – responsible and responsive government in Syria. There isn’t one there now. And it’s the international community’s hope, not just the United States, that if you have that kind of a government in Syria, a truly representative, pluralistic, functioning government in Syria, there will probably be less need for the influence of any other actor that would be supporting terrorist activities inside that country, because you’d have a government that would be strong enough and independent enough and viable enough to push back on that kind of influence. And if it didn’t, if it ended up not being that strong and not that viable and not that capable, nothing would change about the United States policy and position about pushing back on Iran’s destabilizing activities wherever they are and whatever form they take. QUESTION: Ten weeks? MR KIRBY: Ten weeks what? QUESTION: You said my question was 10 weeks down the road. MR KIRBY: I said 10 leagues. QUESTION: Ten leagues, sorry. MR KIRBY: Leagues – it’s a Navy term, sorry. Leagues – long way – weeks. QUESTION: Got it. QUESTION: “Leagues” doesn’t really work with a field, does it? MR KIRBY: No, but – it was a mixed analogy. I was trying to – I was just trying to – I didn’t want to pop your brains too much. Said, I already got you. Yes, ma’am. QUESTION: I wanted to ask on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. May we change topics? MR KIRBY: Okay, go ahead. QUESTION: Okay. First of all, let me ask you, it’s been three months since Israeli terrorists, as you termed them, attacked the village of Duma and burned a Palestinian family alive basically. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: And the Israelis promised that they will bring to justice those – the perpetrators. Have you – it’s been three months and nothing has happened, although when the Palestinians commit similar acts, the Israelis go and get them right away. Have the Israelis – have you talked to them about making good on that promise? MR KIRBY: I don’t share the details of our diplomatic conversations, Said. You know that. We’ve – we made clear at the time our views of that attack. And the Secretary was just in the region, as you know, a week or so ago meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, meeting with President Abbas, meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, and came out of those meetings, as he said to all of you, with a measure of optimism that things could move in a better direction. And I think he still shares that measure of optimism as we move forward. Obviously, what matters here – and I recognize your question is about a specific attack. QUESTION: Right, right, right. MR KIRBY: I’m going to let the Israelis speak to whatever investigating they’re doing. That’s not for us to speak to. What we want to see in a larger, broader context is the violence to stop, calm to be restored, and for any actions – whether it’s in word or deed – that contributes to greater violence, we want to see that stop too. QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Well, on that particular issue, considering that the Israeli minister of defense who was in town here said at the time that they know who the perpetrators were but they don’t want to arrest them because that could compromise intelligence sources and so on, is that an acceptable answer to you? MR KIRBY: You’re asking me to speak about the investigative policies of Israel, and I won’t do that. I mean, they made clear they were investigating. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: I don’t know the status of that. And even if I did, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to speak to it. You really should direct those questions to the Israeli – to Israeli authorities. QUESTION: Okay. But on this issue, you still expect them to come through and clean on this issue? MR KIRBY: I would just point you to what the Israelis have said themselves, which is that they are investigating it. And I mean, I think these are great questions to ask them, not me. QUESTION: Okay. And finally, it is said that New Zealand, a member of the Security Council, is about to submit a proposal that will see Israel stop all settlement activities in exchange for the Palestinians stopping their efforts at the ICC. Would you support such a resolution – or a draft resolution? MR KIRBY: I thought I had something in here on that. Let me get back to you on that, Said. QUESTION: Okay, thank you. MR KIRBY: I’m being told it’s in the front of the book. Hold on a second. Wait a minute. Here you go. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: Thank you, Elizabeth. We’re aware that New Zealand has shared a draft UN Security Council resolution. As we’ve said in the past, we’ll carefully consider our future engagement at the UN on this issue and determine how to most effectively advance the objective we all share in achieving a negotiated two-state solution. Okay? Thank you, Elizabeth. Appreciate the assist. Yeah. QUESTION: The Chinese Government today announced an end of its one-child policy. How does the U.S. view this revision? MR KIRBY: I think what we’ve said on this before – we – while – the plan by Chinese authorities to allow all couples to have two children is a positive step. We look forward to the day when birth limits are abandoned altogether. QUESTION: Staying with China-related? MR KIRBY: Sure. QUESTION: Do you have anything on this decision by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague to hear the Philippines-China case? MR KIRBY: Matt, I – as we’ve said before, we don’t take a position on the claims, do take a position on coercion, want all of these disputes to be resolved peacefully, diplomatically, and through international legal mechanisms such as arbitration. So in this regard -- QUESTION: So this was good? MR KIRBY: So in this regard – yes, in this regard we take note of today’s unanimous decision by the arbitral tribunal in the case brought by the Philippines against China under the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention. Although we are in the process of reviewing this lengthy decision by the tribunal, we note that it appears that arbitration will proceed to be considered on its merits. And then I would just add that in accordance with the terms of the Law of the Sea Convention, the decision of the tribunal will be legally binding on both the Philippines and China. QUESTION: Can I – I have to leave soon. Can I just run one more by you? Or actually two – they’re very brief. One is: The Secretary’s trip is going to take him to Central Asia. One country he’s going to is Kazakhstan. They’re about – there’s a concern been expressed – has been expressed by a lot of people about a law that – or legislation that’s going – that is about to apparently be approved. It’s a propaganda law, but it apparently contains some quite severe restrictions on the LGBT community. Do you have anything about that? Do you know if the Secretary will raise it while he’s there? MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything specific on that draft legislation. Let me take the question and get back for you. Obviously, our record on human rights is clear, concise, and we routinely raise our human rights concerns both privately and publicly. QUESTION: All right. And then my last one is whether you – do you have any reaction or thoughts about the EU parliament’s vote today on – that had to do partly with Edward Snowden? MR KIRBY: Well, our policy on Mr. Snowden hasn’t changed a bit. He needs to come back to the United States and face the due process and the judicial process here in the United States. That’s been our position from the beginning. It’s our belief that the man put U.S. national security in great danger and he needs to be held account to that. QUESTION: Right, but this is the EU parliament calling on EU member-states not to cooperate, not to extradite, not to – if he happens to show up in any of those countries, not to cooperate with the U.S. Government’s wish to have him -- MR KIRBY: Our wish hasn’t changed. I mean, we want to see him return to the United States and face justice. QUESTION: So you would have opposed this – so you would have opposed this. Do you know if U.S. diplomats in Europe were -- MR KIRBY: I don't know if we’ve -- QUESTION: -- lobbying for a different result to this vote? MR KIRBY: I do not know if we vocalized our views on this, but our views have not changed. We want him to come back to the United States and face justice. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Yes. Yeah, right here. QUESTION: John -- QUESTION: The U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said that America wasn’t particularly in the market to do individual deals – free trade agreements with individual countries. Can you say – does that mean that America wouldn’t enter into an FTA with the UK if she voted to leave the EU? MR KIRBY: If the UK attempted to leave the EU? Seems to me I got something on that too, right? I thought I did. Let me get back to you on that one. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: So U.S. Naval officials today held a teleconference with Chinese counterparts on recent operations in the South China Sea. Has the State Department had any similar conversations with their counterparts or do you expect similar conversations? Are they upcoming? MR KIRBY: No. I’m mindful of the conversations. I’d let the Defense Department speak to that. I’m not aware of any additional discussions we’ve had. I think, as I said yesterday, our ambassador in Beijing routinely talks about this particular issue of the South China Sea with Chinese officials. I mean, it’s a routine matter of discussion, so I have nothing additional to add. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Go ahead. QUESTION: Please allow me to go back to my question about allegations against Russia. Just one more. MR KIRBY: I’ve made – ma’am, I have made – I have -- QUESTION: You said you would not share operational intelligence publicly, but have you confronted Russia with your evidence that it hit hospitals in Syria – evidence that you say the U.S. has? MR KIRBY: I’m not going to read out our diplomatic discussions and I’ve answered your question, and I think I’ve gone as far with it as I’m going to go. QUESTION: Is that a no or yes? Is – have you -- MR KIRBY: I’ve gone as far with it as I’m going to go. Thanks, everybody. I appreciate it. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Have a good day. (The briefing was concluded at 2:59 p.m.) Stay connected with the State Department:
External links found in this content or on Department of State websites that go to other non-Department websites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein. Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Department of State.
|
Thursday, 29 October 2015
[wanabidii] Press Releases: Daily Press Briefing - October 29, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment