| You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. 02/01/2016 06:17 PM EST John Kirby Spokesman Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC Index for Today's Briefing TRANSCRIPT:
2:10 p.m. EST MR KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay, I’ve got several things at the top, so I’m going to ask you to bear with me, and we’ll get through these as quickly as I can and we’ll get right to it. I’m sure you all saw the Secretary’s recorded video yesterday where he talked about the fact that we’ve entered a pivotal phase in the diplomatic effort to reduce the violence of Syria, to isolate terrorist groups such as Daesh, and to create the basis for an inclusive, peaceful, and pluralistic Syria, the kind of Syria that we all seek. He urged all parties to seize this opportunity and to go forward with the best interests of their country in mind. He also made an urgent call for humanitarian access, decrying the regime’s refusal so far to grant such access, and urging all parties to facilitate such access and to cease bombings and other attacks against civilians. Today in Geneva, as I think you all have been following, UN Special Envoy de Mistura has met with the High Negotiating Committee, and I believe he’s just concluded some statements to the media where he read those out. I’ll refer you to him, but obviously, we’re glad to see those meetings occur. For our part, as you probably know, there are two representatives of the United States there in Geneva, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Anne Patterson and the Special Envoy for Syria, Michael Ratney. They, too, met with officials from the UN, the HNC, a woman’s advisory group to the opposition, and various International Syria Support Group member delegations, including a member of the Russian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister Gatilov. As I said, as the process goes forward I suspect you will continue to be updated by the UN appropriately. On Syria, I also saw some press reporting about Brett McGurk. I can tell you that Special Presidential Envoy McGurk completed a two-day visit to northern Syria this weekend to assess progress in the campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy Daesh. Mr. McGurk, together with officials from the Department of Defense, met with a coalition of Arab and Kurdish commanders to review recent operations against Daesh. He also visited Kobani in northern Syria to meet with civilian administration officials and representatives from the Syrian Democratic Council. This was predominantly to sort of mark the anniversary of the operations there in Kobani. He praised the courage and resilience of the people of Kobani, affirmed the need for international support in helping to rebuild the city, which continues to stand as a symbol of defiance against Daesh. He then traveled to Baghdad to meet with Prime Minister Abadi and other Iraqi leaders to assess progress there in Iraq, and he will join Secretary Kerry in Rome for a ministerial meeting on the 3rd of February – two days from now – with a small group of coalition partners contributing in significant ways to the campaign across multiple lines of effort. Switching to Nigeria. The United States condemns the terrorist attacks on the 29th and 30th of last month in Gombe and Dalori, Nigeria, where Boko Haram extremists bombed a market, attacked a village, fire-bombed huts burning to death dozens of innocent victims, including children, and wounding many more. We extend, of course, our deepest condolences to the families of the victims, and we remain committed to supporting Nigeria and its Lake Chad Basin partners in the fight against terrorism. On to China and to Hong Kong. We remain deeply concerned by the disappearance of five Hong Kong residents associated with Mighty Current Media and the Causeway Bay bookstore. We continue to follow closely the developments of these cases. They – these cases, including two involving individuals holding European passports, raise serious questions about China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “one country, two systems” framework as well as its respect for the protection of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. We urge China to clarify the current status of all five individuals and the circumstances surrounding their disappearances and to allow them to return to their homes. Finally, on Burma. We congratulate all the newly-elected members of parliament as they take their seats on the first day of Burma’s new union parliament. Millions of people around the country, including many voting for the first time, elected their representatives on the 8th of November of last year. This outcome is a testament to the courage and sacrifice shown by the people of Burma over many years, including more than 100 former political prisoners who will now take their seats in Burma’s parliament. The seating of this parliament is a very important step forward in Burma’s democratic transition, although of course there remain important impediments to the realization of full democratic and civilian government. We are encouraged by the commitment of Burma’s political leaders to work together in the spirit of national unity and reform and are hopeful that this will continue throughout the transition period and beyond. And of course, we stand ready to support the new government and remain committed to assisting the people of Burma in their pursuit of democracy, development, and national reconciliation. We look forward to providing support for these new parliamentarians as well as all the people in this country seeking to promote democratic practices in the coming years. With that, Matt. QUESTION: Right, thanks. Can we start – I wanted to see if you’re able to clear up some confusion about reports that there are numerous or multiple American citizens being detained in Saudi Arabia right now -- MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: -- on terrorism-related charges. Have you guys been told by the – informed by the Saudis that they are holding American citizens, as would be their obligation? MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is that we’ve seen these reports and are working hard to ascertain more details about them and about the veracity of them. And we are in touch with the Saudi authorities, but I don’t have anything definitive with respect to the actual truth of the – of these reports. QUESTION: Okay, I understand. But the Saudis have not gotten in – I mean, some of these people alleged – have been allegedly held for more than a couple months, and one since years. MR KIRBY: Sure, if you look at the website where it has -- QUESTION: Exactly. MR KIRBY: -- the list of names, yeah. No, I’m aware of that. I just don’t know at this time how true that posting is. What I can tell you is that we’re working closely with Saudi authorities to try to figure this out and to iron it out. QUESTION: I get it, but can you say – is it correct that the Saudis have not notified you of arrests of Americans? MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific notification through official channels other than this web posting, Matt. QUESTION: Got you. MR KIRBY: But as I said, we’re in touch with Saudi authorities directly on this to try to get to ground truth. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: But shouldn’t that be a simple thing? I mean, you ask the Saudis whether you hold American citizens, and then you – they respond to you yes or no? MR KIRBY: We’re working closely with Saudi authorities, Said, right now to try to figure it out, to see exactly what the situation is, and I’m just not at liberty to say more until we know more. And when we do and I have something more specifically I can speak to, I certainly will. QUESTION: Can we go back to the McGurk visit? Is it true that Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke to members of the PYD? MR KIRBY: He did. He spoke to – I can – hang on a second, I’ll get you the exact – I thought I had it in here. Maybe I don’t. QUESTION: Was he trying to encourage them to be part of the talks? Or -- MR KIRBY: He did speak over the phone with one of the leaders of the PYD – I have the name – I thought I did, but I’m not sure – to – obviously to reinforce the same message that Secretary Kerry had, which was that the – the importance of moving the political process forward. I don’t have more of a detailed readout than that. QUESTION: And on McGurk, though, can you give us some kind of detail on how this – how far ahead this trip was planned, kind of how he got in there, some kind of just details on the trip? MR KIRBY: I don’t have his entire – I’m still looking for that thing. I don’t have his entire itinerary for you, Lesley. The trip to Kobani was, in fact, timed to go with the anniversary of the operation there, the successful conclusion of the retaking of Kobani. And as you know, he routinely meets with all different members and representatives of the various parts of the coalition. So obviously, a trip like this is not something you throw together at the last minute. I just don’t know how long he’d been planning it, but I think it’s safe to say that it’d been in the planning for some manner of days, if not weeks. And again, it was a – he believed it was important right now, as we are so tied to the anniversary, obviously, of Kobani, but also because there has been a sense of momentum here in both Iraq and Syria against Daesh, and a sense of momentum on the ground militarily, but also a sense on the political front with the diplomatic talks going on in Geneva. So he believed that the time was ripe to have these discussions, and I fully expect that he’ll continue to have discussions going forward. I mean, he’s been very, very active and spends quite a bit of time in the region. QUESTION: Was there any pushback against him going into Syria? QUESTION: As you probably know -- QUESTION: -- going into Syria? MR KIRBY: I’m sorry? QUESTION: Was there any pushback in this building against Ambassador McGurk’s decision to go into Syria? MR KIRBY: If there was pushback about Mr. McGurk going into Syria, he wouldn’t have gone. QUESTION: Or you’d be first to tell us, right? MR KIRBY: Absolutely I would be, Matt. QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.) On the Blinken discussion, whether or not you can find the points on that, as you know, or should know -- MR KIRBY: Can you look that up on -- QUESTION: -- or probably know, there was a bunch of – there was a group of Kurds, a Kurdish delegation that went to Geneva for the talks, and they left. And there are some allegations that the reason that they left is because you guys told them to stay away. Is that correct? MR KIRBY: No. I know that there’s been some comment about this in the media. The UN, as you know, has not announced its list of invitees or those that were invited in an advisory role. However, we do understand that Kurdish figures are included among those additional invitations to non-HNC delegates to attend in an advisory role. So we’re aware that there are some Kurdish representatives there in an advisory role, but ultimately, who’s invited and at what capacity is up to Mr. de Mistura to determine, not the United States. It’s also important to remember that the Kurds were included in the Riyadh meeting back in December, of that 116 participants. So I know of no -- QUESTION: John, the -- MR KIRBY: -- blanket order by the United States. First of all, it wouldn’t be our role to do that. But even if it were, I know of no such order for us to tell them to stay away. As a matter of fact, as I said, there are some Kurdish representatives there. QUESTION: The United States often does things that are outside of its formal role in things. But so you – there was no request or demand or any type of encouragement for them to leave or not to show up; is that what you’re saying? MR KIRBY: We have not – the decision about who is going to be there and in what capacity are made by -- QUESTION: I’m not asking you that. I’m not asking you that. MR KIRBY: -- Staffan de Mistura. I’m not going to get into private conversations that we have with him or anybody else at the UN with respect to this. But to characterize the United States as declaring or decreeing that there shall be no Kurdish representation there would be inaccurate. QUESTION: Well, but have you told them that it would be – “Hey, look, guys, we think it wouldn’t be – it would not be good for you to be here. Why don’t you just make yourself scarce?” MR KIRBY: There are Kurdish representatives there in an advisory role, so again, that – what’s most important is that the people that are there are there at the invitation of the UN and in – and participating in a form and a fashion that Mr. de Mistura finds appropriate at this level of the discussions. And I won’t go into more detail than that. QUESTION: John, just a follow-up on the McGurk trip. In this case, when a high-level American diplomat goes into virtually Syrian territory, what kind of arrangements are made? I mean, does he get a visa? Does he go from Turkey into Kobani? I mean, how is his security and safety guaranteed? What happens if there is a collapse? MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t in any case speak to force protection measures or what might be done to protect security. Obviously, we would always be mindful of the appropriate security precautions for this kind of travel to that sort of environment. I won’t go into the details of that. And as for his actual trip logistics, I just don’t have that level of detail. QUESTION: So there are no visa requirements whatsoever -- MR KIRBY: We didn’t -- QUESTION: -- for any American diplomat to go into Syrian territory? MR KIRBY: There’s no diplomatic relations with the Government of Syria. I’m not aware of any other specifics with respect to his logistics as far as how he got in and that matter. I just don’t have that detail. QUESTION: Certain Syrian opposition groups are saying that Kurdish fighters are equipped with American vehicles and tanks and so on, that they are fighting along – or fighting against them, basically. Is that in any way credible? MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to DOD. I’m not sure about what materiel or equipment that they might be using. But as we’ve said along – for a long time, we have been providing materiel assistance to Kurdish fighters, and we’ve also said that that support will continue. But exactly what they’re getting and on what schedule they’re getting it on and what they’ve got, I’d refer you to DOD for that. Yeah. QUESTION: Just a couple more questions on the McGurk visit. MR KIRBY: Really? I’m surprised. I’m shocked that you’re not asking me about Cuba and the restoration of diplomatic relations there. QUESTION: Well, that’s not my beat. So is McGurk the highest-ranking State Department official or U.S. Government official to have met the PYD in person? MR KIRBY: I don’t know. QUESTION: Okay. And you said he talked about plans to rebuild Kobani. Any specific plans? MR KIRBY: Well, he spoke with civilian administration officials about their plans to help rebuild Kobani. I don’t have anything specifically to read out with respect to what those plans are. Obviously, the United States is interested in this and will assist in the way most appropriate, but I don’t have anything specific on that. QUESTION: Okay. And about the visit to Baghdad, he has met also the Kurdish Prime Minister Barzani, who was there to resolve some of the disputes with Baghdad. MR KIRBY: No, no. His job was not to help resolve disputes between -- QUESTION: No, not him, no, no. But Barzani is in Baghdad the same time as McGurk is there. MR KIRBY: Okay. QUESTION: Barzani went there for that. But can you tell us about that too, that -- MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, he did go to Iraq to meet with leaders there about progress against ISIL. I don’t have anything specific to read out with respect to those discussions. And as for what Mr. Barzani was doing there, you’d have to talk to him and his staff about that. QUESTION: So they are just coincidence? They weren’t – he didn’t go there because Barzani is also there to meet Abadi? He wanted to meet all of them in Baghdad at the same time? MR KIRBY: I don’t know how synchronized the – Mr. McGurk’s travel was with Barzani’s. Again, you’d have to talk to their staff about that. There’s clearly enough to do and to talk about in Baghdad with the Government of Iraq about the progress against Daesh inside Iraq, and I know that that was the focus of it. QUESTION: Just one more question, John. When – about a couple of weeks ago, the KRG sent a delegation here to ask for financial assistance. I just want to know whether the United States has made any decision on the request they brought. MR KIRBY: I have no decisions to read out with respect to that. QUESTION: Thanks. MR KIRBY: Yes ma’am. QUESTION: Thank you. The Russian defense ministry showed video of Turkish military shelling Syrian territory using heavy artillery. Two weeks ago, Turkish Prime Minister Davutoglu openly spoke about Turkey shelling the positions in Syria, saying those were Daesh positions. Do you think Turkey’s cross-border artillery strikes are a violation of Syria’s sovereignty? MR KIRBY: I don’t have any detail on their artillery strikes. That’s – I’d have to point you to DOD and to the military coalition to speak to that. I’m not aware of the specifics of those operations, so I’m not in a position to comment one way or the other. QUESTION: Well, Ahmet Davutoglu said two weeks ago close to 500 artillery and tank shells were fired on Daesh positions in Syria and Iraq, so cross-border. Are you aware of cross-border strikes carried out by Turkey in Syria? MR KIRBY: I don’t have specifics to read out with respect to Turkish military operations. That said, they are a member of the coalition to counter Daesh, and they have been participating in that effort, not only on their own but – using their own military assets – but supporting coalition aircraft on certain of their airbases. So strikes against Daesh inside Syria by members of the coalition is a good thing. That’s what we want. We want to go after this group. But I can’t speak with great specificity on this particular incident that you’re talking about. I just don’t have an operational laydown and I’m not tracking the tactics of any one member, not even the U.S. military. QUESTION: In the view of the U.S., is there such a thing as Syria’s sovereignty at this point? MR KIRBY: What we want is for Syria to be whole and pluralistic and free and to have a government that can protect its own people and to eventually, yes, continue to care for its sovereignty. But -- QUESTION: But do you recognize its sovereignty now? MR KIRBY: Syria is a nation. There’s no question about that. But it’s led by a man who’s lost all legitimacy to govern. And we’ve made no bones about the fact that regardless of the borders that Syria has and that are internationally recognized borders, there is an international coalition that has the authority to go in and to deal with a group like Daesh, and that’s going to continue. QUESTION: I just want to find out what the boundaries are for what the U.S. thinks Turkey can and cannot do in Syria. What are those boundaries? MR KIRBY: Your question presupposes that we are dictating to Turkey what they can and cannot do. This is a coalition of the willing. Every member of the coalition brings to it what they can, where they can, when they can. And operations against Daesh inside Syria or inside Iraq, obviously with the Iraqi Government’s coordination, can and will be encouraged. I mean, we’re going after a group, a very dangerous group, that represents not just a regional threat but a global threat. And Turkey’s participation in those operations is welcome and encouraged. QUESTION: (Off-mike.) QUESTION: You’re saying – excuse me. QUESTION: Can I follow up on that (inaudible)? QUESTION: Sure. QUESTION: I’m (inaudible) follow on that. I just want to follow – was it Mr. Salih Muslim, the official that -- MR KIRBY: I just want to make sure I don’t mess this up. Yes, he called PYD’s Salih Muslim to discuss the Syria talks in Geneva and to talk about our continued cooperation in the fight against Daesh in northern Syria. QUESTION: And you don’t – you couldn’t tell us specifically what they discussed other than -- MR KIRBY: That’s as far as I’m going to go. QUESTION: -- Assistant Secretary Blinken telling – do you know if the Kurd issue is specifically going to be discussed in Geneva? MR KIRBY: The Kurd issue? QUESTION: I think – yeah. I think that there, from what I understand, is that there might be a specific meeting about dealings with the Kurds around February 11. Do you know anything about that? MR KIRBY: I don’t, and I would point you to Special Envoy de Mistura to speak with more detail. Again, I think it’s really important for people to remember that this is a UN-led, UN-administered process between the regime and the opposition. So I wouldn’t speak to specifics about what they discussed today and what they plan on discussing tomorrow. I think Mr. de Mistura has already spoken a little bit today about his conversations. As you know, and the Secretary talked about this, it is the intention of the International Syria Support Group to meet on the 11th in Munich on the back end of these talks in Geneva. And I don’t have a specific agenda for that meeting to read out to you now, but obviously, the progress in Geneva will be front and center in the conversation. QUESTION: Thanks. QUESTION: John, could you comment on the fact that the Syrians have opened up some of the areas that were besieging and allowed some humanitarian aid to go in, and basically that helped restart the talks, and whether the Secretary’s statement had something to do with that? MR KIRBY: I don’t – I wouldn’t – I think the HNC should speak to what -- QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: -- their motivations and their intentions to go to Geneva and to begin conversations. I wouldn’t speak for them. Obviously, we think it’s welcome and we’re glad to see that they’re there and certainly encouraged that they spent so much time with Mr. de Mistura today. That’s a good thing. So I wouldn’t speak to motivations there. That wouldn’t be appropriate. On humanitarian access, I mean, there has been some limited humanitarian access permitted to some besieged areas. We talked about Madaya as one of the key ones there. And I’ve seen some spurious – I shouldn’t say “spurious,” that’s my bad. I’ve seen some reporting – press reporting that the regime has agreed to allow additional access. I can’t confirm that they actually have. And as I said a week or so ago, actions are going to speak louder than words. What has to happen is this access needs to be provided not just occasionally or sporadically but on a continued, sustained level. And the Secretary was adamantly clear about that yesterday in his statement. QUESTION: John? MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: Did the Secretary offer any assurances regarding humanitarian access, regarding efforts to end the airstrikes, to the Syrian opposition, to opposition leader Riyad Hijab, over the past couple of days as part of an effort to spur the opposition to engage in talks? MR KIRBY: I won’t speak to the details of his conversation with Dr. Hijab, and he’s had several. Obviously, as was reinforced by his message yesterday, he wanted all sides to take advantage of the opportunity before them there in Geneva, and that has been his consistent message across the board. So he has certainly talked to Dr. Hijab about the importance of moving the political process forward and to having the High Negotiating Committee or their representatives, who they’ve selected, to be there to have these discussions. But I’m not going to talk about specifics. QUESTION: You can’t go into details. Can you say in general if he offered the opposition anything concrete to encourage them to negotiate? MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to go into any more detail than that. He obviously has had continued conversations with Syrian opposition leaders, Dr. Hijab specifically. And as I said, he made it very clear yesterday that this is an opportunity that should be seized. He was also very clear in reinforcing his commitment to their very real concerns about humanitarian access and about the violence and the bloodshed that’s – that continues in Syria. But I won’t go into more detail than that. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish armed group YPG’s International Brigade last week released a video on YouTube called its foreign recruits to attack Turkey. Two pro-YPG news agencies on the scene confirmed the authenticity of the video which released in three languages, including Spanish and German. Would you condemn this statement? MR KIRBY: Yeah. We’ve seen the video and we strongly condemn its call for violence against Turkey. Such behavior is unacceptable, and we urge all sides to remain focused on what is and should be the common enemy, which is Daesh. Yeah. QUESTION: Hi. How closely do you monitor civilian casualties caused by Russian bombing, and what is your reaction to that? MR KIRBY: We’ve talked about this before. We’re not in a position to analyze or try to collect specific information about their targeting. You should talk to Russian military authorities about what they think they are or they are not hitting. We have seen claims about collateral damage and civilian casualties by many credible organizations, and we’ve said publicly from this podium that that’s of deep concern to us, as it is when we believe we might cause civilian casualties and collateral damage. And when we get claims from credible organizations that the coalition has caused, that we take it seriously. So we take those claims seriously, and we urge Russia to look into those and to investigate them appropriately and, obviously, to exercise the proper amount of caution and precision that’s required so that that doesn’t occur. QUESTION: Well, what do you say to those who argue that the U.S. should be more forceful in condemning the casualties and to – not just to so because of – for diplomatic reasons, not wanting to upset the Russians, but actually -- MR KIRBY: I would completely refute that notion, and we’ve been nothing but clear about our concerns about these things. And no other military in the world takes civilian casualties and collateral damage more seriously than we do, and we’re not bashful about saying it when we have concerns about somebody else and what they’re doing. So I completely refute the allegation that we aren’t taking it seriously, or for another – that we’re not in some way – we’re not more strenuously publicly calling for an end to it. QUESTION: Can I ask you what your understanding of the current – your current understanding is of the situation around – in and around Fallujah? The reason I ask is that there’s been a lot of concern, or growing concern, expressed in recent days about it being under siege – granted it is held by ISIS, but calls for air drops of food and other supplies in for the civilian population. Is this something the U.S. would consider, and how high is your concern, level of concern, about the situation? MR KIRBY: We’re very concerned about these reports of – I think what you’re getting at is starvation deaths in Fallujah, and we’re very much in close coordination with Iraqi Security Forces to ensure that their campaign and the conduct of it is conducted in a way that also limits civilian costs to the fullest extent possible. So we’re going to – we continue to support Iraq with nearly – more than $600 million to address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis affected by the violence. And we’re encouraged, quite frankly, by Government of Iraq efforts to deliver humanitarian aid to the city, and we’re going to encourage – we’re going to keep working with them and encourage them to keep finding a way to get basic supplies in, noting and recognizing that it’s difficult to do because Fallujah is much more densely populated than, say, Ramadi – that it certainly appears that Daesh fighters are not letting – not only not letting aid get in, but not letting civilian residents get out. And so we’re mindful of the difficulties here, and we’re going to continue to work very closely with the Iraqi Government to see what can be done to try to get aid in there. But it’s tough. QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that it isn’t tough. There’s also a problem with stuff that does get in, and whether it gets to the civilians -- MR KIRBY: Whether it gets to the right hands, or even if it gets in the right hands, if it gets to stay in the right hands. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: I mean, this is very complex and very dangerous. QUESTION: So when you talk about continuing to work with the Iraqi Government about trying to get – can you be more specific? Or what does that mean? Are you ramping up supplies -- MR KIRBY: I don’t -- QUESTION: -- specifically for Fallujah, or -- MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn’t speak – in any event, I wouldn’t speak to potential – any potential military decisions -- QUESTION: No, no. MR KIRBY: -- that would come up. No, no, I know where you’re going here, but just let me finish. Let me finish. So I wouldn’t speak to anything specifically, just because it wouldn’t be my place. But even still, noting that Daesh fighters are still so prevalent in Fallujah and that it’s still so dangerous, I think it’s – it should be easy for people to understand why we wouldn’t want to telegraph whatever kinds of efforts there might be in the future to try to get humanitarian aid in so that we can preserve a little bit of operational security so that aid can hopefully get to the right people. It’s – look, this is tricky; it’s very difficult. And frankly, in a situation like – with Fallujah, it can be dangerous to all sides to try to get humanitarian aid in, as much as it is needed – and it is. But I can tell you we’re focused on that very closely. Yeah. QUESTION: Change of subject? MR KIRBY: I’m sorry? QUESTION: Change of subject? MR KIRBY: Sure. QUESTION: Can I ask one on Turkey please? MR KIRBY: Sure. QUESTION: Thank you. After Turkey claimed that a Russian jet violated its airspace last week, the Pentagon confirmed this on Saturday. Russia denies having crossed Turkish airspace and demands proof. Will the U.S. provide evidence? MR KIRBY: One of – you – you’re so good at asking these questions that it’s the United States responsibility to provide proof of what Russia’s doing, which I find incredibly comical. It’s not our job to confirm for the Russians what they’re doing. QUESTION: I did not say that. But the Pentagon -- MR KIRBY: But what I can say is -- QUESTION: -- confirmed it, so it must have some something that bases its -- MR KIRBY: What I can say is -- QUESTION: -- conclusion, right? MR KIRBY: You go ahead and finish, and then when you’re done, I’ll talk. Go ahead. More? QUESTION: Please, sir. MR KIRBY: We are aware of reports, and we can confirm that on the 29th of January another Russian combat aircraft violated Turkish and NATO airspace. As we’ve stated after past incidents, the United States joins NATO in standing in solidarity with Turkey, and we call on Russia to respect Turkish airspace and cease activities that risk further heightening instability in the region. It’s important that the Russians and the Turks talk to each other and to take measures to prevent escalation. QUESTION: Russia denies having done that and asks for proof. Will the U.S. provide proof? MR KIRBY: It’s not – it’s not for – it’s not our responsibility to provide proof to the Russians for something they did wrong. And this is -- QUESTION: But if -- MR KIRBY: Hang on a second, now. QUESTION: Sorry. MR KIRBY: What I said in my last comment there, we want the Russians and the Turks to talk about this and to share the appropriate amount of information so that incidents like this won’t’ happen again. But for our part, there’s no doubt that they entered Turkish and therefore NATO airspace. No doubt at all. QUESTION: Is that all right, to make an accusation and not provide evidence? MR KIRBY: It’s not an accusation; it’s a fact. It’s a simple fact. Yes, sir. QUESTION: Based on what? Can you provide pictures of that, anything? MR KIRBY: I’ve answered your question. Yeah. QUESTION: On regard to Turkey. The – there’s a Kurdish delegation from Turkey that’s here in the United States to address the – what they would call the Turkish aggression against the Kurds in Kurdistan – in Turkey. My first question is: What is your position on that, and what is your response to the Kurdish delegation here? The second question: There has been seven political activists been arrested in Erbil for their political differences in comparison with the current KRG policy. Basically, when they spoke out with this economical crisis and the failure the KRG providing their civil salary money – what is your position on that, please? MR KIRBY: Okay, can you ask me the first one again? Because I did not get it. QUESTION: There’s a Kurdish delegation here in the U.S. from Turkey. They’re scheduled actually to address the Turkish aggression against the Kurds in Turkey. I was curious about your position on -- MR KIRBY: A Turkish delegation that’s here to address -- QUESTION: A Kurdish delegation from Turkey -- MR KIRBY: Kurdish delegation -- QUESTION: -- from HDP. MR KIRBY: -- from Turkey. QUESTION: Mm-hmm. MR KIRBY: And they’re here to -- QUESTION: To address the aggression the Turkish Government is perpetrating against the civilians in Turkey. I was curious about your position on that. MR KIRBY: Actually, I’m going to have to take that question, because I’m not aware of this delegation being here. So I wouldn’t be able to speak to it. As for your second question, I don’t – I’ve not seen these reports from Erbil. So again, we’re going to have to take that question and get back to you. I wouldn’t want to speculate about something I really don’t have any knowledge of. Okay? Yeah. QUESTION: Turkey? One more, I promise. QUESTION: Okay, appreciate it. QUESTION: A couple of Turkish journalists are facing life in prison because they reported that the MIT, the Turkish version of the CIA, apparently was transporting weapons to members of the Syrian opposition. Does the U.S. have a comment on what these reporters say was factual reporting, and does this raise more concerns about the Turkish Government’s support or intolerance for freedom of press? MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything to speak to the veracity of those press reports, what those reporters wrote. I don’t have anything specific with respect to that. But in general, as I’ve said before, we call on Turkish authorities to ensure that all individuals and organizations, including but not limited to the media, are free to voice a full range of opinions and criticism in accordance with Turkey’s own constitutional guarantees of media freedom and freedom of expression. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: On Afghanistan, even today there was a terrorist attack in Kabul. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: At least 20 people died. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: In the view that there has been several such attacks in the recent past, least few weeks, do you think your efforts for peace talks with Taliban by including Pakistan and China is not yielding any result? MR KIRBY: Well, they’re not our efforts. They’re Afghan-led efforts at reconciliation, and we continue to encourage that process to move forward. And it’s absolutely true that Afghanistan remains a dangerous place; there’s no question about that. And today’s attack underscores that. It actually underscores all the more the importance of getting reconciliation talks going and getting – and getting to a useful conclusion there, a productive conclusion to that. The third thing that I would say that it underscores is the importance of the continued international mission there in Afghanistan to continue to improve the capability and the confidence, the competence, of Afghan National Security Forces which continue to do an admirable job inside the country, and even when an attack like today happens, responding effectively and efficiently as best they can. So there’s still a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan. We recognize that. But again, all of this is a reminder of how important it is for everybody to see these reconciliation talks continue. QUESTION: But why do you – why are you encouraging the Afghanistan Government – you said Afghan-led peace process when you very well know that other party, the Talibans, have no interest in this peace process? They are hell-bent upon killing people over there. Why do you want to encourage that? MR KIRBY: We have long said that the way forward here is reconciliation talks that are Afghan-led. It’s an Afghan-owned process. And I would challenge your assertion that the Taliban has expressed no interest in this. That is – that’s just not the case. And they’re not a monolithic organization the way that some people want to paint them as. So we still think that that’s the way forward. We still think that there’s room to make that happen. And again, today’s attack is just that much more of a reminder that that’s really the answer here, and we’re going to continue to encourage that progress. QUESTION: But why do you want to challenge when there’s no sign at all from the Taliban that they are interested in any kind of peace process? MR KIRBY: I won’t speak for the Taliban. I can’t do that. We still believe it’s the right way forward. There has been interest in the recent past, and we would want to encourage that interest to continue. QUESTION: I also wanted to ask you about the SRAP office, the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Is the Secretary considering wrapping up this office and merging with the SCA Bureau? MR KIRBY: I know of no such plans to do so. Said. QUESTION: Can you take that question? MR KIRBY: I’m sorry? QUESTION: Can you take that question? MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to take the question. I know of no such plans to do so. QUESTION: There’s no plan to merge SCA? MR KIRBY: That’s what I just said. QUESTION: Okay. QUESTION: Can I change topics? MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: Palestinian-Israeli issue. On Friday, French Foreign Minister Fabius, Laurent, said that if the talks remain or the process remains stalled, then France will recognize the state of Palestine. I wonder if you have any comment on that. MR KIRBY: Well, we’re certainly aware of this French initiative. I’m not in a position to speculate which way this is going to go. Actually, we don’t have very much information on this, Said. For our part, we continue to engage with our partners to find a constructive way forward in terms of advancing our shared goal of a two-state solution, and we’re going to continue to do that. QUESTION: But in the absence of any process, shouldn’t you encourage maybe other countries, the European Union, France – your ally, France – to come up with initiatives to get the ball rolling again, or would you do something similar that might get the ball rolling? MR KIRBY: We continue to believe that what’s important here is that the two sides begin to have those discussions and to try to move forward to getting to a two-state solution. That’s what we’ve been saying all along and what we continue to believe. QUESTION: Mm-hmm. But you – the last time you did this, you oversaw talks that went on for nine months, and in the end, they hit a dead end. Why not explore other areas or other ways to get this process going? MR KIRBY: What I can tell you without hypothesizing about specifics – I mean, the Secretary remains focused on this issue very, very keenly and he continues to talk to leaders on all sides of it, and will continue to do so. Spoke with President Abbas over the weekend, as I think you might have heard, to talk about this very thing – that it’s important. We want to see progress made towards a two-state solution, but we want to see that progress made through them and their efforts, to take affirmative steps and actions on their own to try to make it – to create the conditions and to allow us to get to a position where we can have a meaningful discussion about a two-state solution moving forward. But I won’t speak for what other nations might or might not do or – we don’t have a whole lot of information on this French initiative. For our part, our policy is the same. Our – the path that we want to see move forward has not changed. QUESTION: And finally, there’s a Palestinian journalist administratively held by the Israelis and he’s on, I think, 67 – his 67th day of hunger strike and about to die. I raised this issue last week with Mark. He didn’t really know much about it. I wonder if you found out anything about this issue or -- MR KIRBY: I don’t have any additional detail, Said. I can take that question and get back to you. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Can we stay on this for just a second? MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: Last week the UN secretary-general had some pretty critical comments about – of – or comments – made some comments critical – highly critical of Israeli settlements. He’s again repeated them today in an op-ed in The New York Times. His initial comments were met with a lot of criticism from the – from within Israel and the pro-Israel community elsewhere, and the same thing has happened with his comments today. I’m just wondering – the Secretary has made comments critical of Israel and similar criticisms of Israel in the past, and I’m wondering if the Secretary or this building more broadly agrees with the points that Secretary-General Ban was making. MR KIRBY: We’ve seen the – his opinion piece, of course. And he’s free to express whatever opinions he wants to express and we certainly respect his right to do that. From our perspective, and I can only speak from our perspective, as we’ve said many times, there’s no justification for terrorism. We strongly condemn the attacks against innocents. We’ve also repeatedly said how important it is that all sides work to combat incitement to violence. And at the same time, as we said last week, the situation right now is not sustainable. We’ve repeatedly called for steps on the ground to strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and of course, our position on settlement activity is well known and clear. QUESTION: Right. One of his points that he made last week and then reiterated again today was that while condemning the violence and incitement, one of his points was that the occupation – it is understandable, so to speak, for people to be frustrated and upset with occupation that goes – has been going on for decades now. Is that something the United States agrees with? MR KIRBY: We – I think you’ve heard us talk about this in the past, that there’s no justification for violence or terrorism and attacks against innocents. There’s no justification for that, and the Secretary’s been very clear about it. QUESTION: So I’m not saying that you’re not – I’m not saying or suggesting that you’re not condemning violence or incitement. What I’m asking you is if you agree with the secretary-general that years on years and years of occupation without any kind of horizon at the end of it or – it is – because of that, the secretary-general said that it is understandable for there to be frustrations. Is that something that -- MR KIRBY: He’s certainly free to express his opinions. What I’ll say is we – what we -- QUESTION: Well, I know. But I’m asking whether you guys agree with his opinion, not -- MR KIRBY: What we – what we continue to maintain is there’s no – no justification for attacks against innocents. QUESTION: All right, okay. And then there’s the other thing on – related to this is that last week, there was a little bit of a kerfuffle when this Customs department announcement came out about labeling products from the West Bank and Gaza saying that they cannot be labeled “Made in Israel.” It was addressed at the time, but since then Senator Cotton has introduced legislation that would rescind this rule. And I’m guessing, but I would like to know – I’m guessing that the Administration would oppose this legislation, but I’m wondering if that is, in fact, correct. And I’m also wondering if the United States regards labeling rules like this, like – and the one that the EU did as a geographical issue rather than a political issue? MR KIRBY: Well, look, I -- QUESTION: Or is it both? MR KIRBY: I – there’s certainly been no change to our policy around the approach or enforcement of marking requirements. We’re going to have to study the senator’s proposed language before I can make any comment one way or the other about it. But there’s been no change to our view, and as you said, we did talk about this Customs and Border Patrol issue last week. I just don’t have anything additional to add to – certainly there’s no change in our policy about it, but again, we’d have to look at the proposed language before we could comment on it. QUESTION: Well, when you do, please let me know. MR KIRBY: You’ll be the first, Matt. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Yeah, absolutely. QUESTION: I have a – MR KIRBY: No, I already got you. Go ahead, Nike. QUESTION: John, could you please take a question on Rwanda? MR KIRBY: Take it or answer it? QUESTION: I – take it. You can take it because -- MR KIRBY: I can take anything you want. You just – you – just fire ‘em away, go ahead. QUESTION: -- it’s a local holiday today, so I don’t expect I will hear a statement but it’s -- MR KIRBY: You don’t expect you’re going to get an answer? QUESTION: Well, I -- MR KIRBY: I wish everybody felt that way. It would make these things so much easier to get through. QUESTION: I’m very understanding. MR KIRBY: What’s your question? QUESTION: Okay. So, Rwanda. Several thousand supporters of a Muslim cleric, Mr. Muhammad, was arrested followed by his execution last week. And I wonder if the State Department can weigh in on this case? Is the state’s – is the U.S. concerned of religious freedom is abused in the name of antiterrorism because he is a Muslim and he was charged of -- MR KIRBY: Right. QUESTION: -- recruiting fighters for Islamic -- MR KIRBY: Right. We’re aware of the case, and we are looking into it. I don’t think we’re at a point now where we’re able to speak to specific motivation. Obviously, and I’m not stating specifically to this case, but we have seen elsewhere around the world where the excuse of terrorism is used to stifle dissenting voices whether they’re politically or religiously inclined. So we’re going to watch this real closely. And if we’re in a position to make more specific comment about it, we’ll certainly let you know, but as you well know, this just happened and we’re still trying to gather more facts about it. Okay? QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: Do you have any comments on the preliminary report released last week by the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent? MR KIRBY: Nope. QUESTION: They recommended that the U.S. take reparations, criminal justice reform, and they said that the U.S. is not acting with due diligence to the protect the rights of African American communities. MR KIRBY: I got – I don’t have anything on that. QUESTION: You haven’t seen the report? MR KIRBY: I have not. You’re going to have to let me take that one. I’m not even sure that that’s one that the State Department would speak to. So -- QUESTION: It’s a UN-led initiative. MR KIRBY: No, I get that, but I just don’t have anything for you on that. Sorry. QUESTION: Okay, thank you. MR KIRBY: Catherine? QUESTION: Yeah, I have a follow-up from Friday. You said 18 emails between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were being withheld and not subject to a classification review. Whose call was it not to subject them to that review? MR KIRBY: What I – we said was we were denying them in full. QUESTION: Correct. But I’ve also -- MR KIRBY: We didn’t say that they were not subject to – I don’t remember saying they were not subject to a review. QUESTION: Yeah, I seem to – my recollection is that they were not subject to a classification review. MR KIRBY: They are not classified. QUESTION: Not -- QUESTION: So that means they were reviewed, right, and determined to be not classified? MR KIRBY: Yeah, I never said that they weren’t subject to review, Catherine. QUESTION: Okay. Okay. MR KIRBY: So just to be clear, they – and I think I said this. If I didn’t, then it’s bad on me, but I was supposed to say, and I thought I did at the time, that none of that email traffic was deemed classified in any way whatsoever, but it’s being withhold – it’s being withheld to allow the President to continue to receive unvarnished advice and counsel. And, as I also said, that we have every expectation that they’ll eventually be made public through the Presidential Records Act. QUESTION: Right. She’s called for her emails to be released, and this group is clearly within your authority to release. So will you release them on an expedited timeline? MR KIRBY: No, ma’am. QUESTION: Okay. One other follow-up. In the emails that were released Friday, there’s an email from then-Senator Kerry using a personal account writing to Mrs. Clinton. It’s been judged to contain classified information with a foreign government source. Is he still using personal accounts for business? MR KIRBY: He uses a state.gov account for business. He obviously still has a personal email account, as does so many other people, but he uses state.gov. QUESTION: Okay. Does -- QUESTION: On the email from then-Senator Kerry, is it actually clear – and I have to go back and look – that it was sent from a personal account or that it was sent from an iPod, a personal device, perhaps using a Senate account? QUESTION: I believe the email is redacted for – citing privacy protections. QUESTION: So we don’t know whether it was a personal account or -- MR KIRBY: I don’t know whether it was from a personal account. I know it was sent from an iPad. I don’t know about the account, so I can’t verify whether he sent it from a personal account or not. Does he still have a personal email? Of course he does, but he uses state.gov -- QUESTION: But my question, if it was a Hill account, it would have been – it would not have been redacted. MR KIRBY: That’s not true. That’s not true at all. I mean, you – under the Freedom of Information Act, it doesn’t matter what email account you use to send or receive information. QUESTION: There’s no protection for government accounts under FOIA. MR KIRBY: Sure there is. Under Freedom of Information, you bet there is. QUESTION: I don’t think so. MR KIRBY: There is certainly protection for the content. You have to protect sensitive information. QUESTION: But he’s referring to the email account itself. That’s fine. We can move on from that. I just wondered whether he had any regrets about sending classified information in that manner to her account. MR KIRBY: The Secretary has been very clear throughout this entire process that he wants to be as transparent as possible, get these out as expeditiously as possible, but more importantly, that we protect sensitive information regardless of where it comes from, and he’s comfortable that the staff has his direction to do so. QUESTION: And you may not have seen this email, and I’m happy to send it to you, but there was another production by the courts and it’s produced an email between Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills from January of 2009 in which Patrick Kennedy says that he thinks it’s a great idea to set up a standalone PC for her to check her email. So based on the email traffic, Patrick Kennedy knew about this separate email arrangement from the get-go. Is that correct? MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t speak to past practices one way or another. As you know, Catherine, those are under review and investigation right now, and I simply won’t prejudge or speak to that stuff. But -- QUESTION: Well, I think it’s important to know because he is presiding over all of these reviews, so he may have a very significant conflict. MR KIRBY: I won’t speak to past email practices. Those are under review and investigation. I’m not going to get ahead of that. She did not have a standalone computer. QUESTION: So it was never set up? MR KIRBY: There was no standalone computer ever set up. QUESTION: (Off-mike.) QUESTION: And I think in response to what you said on Friday about the – some emails will never be declassified. The Clinton campaign said that you are overclassifying. Do you have any comment on that? MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is, again, I’m not going to – I’m going to scrupulously avoid getting into commenting on things said on the campaign trail. That would be inappropriate. But, that said, we take the protection of sensitive information very seriously here. And throughout this entire process, which has been an exhaustive process – I mean, 55,000 pages of documents; we still have more to go – there has been a very careful scrutiny being applied to protecting sensitive information. Most of it has been – most of the redactions have been, as you know, at the confidential level. There’s been some at the secret level. And now, last week, we very publicly and very openly talked about the fact that some was classified at an ever higher level. That’s a fundamental obligation that we have under the law, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Secretary is comfortable that we’re going to continue to meet those responsibilities very, very assiduously. QUESTION: John, I do note former officials often – actually, almost always, but I suppose not 100 percent – retain clearance once they leave office. Do you have a – do you know if secretary – former Secretary Clinton still has her clearance? MR KIRBY: I don’t know, and it’s not -- QUESTION: From the State Department? MR KIRBY: I don’t. I don’t know. QUESTION: Is there any way to find out, or is that covered by some kind of -- MR KIRBY: I don’t know that we’re permitted to speak to individual clearances. I don’t believe we are. QUESTION: Well, can you check? MR KIRBY: I will check to see, but I‘m pretty sure that even if she does have one, we’re not permitted to speak to it. Yeah. QUESTION: John, do you have any better idea now of when you might complete the review of determining whether or not these seven email chains were classified at the time? It seems that -- MR KIRBY: I don’t have a deadline for you. QUESTION: Yeah, because it just doesn’t seem like a whole lot of email to go through, and maybe a phone call or two -- MR KIRBY: When would you like to see it done? QUESTION: Well, look -- QUESTION: Sometime before November. QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, it just – (laughter) – I get that 55,000 is a heavy lift. I don’t see how 22 is a heavy lift. So -- MR KIRBY: Right. Well, listen -- QUESTION: -- we’ll be asking about it is all I’m saying. So -- MR KIRBY: I fully expected that you would continue to ask about it, Justin. QUESTION: Because it’s sort of critical to this whole controversy. MR KIRBY: And I promise you that I will pass your feedback on to those that are looking into it so that they know that you have a sense of urgency too. Look -- QUESTION: And I speak for the public. Keep in mind, we’re all interested. MR KIRBY: No, I know you do. I fully respect your representation of the public. QUESTION: It’s not just me. Don’t look at it as just me, because that could tarnish your opinion of the whole process. MR KIRBY: I’m sure that all your colleagues share your curiosity and sense of urgency about this. I can tell you – I mean, all kidding aside – we do as well and the Secretary’s been very clear that he wants this review to be conducted as expeditiously as possible, but not so fast that it’s not right and it’s not thorough. And when we have more to say about it, we certainly will. Okay. QUESTION: Can I just ask you, which email chain are you referring to here that needs – not the 22 documents from Friday. Is this a separate email -- MR KIRBY: No, that’s what he’s talking about. He’s talking about the ones that were – that we talked about on Friday at the -- QUESTION: Top secret? MR KIRBY: -- at the top secret level. And I said that -- QUESTION: But wait a second. Wait, wait – go ahead. MR KIRBY: I said that issues of classification at the time are being reviewed separately by the State Department. QUESTION: Well, but – no. No, that’s not the case. The agencies that own the intelligence have say on classification. I know you know that. So unless -- MR KIRBY: We – I think – I think -- QUESTION: Unless all 22 were State Department documents, which they were not, the agencies have already weighed in. MR KIRBY: I can appreciate that you maybe don’t want us to review them separately, Catherine, but we’re going to. And so as I said – as I said -- QUESTION: But what – but what – wait, no. It’s not that at all. But I don’t understand what regulation you’re pointing back to that allows the State Department to challenge a classification from the agency that generated the information, because that’s the rule of thumb. I don’t understand that. MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, first, your question is implying that we’re setting up this review to challenge it. We’re not. What I said was issues of the classification at the time it was sent – first of all, none of those documents were marked classified at the time. QUESTION: But that doesn’t matter. MR KIRBY: Catherine, please let me finish. QUESTION: The nondisclosure right here -- MR KIRBY: Please. QUESTION: -- says – I can read it to you. I believe you signed one. MR KIRBY: You don’t need to read it to me. I appreciate that you’re willing to, but you don’t need to. And if you just let me finish -- QUESTION: But it says classification is marked or unmarked in oral communication. MR KIRBY: Okay, all right. QUESTION: So the marking is irrelevant, correct? MR KIRBY: I disagree. I disagree and so does the State Department, and that’s why the classification at the time these emails were sent are going to be reviewed separately by the State Department. QUESTION: The NDA says something very different. MR KIRBY: I know you don’t like the answer and I can appreciate that you don’t like it, but that’s the answer. QUESTION: No, it doesn’t – it’s not a question of not liking the answer. I’m looking at the government form that it’s the nondisclosure agreement that’s signed by everyone who receives classified information. MR KIRBY: I can also -- QUESTION: I mean, that’s what it says. MR KIRBY: I can also assure you that as we conduct the review, we’ll be doing it in concert with the interagency as we have throughout this entire process. QUESTION: So which emails is the INR challenging? MR KIRBY: Your question keeps referring to a challenge. This isn’t about challenging it, Catherine. This is about doing a proper review here at the State Department of the degree of classification at the time it was sent. QUESTION: I just don’t understand it because the -- MR KIRBY: I know you don’t understand it because I can’t seem to be able to get through to you. QUESTION: (Inaudible) two that I need get – I got two on policy that I need to get done. MR KIRBY: Oh, well. QUESTION: One is on Yemen. The Saudis have just set up this commission to look into civilian – reports of civilian casualties or actually -- MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: -- civilian casualties. I’m wondering if you think that that’s – that’s going to be a credible body. And also the – there’s this case of a VOA stringer, a journalist who was killed in a Saudi coalition airstrike two weeks ago yesterday. And I’m just wondering if you’ve had anything to say about that considering he was working for an outlet that is funded by Congress. MR KIRBY: I don’t have any specifics with respect to that strike. Obviously, any death or injury to a reporter in the field doing the important work of journalism is obviously something we don’t want to see, and our condolences, of course, go out to the family. But I don’t have specifics with respect to that strike or what the Saudis are doing about it. I do – we do welcome reports, though, that the Saudi-led coalition is going to set up an independent investigative commission to evaluate military targeting, to ensure the protection of civilians, and investigate incidents of civilian harm during the conflict in Yemen. As we’ve said, the protection of civilians is very important. Our expectation is that it will be exactly what the Saudis said it will be. It will be independent, and that’s – their expectations are the same as ours. QUESTION: You don’t have any concerns that it won’t be as independent as they say it will be and that its findings will be credible? MR KIRBY: Well, let’s see -- QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR KIRBY: Let’s see the work they do. They’ve said it’s going to be independent. That’s certainly our expectation too. QUESTION: All right. And then the last one is about Iran. You probably or you may have seen these reports that the Iranian Government has decorated the IRGC sailors who detained the Americans in the Gulf, given them medals. People like Senator McCain say that this is disgusting and abhorrent and that they’re being rewarded or being honored for mistreating soldiers. Is it still the Administration’s contention that these sailors, the Americans, were not mistreated? And do you agree with Senator McCain and the others who have expressed anger at the fact that the Iranian sailors were honored? MR KIRBY: Well, what we said was that as they were being held we were given assurances by the Iranian Government that they were not being mistreated. We – the Secretary spoke very plainly about his anger and frustration at the way they were treated when they were taken into custody and then having that videotape photographed and blasted out there for propaganda purposes. And the Secretary was very honest about how abhorrent he found that. And I would tell you that if it’s – I don’t know if it’s true. I’ve seen the comments that the supreme leader intends to or has rewarded them. And if it true, it’s not only unwarranted, it’s unconscionable. QUESTION: So subsequent to the initial pronouncements that these Americans were being treated professionally and in an okay way -- MR KIRBY: Well, the Navy is looking into the details of the time in which -- QUESTION: Right. But you believe that what has come to light since they were taken, since they were detained and released, shows that they were not, in fact, treated professionally; is that correct? MR KIRBY: I would – I’m going to point you to the Navy to speak to the details of what they experienced there. Clearly, the manner in which they were taken and the guns drawn in the video, we’ve talked about that. QUESTION: Yeah, I know. But -- MR KIRBY: We got indications that while they were being held that they were – that they were given food and water and not mistreated. The Navy is still looking into this and speaking to the sailors, and I won’t get ahead of or prejudge any conclusions that they might come back with after having a chance to fully debrief the sailors. That wouldn’t be for us to speak to. But obviously, if it turns out that there was additional mistreatment, that’s obviously something, serious and we’ll take it seriously and we’ll take it up appropriately. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: Thank you. (The briefing was concluded at 3:13 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.
|
Monday, 1 February 2016
[wanabidii] Press Releases: Daily Press Briefing - February 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment