| You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. 03/01/2016 04:02 PM EST John Kirby Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC Index for Today's Briefing TRANSCRIPT:
.2:12 p.m. EST QUESTION: Thanks for the 20-minute warning. MR KIRBY: I wanted to make sure you had plenty of time to get here, Justin. You have a tendency to be late. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: All right. A couple things at the top, everybody. I’m sure you saw some of the Secretary’s comments earlier today about the attack in Peshawar. The United States Government strongly condemns the attack on an anti-narcotics convoy in Mohmand agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan that killed two Pakistani employees of the U.S. mission in Pakistan. These locally employed staff were working with the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. And we’re working right now to try to gather more information. Obviously, we extend our condolences to their families and to loved ones, and our deepest sympathy to all those who were killed or injured in this attack. And as I said, still, information is coming in. I don’t have a lot more on the specifics of the attack right now. We offer our assistance to the Government of Pakistan in investigating this incident and to bringing the perpetrators to justice. Pakistan has suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists and violent extremists, and the United States stands in solidarity with the people of Pakistan and all who fight the scourge of terrorism. As I said yesterday, we had a strategic dialogue with leaders from Pakistan, and I can assure you that counterterrorism and the threat posed by terrorism to Pakistan and in the region was certainly high on the agenda of things that we talked about. Secondly – and I think you may have seen the deputy secretary’s comments today, but – we congratulate the winners of this year’s Secretary of State Awards for Corporate Excellence, or ACE, A-C-E, that were announced today. The ACE recognizes U.S. businesses that exhibit responsible business conduct around the world. For the first time, the awards were given in three distinct categories, all designed to align with foreign policy objectives. The award for corporate excellence in human rights and labor rights went to Cargill Vietnam Limited in Vietnam. The company demonstrated a long-term commitment to investing in its farmer partners, in cocoa, and other sectors by supporting community health, training over 12,000 farmers in sustainable production techniques, and utilizing technology to share pricing information with farmers, the government, and other stakeholders to promote transparency. The award for a small or medium business enterprise went to East Bali Cashews in Indonesia. This cashew producer employed 350 people in the local rural community, 85 percent of whom were previously unemployed women. They improved the quality of local agricultural production and modernized its methods, and expanded services to address the health and education needs of over 800 children of company employees. And the award for environmental sustainability went to Weyerhaeuser Productos S.A. in Urugay. The renewable forest product company built a 100 percent clean-energy facility capable of supplying electricity to 40,000 residents, launched a project certified to remove an average of 56,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Again, we congratulate this year’s winners and we thank them for their very important contributions not only to their communities but actually to the rest of the world. With that, Matt. QUESTION: Right. Excuse me. Can I just start on the Pakistan attack for a second? You mentioned just now and then in your statement earlier that these – the people who were killed were employees of the U.S. mission in Pakistan. The Secretary in his comments had said that they worked for the consulate in Peshawar. Is that not correct? MR KIRBY: My – well, both are true, as you know. QUESTION: Right. I understand that, but -- MR KIRBY: I mean, the U.S. mission engages many consuls. QUESTION: -- that was a little bit more specific than -- MR KIRBY: Yeah, the Secretary was accurate, certainly, that -- QUESTION: Okay. So they – it’s not that they were working for the embassy in Islamabad or in Karachi? MR KIRBY: As I understand it, they were working locally there at the consulate. QUESTION: And do you – I realize it’s early on and you still don’t know all the details, but do you have any indication if – were they the targets of this IED, or was it just the convoy itself that was the -- MR KIRBY: Yeah, it’s unclear. And we’ve seen reports of an IED. I’m not able to actually confirm that that was the tool that caused the deaths. Could very well be. Again, we’re going to be looking into this with our Pakistani counterparts. I don’t know. Nobody has claimed responsibility at this point. We don’t know how premeditated or planned this was, and we certainly don’t have additional information about specific targets. We’re going to have to just keep working at this. QUESTION: Okay. Unless anyone has – I just want to move on briefly to Syria. You’ve seen the announcement today out of Geneva that the talks will resume on the 9th instead of the 7th. MR KIRBY: Right. QUESTION: I’m just wondering if – I mean, I’m going to assume – I hope not wrongly – that you’re okay with that; at least they’re going to resume, or get started. But what – you have – do you have any thoughts on the delay? MR KIRBY: Well, we did see the statements made today that Special Envoy de Mistura wants to push it now to the 9th for – I think he said logistical and technical reasons. Look, we are, as always, supportive of his efforts, and it is the UN that is leading the effort to get the parties to continue to resume talks. So we’re very supportive of his leadership and what he’s doing. And if he believes that he needs another couple of days to make it work, well, then we’re supportive of that. QUESTION: And your understanding or your read on how the ceasefire is holding, if it is? MR KIRBY: Over the last 24 hours we’ve not been apprised of any claims of any additional violations of any significance. So over the last 24 hours it would appear as if there hasn’t been any more violations of the cessation of hostilities. Again, it’s a very fluid environment, and we’re just going to keep monitoring as closely as we can. But so far it continues to appear to be holding in place for the large part. QUESTION: All right. Well, unless I’m mistaken, and I very – I could be mistaken – hasn’t the HNC reported another, like, slew of alleged violations? MR KIRBY: Again, before coming out here, I checked on this. We’re not aware of any additional significant violations. I can’t rule out the fact that there haven’t been. I can’t rule out the fact there might even be some that are smaller in nature. We’re watching this as best we can. It really does depend on all parties to report what they know, where they see it, and what they’re experiencing. Again, over the last 24 hours we haven’t seen any major developments. QUESTION: All right. Do you – how do you define “significant”? MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, I think it’s -- QUESTION: Is that a specific number of people dying or -- MR KIRBY: It’s a relative term, but it certainly – there’s not a -- QUESTION: -- number of bombs? MR KIRBY: There’s not a hard metric on numbers of bombs or numbers of injuries, but I think it’s – you know when an attack is of that nature serious in terms of its scope and the casualties caused by it. Again, I’d point you back to what the Secretary said last night. We knew this was going to be difficult from the get-go. We knew that it was going to be something that was going to require constant attention and monitoring. We also need to be mindful of the fact that a cessation of hostilities and the terms that were agreed upon does not mean that bombs won’t be dropped in Syria, that there won’t be attacks against terrorist groups. And so it’s going to take some time to process the claims, the allegations of violations, and to determine the circumstances surrounding the strikes that are taken. What matters is that for the first time in five years we’ve actually seen a notable reduction in violence and bloodshed in Syria of an organized nature – for the first time in five years – and number two, that we have a process in place, a mechanism in place, to monitor compliance with it as best we can. And again, it relies on, it depends on the good-faith efforts and the energetic application of all the parties there in Syria and in Geneva and in other places to monitor this. QUESTION: And the Russians are making that good-faith effort, in your assessment, so far? MR KIRBY: I’m not going to call it one way or another here every single day, but we have seen a notable reduction in violence in Syria. And certainly, there has been a reduction. There’s no doubt about it. I mean, the math just bears out there’s been a reduction in Russian airstrikes in Syria. That’s just a mathematical fact. But as for those strikes that are occurring and perfect knowledge about who they’re hitting, either Russian aircraft or pro-regime forces, I mean, I think some of that is still being evaluated. QUESTION: So it’s -- MR KIRBY: But again, I mean, I’m not going to sit here -- QUESTION: It’s not -- MR KIRBY: -- and characterize every single act and say, well, that’s good faith or that’s not good faith. But what I will tell you is we are seeing a notable reduction in the violence, and as the Secretary said last night, that while this reduction is certainly welcome, the right number is zero – not against al-Nusrah or Daesh. Of course, those two groups still will be targeted as appropriate. But the right number of attacks against the Syrian people, against the opposition, and in this case, against the regime, should be zero. That’s what we want to drive at. QUESTION: Do you have any idea of what that number actually is right now since the ceasefire began? MR KIRBY: No. And as I said yesterday, I’m not going to get into a daily tally here of what we’re seeing. In general, we have seen a notable reduction -- QUESTION: By half? MR KIRBY: -- in strikes. I’d just say a notable -- QUESTION: More than half? MR KIRBY: I’d just say a notable reduction. I really don’t want to get into quantifying this on a day-to-day basis. But the early results are encouraging, but we all recognize more work needs to be done to fully realize the goal of the cessation of hostilities. QUESTION: Are you pleasantly surprised that the ceasefire is broadly holding? Because before the ceasefire was in place – you worked very hard to put it in place, but you were not super, super optimistic, super upbeat on the possibility that the ceasefire would hold. MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary was taking a very pragmatic view, having worked this very hard himself in getting the cessation agreed to. I wouldn’t characterize it as surprised. Obviously, we’re pleased by the reduction in violence. But I would also say, as we said yesterday, that we remain concerned – seriously concerned about continued reports of violations of the cessation of hostilities. Again, back to what I said to Justin, that the right number here is zero, and that’s what we want to see everybody comply with. And so we continue to call on all parties to meet their obligations under the cessation of hostilities, and we want to see each and every allegation or claim of violation to be thoroughly reviewed so that we can have a better sense of how well it’s being met across the board. So again, encouraged by the welcome reduction in violence, but nobody’s taking – here in the United States State Department, nobody’s taking their foot off the pedal here. Nobody’s doing any victory dances. There are still innocent Syrian people that are suffering today. And it’s not just because there continues to be violence and bloodshed in Syria – although that is troubling enough – it’s also because still so many of them need access to food, medicine, water, supplies. There – we were glad that another convoy of trucks were able to reach some besieged areas yesterday. As I understand it, there’s some additional convoys that we expect to be able to make more deliveries to besieged areas in the next few days. We’ll have to see if that happens. But there’s still some signs – and I think the Secretary spoke to this last night – of obstructionism by the Syrian regime, and that’s unacceptable. So a lot of people are still suffering. Again, nobody is claiming victory here in terms of the cessation. We’ve got to – all of us, all the members of the ISSG and all the parties to this have got to continue to apply a lot of energy and effort to get that number to zero and to keep it there. QUESTION: What does a State Department victory dance look like? Is it like the same -- MR KIRBY: Well -- QUESTION: -- as a Pentagon victory dance or is it slightly more diplomatic? MR KIRBY: It’s slightly more diplomatic. I’d show you, but I – my toe is still broken and I don’t want to further injure myself. Yes, sir. QUESTION: Yesterday, you mentioned that there is a fear of partitioning in Syria and you said it’s not a goal, it’s not a Plan B, just a fear. I was wondering why such a fear? United States supports federalism next door in Iraq, and why there is a fear of similar situation in Syria? MR KIRBY: You’re – there’s a lot in your question there. You’re mixing – you’re mixing – the analogy between Iraq and Syria is wrong. Look, I don’t want to spend a lot more time on this because I think the Secretary simply expressed a fear of what could happen – not what will happen, not what we want to happen, not what we’re planning to happen – in testimony to Congress. And regrettably, those words were taken out of context when they were reported following the hearing. He also said – and I encourage you to go back and look at what he has said – and look at what he said last night, because he hit on this same idea last night a couple of times when he was doing his press avail with his German counterpart. There’s only one goal, and that is a whole, unified, nonsectarian Syria that is led by, administered by a government that the Syrians themselves have had a hand in choosing, that does not include Bashar al-Assad, that can be responsive to their needs and responsible for them and their – and Syria’s future. We want a whole, unified Syria. That’s the goal. That is different – it’s different to say – a whole country can still be governed under some sort of federalization. It doesn’t mean it’s not whole, it doesn’t mean it’s not sovereign. That’s the way they govern themselves. And that’s for the Syrian people to decide. That’s different than saying a partition where you carve up a country into semi-autonomous zones, and that’s not what we want to see happen. That’s not Plan B, that’s not the goal. The goal is a whole, unified Syria that we get to, that we arrive at through a political process that gives voice to the Syrian people, okay? QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: And I think that should -- QUESTION: Makes sense. MR KIRBY: -- hopefully clear this up once and for all. QUESTION: Yeah. QUESTION: One more question about Syria. A while ago when Special Envoy Brett McGurk visited Kobani, is there any humanitarian efforts by the United States to rebuild this city? MR KIRBY: The United States continues to support those fighters in Syria, northern Syria too, that are effective at going after Daesh. And I think one of the reasons that Special Envoy McGurk went was to see the progress in Kobani that’s already being made. I’m not aware of any specific material aid or assistance that’s being applied by the United States, but the coalition will certainly continue to support those fighters that are effective against Daesh up in that part of Syria. Yeah. QUESTION: On fighting terrorism, do you have anything on a proposal to – that – joint forces to combat terrorist group from Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Tajikistan? What’s your stand on this? Do you think – welcome such move? MR KIRBY: I’m not -- QUESTION: It’s a proposal by the Chinese army chief to Afghanistan and that a joint forces of Afghan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and China will fight terrorism in that region together. MR KIRBY: Right. So we’ve seen the reports about that. And we would support any role that China or other nations can play in bringing long-term stability to Afghanistan. We’ve said that for a long time, that China is a neighbor and they have an interest in a strong, stable, terrorism-free Afghanistan. And so we certainly – I mean, I’m not in a position to comment specifically about this proposal since, as I understand it, it’s just recently been set forth. And I understand President Ghani had some positive things to say about it. Again, we’d welcome any effort by the international community and members of the international community that would lead to a strong, prosperous, stable Afghanistan in the future. But I don’t have any specific comments with respect to this proposal itself. I think we’d have to look at it a little bit more. But the future of Afghanistan matters. It matters not just to the Afghan people, of course, but to the region. And that’s why the United States continues to be a major contributor to the NATO mission there and the missions of our troops remain real important – one, to be able to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, those that threaten the interest of the Afghan people and the United States as well, and to do – and to continue to train, advise, and assist Afghan National Security Forces, as their competency and capability continues to improve. Okay. QUESTION: Can I ask a China-related question? MR KIRBY: Sure. QUESTION: That is: Can you explain why exactly you guys aren’t having a vote at the – up in New York today on the North Korea resolution? Is there an issue, a last-minute glitch, perhaps? MR KIRBY: A last-minute glitch. (Laughter.) As I understand it, the United States did request a vote on the resolution today, and the Russians asked for a 24-hour review period, and we’re in that period now. QUESTION: I know you won’t speak for the Russians, but are you aware of any particular problem that they or anyone else might have with the resolution? MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t speak for the Russians or the reasons why they -- QUESTION: I believe I prefaced my question with that, by saying I’m not asking you to speak for them. I just said are you aware that there is an issue, a specific issue that either they or anyone else has with it, or -- MR KIRBY: I’m not. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: I’m not. I would let them speak for themselves in terms of why they’re going for the review process. QUESTION: So it means that the U.S., China, and Russia have not agreed on the content of the tentative resolution or -- MR KIRBY: I know that the language is – has been pretty far advanced. It’s a procedural review process, review period, that the Russians have asked for, and it’s going to be honored. I’m not going to get ahead of what the language actually is, and I certainly wouldn’t speak for another member of the council in terms of any issues they might have with it. We asked for the vote, and now we’re in a 24-hour review process, and we’ll see where we are tomorrow. QUESTION: I know the Clinton emails were all released yesterday, but as you understand, there are a few outstanding issues, and one of those being the review that the State Department is still conducting about how those emails should have been handled or classified in the first place. Do you have any idea what – when – what that will look like, if we’ll get that report before the election, even? I mean, what are we thinking with that? MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you. QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So I’ll just check back tomorrow. MR KIRBY: You can check back later today, if you’d like. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you right now. Obviously we’re taking this very seriously, Justin, as you might expect we would. The Secretary has taken the entire issue very seriously, and we’re not going to rush to judgment on any of these things. We’re going to take the time that’s needed to conduct the review that we’re conducting appropriately and thoroughly. And when it’s done, we’ll do the best we can to articulate what we learned. But I’m just not in a position right now to let you know when that’s going to be or how that’s progressing. QUESTION: Can I just ask you what – you’re not going to rush to judgment? It’s been almost a year now. What is your definition of rush? QUESTION: It’s not -- MR KIRBY: It hasn’t been a year since the review that the Secretary started as a result of the Top Secret emails. QUESTION: Well, it was right after March. Today is March -- MR KIRBY: That’s when – that’s the review he’s talking about. And that – that’s the one he’s talking about, is the one we – when we upgraded when -- QUESTION: Right, right. MR KIRBY: -- we publicly said that some were getting upgraded to Top Secret. QUESTION: Okay. Well, that was two months ago -- MR KIRBY: We said we’re going to review -- QUESTION: -- or yeah, end of January. MR KIRBY: Right. So it’s not been a year. QUESTION: No, but it’s been a year since the whole revelation of the fact of this private server came out. MR KIRBY: And he has met on numerous occasions with the inspector general, who has been looking into these matters for him. I’m not going to speak for the inspector general and what he’s learned over that time. There’ll be – there will be a time to lay this out, and it’s not now. But when things are ready and when they’re – when it’s complete and the leadership here at the State Department have had a chance to digest what’s been learned, we’ll be able to talk about it. QUESTION: That would be about, what, November 10th? MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update for you on time. QUESTION: The 6th? But I had -- MR KIRBY: But – but let me do take issue, okay -- QUESTION: I was kidding. MR KIRBY: -- with the – I know you were kidding. But let me make it clear that this is not being driven – none of it’s being driven by a political calendar at all. QUESTION: But maybe it should be, because these are things that are obviously – that voters are interested in, and we didn’t really learn a lot from the emails, because so much of it was not available to view. So what we could learn -- MR KIRBY: Oh, I take significant issue with that, Justin. QUESTION: Okay. I sat and read all those damn things. MR KIRBY: We are talking about 52-something-thousand pages of documents. QUESTION: Yes. MR KIRBY: And the numbers of redactions are incredibly small, percentage-wise, to what was in those emails. So I take significant issue with that. And this – and the argument – and again, I would completely disagree with you that there should be some sort of political focus or cognizance of the political calendar in terms of the process through which they were released or redacted or spoken about. QUESTION: I think people deserve to know whether these things were being handled the right way or not. I mean, this is – look, I’m not -- MR KIRBY: And there are several reviews and investigations that are underway, including one here at the State Department, to determine that. QUESTION: Right. QUESTION: Right. So no, but he has – does have a point. Maybe it shouldn’t be driven by political deadlines so that it comes – so that the results of the review that the State Department is responsible for come out after the election, but maybe it should be driven by wanting to get it out before the election – in fact, as soon as possible. MR KIRBY: Well -- QUESTION: I mean, can you commit or is the building – is the department in a position to commit to getting the results of this review into the Top Secret, into the classified, the one that he’s talking about, before there is a general election in this country? MR KIRBY: I’m not going to commit to a specific timeline. The Secretary wants this review done thoroughly and accurately and efficiently, and he’s not going to allow himself or the process or the department to be driven by the political calendar on this. I mean, the argument that we should be ever mindful of that – and I – while I don’t agree with the logic, I certainly – I understand where you’re coming from. The counter-logic to that would be that we are politicizing what needs to remain a completely apolitical process here. What the American people have a right to know is how these things were handled and how the State Department has met our obligations in terms of properly preparing these documents for release. There are other -- QUESTION: Well, there -- MR KIRBY: Again, there’s other agencies involved in these reviews. QUESTION: Exactly. I don’t think anyone – no one is questioning that. No one is – and no one is saying that you should or the FBI or the DOJ or whoever else is doing all these reviews or investigations should – but – that they need to be – set a deadline. But the point, the fact of the matter is there are deadlines. Today, in fact, is one of those deadlines in the electoral and the political process. And you – the judge in the FOIA case set deadlines, some of which you made, some of which you didn’t made – MR KIRBY: Right. QUESTION: -- but you made the last one, which was yesterday, and they’re all out. So deadlines, whether they’re random or – they exist. And they -- MR KIRBY: Sure they do. QUESTION: -- exist in the political calendar as well. So -- MR KIRBY: Sure they do. I’m sure you’ve never missed a deadline either. Or should I call Wendy? (Laughter.) But look, the – it’s one thing to meet -- QUESTION: I’m not -- MR KIRBY: It’s one thing to meet a deadline for the distribution of these documents, which as you pointed out, sometimes we made it, sometimes we didn’t. And the judge was – the judge -- QUESTION: Was not happy. MR KIRBY: -- mandated an – a subsequent deadline process here for us. But in the case of investigations and reviews -- QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: -- it is not always the case that reviews and investigations are given deadlines to be complete, specifically because you want investigators to have -- QUESTION: Right. QUESTION: My -- MR KIRBY: -- the leeway to -- QUESTION: Which -- MR KIRBY: -- look at things as deeply and as thoroughly as they need to. QUESTION: Which is understandable, but at the same time you have to deal with the reality of the year that we’re in. Don’t you? I mean, presumably the building, people in this building who are voters want to know all of the information that they can before they go into the voting booth, right? So -- QUESTION: And if you are worried about being accused of politicizing this issue, you run a greater risk of doing that should you release a report after the election than you would if you did it before. That is an opinion. That’s not a question. But – (laughter) -- QUESTION: All right. I have a non-opinion related question, and it’s unrelated. MR KIRBY: Most of your questions are opinion, Justin. (Laughter.) QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: But let me just try to deal with this one last time, because I understand what you’re saying. But I think you can also understand that we don’t want to artificially drive ourselves to the campaign calendar. The Secretary said – he said it again last night – he’s out of politics. QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. MR KIRBY: This is not a political institution. This is not a political podium. We’re staying out of it. And so we aren’t going to – we just aren’t going to drive ourselves and the people that are reviewing this here at the State Department – and I can’t speak for other reviews and investigations that are being conducted, but we are not going to allow ourselves to be driven by a campaign calendar when it comes to accurately, thoroughly, and effectively reviewing this. When the work is done and the Secretary is – has been briefed and is content with the work that is done, then we’ll be able to talk about it. QUESTION: All right. Can I ask you about another election, one that I asked about yesterday? And I’m just wondering if you guys have come to any even preliminary conclusions about what happened in the Iranian election, whether – there seemed to be competing narratives going on. One being pushed is that this was a huge victory for reformers and moderates. Another being pushed is that, in fact, it was the opposite because all the reformers and moderates were, in fact, disqualified from running in the election and that these people who are being presented as reformers and moderates were, in fact, not too recent – not so long ago considered hardliners. MR KIRBY: As I understand it, the results are still preliminary. We’ve seen no definitive assessment out of Tehran. And so we are still reserving our judgment and comment as preliminary results continue to be tallied. QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: Okay. One more? QUESTION: One question about Iraq? Can you confirm reports that the United States have asked Prime Minister Abadi to disband the Shia Popular Mobilization Forces? MR KIRBY: I have not seen that report. I would find -- QUESTION: What is your position on those forces? MR KIRBY: We’ve said it before. I would find it unlikely that such a request was made. I’ve said it before from this podium. This idea that every Shia militia, or Popular Mobilization Force that is another way they’re talked about, is controlled by Tehran and is therefore nefarious in nature is just false. In fact, the vast majority of them have no connections to Tehran or to the IRGC. And many of them are in the fight against Daesh. So it’s not the monolith that I think some people think it is, these Shia militias. I’m not aware of any request that was made to Prime Minister Abadi by us or by anybody else in the coalition to disband them. There’s no active coordination. Our role – the United States role on the ground – is to train and advise the Iraqi Security Forces. But we have encouraged the prime minister to reach out across the spectrum of Iraqi society, Shia and Sunni alike, to try to defeat this group. Okay? QUESTION: Wait. I have one more that’s kind of off the beaten track, and that is you will know – you will have seen that the Rolling Stones announced today that they are going to play a concert in Cuba on the 25th. Presumably they are coming with crew from the United States, American citizens. And I’m just wondering if there was any State Department – if you’re aware of any State Department involvement in facilitating this – their visas, et cetera. MR KIRBY: I do not know. I will take the question and get back to you. QUESTION: Thank you. MR KIRBY: I’m sure it’ll be a hell of a concert. QUESTION: Yes. MR KIRBY: All right. Thanks, everybody. (The briefing was concluded at 2:45 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.
|
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
[wanabidii] Press Releases: Daily Press Briefing - March 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment