| You are subscribed to Press Releases for U.S. Department of State. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. 12/16/2015 04:51 PM EST John Kirby Assistant Secretary Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC Index for Today's Briefing TRANSCRIPT:
2:19 p.m. EST MR KIRBY: Hello, guys. Sorry for the little bit of a running start here today. I do have a few things at the top, so please bear with me if you could. Today Secretary Kerry hosted Mexican foreign secretary, Claudia Ruiz Massieu, for a bilateral meeting at the Department of State. Secretary Kerry and the foreign secretary discussed a wide range of bilateral and regional issues, including expanding trade and economic growth, increasing educational exchanges, ensuring safe and orderly migration, and ongoing security cooperation between our two countries. Our relationship with Mexico is strong and vital, and our close partnership reflects deep institutional, economic, personal, and cultural bonds. The United States and Mexico remain committed to an active partnership focused on the advancement of shared goals, ensuring strong economic growth, good jobs, safe and secure communities, respect for human rights and democracy, and of course, expanded opportunity for all of our citizens. The meeting just finished and just wrapped up, and it was a very thorough and very positive, a very productive discussion. On Japan: The United States and Japan have agreed in principle on a new five-year package of host nation support for U.S. forces in Japan. The package is valued at 189.9 billion Yen in the final year of the agreement, which is 2020. That’s approximately $1.6 billion at current exchange rates, with an average annual cost sharing of 189.3 billion Yen. By covering a share of the cost for our base workforce, utilities, training relocation, and facilities improvement, this host nation support package will help sustain the U.S. military presence in Japan which, as you know, is a key part of the United States rebalance to Asia and to the Pacific. We appreciate the cooperation embodied in Japan’s host nation support. This new package will complement a series of significant accomplishments that have strengthened our alliance over the past year. On Libya: The United States welcomes the announcement that Libyans will sign tomorrow in Morocco the political agreement drafted after a year of UN-facilitated political dialogue. The agreement provides the framework for establishing a unified Libyan government of national accord. We applaud the efforts of these courageous Libyan leaders who are ready to rebuild a united Libya. A government of national accord is needed to address the country’s critical humanitarian, economic, and security challenges. At the December 13th conference on Libya in Rome co-chaired by Secretary Kerry and Italian Foreign Minister Gentiloni, the United States and the international community made it clear that we stand ready to support the implementation of the political agreement and are committed to providing the unified government full political backing and technical, economic, security, and counterterrorism assistance. We encourage all political actors to support this final agreement and call on all Libyans to unite behind the Libya political agreement and the government of national accord. Finally, on travel – and we talked about this a little bit yesterday, but just to put it out there more officially -- the Secretary will travel to New York City tomorrow – I’m sorry, on Friday. He will depart tomorrow but the – for the meetings on Friday to chair a UN Security Council meeting on Syria to reinforce efforts to accelerate an end to the conflict, including necessary formal negotiations between representatives of the Syrian Government and the opposition. The Secretary will also host a meeting of the International Syria Support Group, the ISSG, in New York to discuss next steps and efforts to foster a nationwide ceasefire and parallel political transition negotiations to end the conflict while intensifying the fight against ISIL. With that, Brad. QUESTION: I wanted to start with Syria. Can you explain at this point how the U.S. position on Assad is different from Russia’s position on Assad, on Assad’s future? MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to talk for Russia and what they feel is Assad’s place. What I can tell you is – well, but – it just wouldn’t be appropriate. But -- QUESTION: Well, you talk about Russia a lot with Assad, that their military is -- MR KIRBY: But you’re asking me to -- QUESTION: Okay, fine. MR KIRBY: You’re asking me to describe their policies, and I won’t do that. But what I will say is that nothing has changed. And we’ve talked about this before. Nothing’s changed about our view that Assad cannot be the future of Syria, that you can’t have a unified, whole, pluralistic, nonsectarian Syria where people feel safe and secure and can stay home or go home, with Assad still in power. And we’ve said that from the very beginning. QUESTION: Well, no, not from the very, very beginning. I think on – in 2011, if we stroll back down memory lane, President Obama said, “The time has come for Assad to step aside.” He didn’t say step aside in the future, step aside at one undetermined day according to mutual consent when he feels ready. It was, he had to leave immediately. And there’s been countless examples since. Now, I understand there’s been an evolution in your thinking. But yesterday it seemed to go a little farther in that the Secretary said, “We see Syria fundamentally very similar,” talking about the U.S. and Russia. And the only thing he pinpointed was a U.S. belief – and that was his word – that Assad should leave one day, not a U.S. policy with a strategy for implementing that. MR KIRBY: Well -- QUESTION: So can you explain how – when this latest shift toward belief came into play and when you sort of kind of gave up on getting him out immediately? MR KIRBY: Nobody’s given up on the notion that Assad has to go, and that has remained our policy for a long time. And we can quibble over words and rhetoric, but nothing has changed about our view, our belief that Assad cannot be the future of Syria, and that if we’re going to meet the Geneva communique and if we’re all going to strive to get to unified, whole Syria through a transition that’s Syrian-led and that includes the voice of the Syrian people, I don’t think anybody rationally can think that, even in the minds of most Syrians, that Assad is the right leader for the country. So nothing’s changed about our view that he has to go. The Secretary has said, and he’s been saying it for quite a while – I can pull you the quotes and the dates that he said it – is that as we work through this process, it’s more important for us that the end result is a government away from Assad and towards one that is respectful of and responsive to the Syrian people, not necessarily that he goes on day one or week one or month one of the process. So I’m not aware of an evolution here in thinking. We still remain committed to Assad’s departure. Again, we’re also mindful in this process, the Vienna process, that not everybody in the international community – certainly not everybody even in the ISSG – has exactly the same views with respect to Assad’s future, which is why it’s so important to keep meeting and why it’s so important to keep having this discussions. But I mean, I’ve seen press coverage that would indicate that we’ve gone through some metamorphosis, some transformation, that we – that we’re all of a sudden taking the Russian view, and it’s just not so. QUESTION: I have one more along similar lines. The Geneva communique from 2012, which you say undergirds this whole process – immediately after that was reached, Secretary Clinton at the time said that meant Assad and his cronies – those were her terms – couldn’t be part of the unity government because of mutual consent. He wouldn’t be able to part of the unity government. Yesterday, Secretary Kerry said the notion of Assad leaving immediately was a non-starter. And I just wanted to know, how does it help the opposition that you’re supporting when their number one backer says that their opening stance is a non-starter? MR KIRBY: Well, there’s a lot that helps the opposition here. First that they -- QUESTION: But -- MR KIRBY: Look, that they got together at all, which I seem to be one of the only few here in the briefing room that thinks that this is significant – that you’ve got 116 participants in the opposition together in one room -- QUESTION: This has happened before, too. MR KIRBY: -- to talk about – huh? QUESTION: This has happened before as well. MR KIRBY: -- to talk about the future of Syria and to actually come together – and I don’t think it has happened before that they came together with a set of a dozen unifying principles. Now, that doesn’t – this was their – these are their views. They are not necessarily representative of the views of every other member of the ISSG. This is not – this wasn’t – this was a meeting of the opposition groups convened by Saudi Arabia. The ISSG has already spoken to this issue many times, and you’ve seen it in the communiques coming out of Vienna. And so the Secretary was absolutely 100 percent right when he said that in the view of the international community, embodied in the ISSG, the notion that he has to go immediately or on day one – however you want to phrase it – that is a non-starting position in the view of the ISSG. So we recognize that. So we recognize that as a body the ISSG may have or has a different sense of what a political transition might look like than the group of opposition groups. So what does that tell you? That there’s still more work to be done, that there’s still differences to solve, that there’s still debates and discussions and negotiations that have to occur, and that’s why it’s so important to get together on Friday in New York to have these sets of meetings. QUESTION: John, just to follow up very quickly, when the Secretary says it’s a non-starter, he’s talking about the launching or the beginning of the negotiations, correct? MR KIRBY: He’s -- QUESTION: He’s talking about -- MR KIRBY: He’s talking about their view that was expressed in that communique that at the beginning of the -- QUESTION: Okay, of the process. MR KIRBY: That before negotiations can begin, Assad has to depart. QUESTION: Okay. So he’s not conditioning the beginning of the negotiations with Assad’s departure, but is there an understanding that at the end of this process, Assad will have to be gone? MR KIRBY: There’s a general – there’s an understanding that we have to get to a government that is responsive and representative of the Syrian people. Obviously, that’s not the Assad regime. There’s an understanding – and it’s all laid out in the communique – that this transition to that government has to be Syrian-led, it has to include the voices of the Syrian people, which would convey that, also, Assad is not going to be at the end. And we have said consistently – and we’re not the only nation inside the ISSG who has said this – that Assad can’t be part of the future of Syria. But we have said the manner in which he goes – the when, the how, the where to, all of that – has yet to be decided, which is why it’s important to continue this process. QUESTION: Okay. I just want to follow up on Brad’s point, because we all remember when Secretary Clinton said that Assad and his cronies – what is meant by cronies? Are we talking about the regime? Are we talking about the whole apparatus? Is it similar to Iraq? Because there was also an open letter sent out by your last envoy to Syria, Robert Ford, saying that it’s not only Assad, but also those close to him and so on. So we’re beginning to see that the demand for Assad’s departure may include the government, or the system, or the security services, or the army, which -- MR KIRBY: Well -- QUESTION: -- bring in a situation similar to that of Iraq. MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to be able to list for you -- QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: -- who or who isn’t a “crony.” Obviously, there are people close to Assad and deeply loyal to him who are complicit in the atrocities that he’s perpetrating against his people, and I assume – you have to assume that that will be part of these discussions – who they are and what their future is too. I don’t want to get ahead of that. But what the Secretary has also said is as we work through this transition, it’s important that the institutions of government, the functioning institutions – the institutions that the people of Syria are going to need to continue to rely on – need to stay in place. That – so whether it’s economic, educational, perhaps even military, those institutions have got to stay in place. But what they look like, who leads them, how they’re administered going forward – all of that’s going to be part of the negotiations, which is why it’s so important to get the parties together as early in the next year as possible. I just couldn’t tell you exactly what that’s going to be right now. That’s why it’s important to keep having these meetings. QUESTION: And my last point is on the opposition. The latest reports suggest that the Free Syrian Army, which you invested so much in, is basically collapsing. People are joining – defecting and joining other groups and so on, and that is the most moderate group. I mean, listening to the debate last night, it was quite enlightening – some of the debaters were saying, “Who are these moderate opposition groups that you keep talking about?” Who are they? MR KIRBY: Said, I mean, we’ve talked about this a lot. I’m not going to – I’m certainly not going to parry and thrust campaign rhetoric. I won’t do that. We’ve long said the opposition groups are fluid and that people do come and go. We’ve admitted that even in some opposition groups, people can develop over time extreme views that no longer represent the moderate views of the opposition group that they joined. It’s a fluid, dynamic environment. We understand that. But we also recognize that there are lots of moderate opposition groups. And to answer your question, look at what happened in Riyadh last week. There’s your answer. There’s your moderate opposition. A hundred and sixteen participants of the opposition got together to talk about the future of Syria and what they want to see out of this political process. So to deny that there’s a moderate opposition I think just belies the facts, since we -- QUESTION: Do you consider -- MR KIRBY: -- since we had – hang on a second – since we had a big meeting in Riyadh. QUESTION: What -- MR KIRBY: And we recognize it’s a fluid situation, but it doesn’t mean that a moderate opposition doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean – and you don’t have to look any more than – closer than the communique that came out of Riyadh to see that they are capable of unifying around some core principles, and they’re capable of driving for themselves those negotiating points that they feel are important to take forward. QUESTION: Do you consider Ahrar al-Sham a moderate opposition? MR KIRBY: I don’t – there’s a process right – going on right now that’s going to work through this that the Jordanians are leading. We’ve talked about this group in the past. We’ve been honest about the concerns that we’ve had about some of their behavior. QUESTION: But they were at the Saudi conference. MR KIRBY: They were, they were. QUESTION: And they were so moderate that you’ve never given them any – any material assistance at all? MR KIRBY: We – they were – that conference was convened by the Saudis. I’ve said before we did not get into – we provided our input. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: The Saudis convened this group – the conference. The work about who is going to be able to move forward in a political process is still being done by Jordan. We need to wait to get the results of that. QUESTION: But you just described them as the moderate opposition. MR KIRBY: I said that if you look – and all you have to do is – to deny that there is a moderate opposition, which was the premise of the question -- QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: -- all you have to do is look at what happened in Riyadh to see that there is, in fact. I didn’t go through the list of every single group that was invited to Saudi to make a determination. QUESTION: So some in Riyadh made it – were moderate, that’s your position? MR KIRBY: Absolutely. QUESTION: Okay. QUESTION: What constitutes success for you on Friday? MR KIRBY: Well, there’s – there’s two components to Friday, and I kind of alluded to this in a – in the opening statement. The morning will be another round of the ISSG. It will be roughly the same 20 participants that were in – that participated in Vienna. At least that’s – that’s, going in, work that’s being done, and those are the same participants being invited. And so the goal there is to continue to try to better define what we think the political transition and the process itself should look like; to try to put more fidelity on the notion of a ceasefire, and again, how that would be monitored and implemented; and to have for the benefit of the whole group a chance to learn more about what happened in Riyadh to sort of read that out and make sure that everybody has a common sense of understanding about that. Then in the afternoon, meetings at the UN. The goal there is to arrive at a resolution – a UNSC resolution – that codifies the very process that we’ve been talking about under UN auspices. We talked about – a little bit about this yesterday. The pieces of that would be, again, the political transition, describing that process – the process that was laid out in Vienna about the six-month talks between the opposition and the Assad regime, and then the 18 months subsequent to get at the drafting of a constitution, but to codify all that, as well as hopefully and potentially codify some framework pieces about a ceasefire. QUESTION: What does getting more fidelity on the notion of a ceasefire mean? MR KIRBY: Well, I think -- QUESTION: More clarity or? MR KIRBY: A deeper sense of understanding of what that would look like and how it would – I mean, how it would be implemented, monitored, how it could be most successful. I mean, there’s a lot of – as you well know, Arshad, I mean, ceasefires are complicated things, and they’re complicated things to keep track of, they’re complicated things to see succeed. And so obviously, that’s going to be all the more so in a place like Syria. So there’s lots of details that have to be hammered out about that. QUESTION: Do you want to have monitors on the ground? MR KIRBY: Again, those are the kinds of modalities that I think need to be – need to be fleshed out. QUESTION: Well, given how loathe most governments have been to committing troops to – ground troops to Syria, what makes you think that governments would be willing to have monitors on the ground? Or is that just off the table? MR KIRBY: No, I don’t think we’re at the stage now where we’re ruling anything in or out in terms of monitoring. It’s important that, just like the political process, we’d want the ceasefire to be under UN auspices, and the UN has a history of monitoring ceasefires in the past. But how that would be done, with what resources, to include manpower – I think we couldn’t possibly answer that question for you. I mean, that’s part of why it’s important to continue these discussions. QUESTION: John, just quickly to follow up on this composition of the new Islamic front that is led by Saudi Arabia with so many different countries. It conspicuously excludes Iraq and Syria, which are in the forefront in the fight against ISIS. Is that logical or illogical in your judgment? MR KIRBY: I think you should talk to the Saudi Government here about this decision that they’ve – that this coalition that they’ve talked about. This was a – this was led by Arab states there. QUESTION: Okay. And how do you envision their participation? How should it be? Like one unified army would have -- MR KIRBY: It’s not for us to say, Said. QUESTION: Right. MR KIRBY: It’s for the Arab states to talk about. The – we – as I said yesterday – QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: -- we would like to know a little bit more about this proposal. But in the aggregate, as it represents an effort to coalesce those states against terrorist threats to include ISIL – and that’s what we’ve been wanting to see, is intensification by everybody against this threat – I mean, that’s welcome. But there’s a lot more we would still like to know about it. QUESTION: Yeah. Just following up on what you said yesterday, I mean, do you take this coalition or whatever statement was made in the Saudi press about this coalition as solid, their commitment is solid? Or is it just another announcement in a series of announcements that were made in the past and so on where nothing really has materialized on the ground? I mean, do you see this really happening and coalescing in a way where it can impact the situation in the field, on the ground? MR KIRBY: We certainly welcome the announcement. There’s more yet we need to know, that we’d like to know, but we certainly welcome the announcement. And we – obviously, anything that could lead to a more multilateral, effective manner of bringing resources to bear against ISIL and intensifying efforts to degrade and destroy their capabilities – obviously, that would be – that’s a good thing. And so to the degree this coalition that they’ve talked about can help us all get there as an international community, that would – that’s obviously very positive. But there’s a lot we still would like to know about it, and we’ll see. I would remind you, as I said yesterday, all those nations are part of the 65-nation coalition that are fighting ISIL. And everybody understands – well understands – that the locus of energy against ISIL is in Iraq and in Syria. I think that goes without saying. QUESTION: The deputy crown prince said the reason for creating it was because these countries are uncoordinated currently in how they fight ISIL. I thought they were all part of your coalition and you were coordinating them. MR KIRBY: They are part of the coalition. We – it’s not – efforts that every nation is applying against ISIL inside the coalition are coordinated, but they are also – now, we’re talking military efforts, particularly air power and whatever forces are on the ground in a train and assist – all that is coordinated. But not every nation brings to the coalition military prowess. Some – many contribute in many different ways. QUESTION: He said it. It’s not me saying it. He said it was uncoordinated and that’s why they had to do this. MR KIRBY: Well, I’ll let him speak for his views. I mean, if -- QUESTION: You disagree with that? MR KIRBY: I – when we’re talking about military coalition efforts against ISIL, they are coordinated. They are obviously coordinated. In fact, we’ve had this debate about Russia, right, and how come we’re not coordinating with Russia. And – because they don’t share the same objectives as the coalition. So the military efforts are well coordinated. There’s no doubt about that. But not every nation brings to the coalition military prowess, has military capabilities, as I said. I don’t – I did not see those comments. I would not speak for the deputy crown prince and what he meant. But if he’s referring to the fact that Arab nations can do more and can contribute more and can maybe do so in a better team effort, well, I certainly am in no position to question that assessment since he’s living there and since he’s a leader in his nation. As I said to Said, if this effort leads to more intensification and more efficiency and effectiveness against ISIL, that’s a good thing. QUESTION: Did they – one last one. Did they coordinate this announcement with you or let you know ahead of time they were going to announce this new coalition? MR KIRBY: Well, you know we don’t talk about diplomatic discussions. But we were not surprised by it. QUESTION: So one other question on this, if I may. There are governments that say that they were invited to share in some kind of a – kind of intelligence sharing or coordination center in Saudi Arabia, and that what the Saudi senior officials announced in a coalition was not something that they were given to understand. We’ve got officials from Indonesia saying this and officials saying this on the record. Does that give you pause that there doesn’t seem to be clarity on the part of all of the members of this coalition on what it’s supposed to do, and some of them didn’t understand what they were signing up to? MR KIRBY: Again, I would let – I’d have to let those nations speak for themselves. Is – one point that I didn’t make that I think is important to say, and the deputy crown prince said as much when they announced this, is this isn’t just about ISIL. This is about violent extremism and terrorism and the threats writ large that emanate from that. So our sense is, based on their comments about this, that they’re taking a broader view here, a broader regional view than just ISIL, which is, of course, the most significant threat we all face. But as for plans to set up a coordination center and – or an information-sharing hub, whatever you want to call it, and how that’s materializing, I would point you to Saudi authorities to speak to how they’ve done that and the degree to which they’ve communicated that to other nations. That’s – we are not party to this effort and it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the process under which they’re establishing it. QUESTION: But it doesn’t worry you, though, that they’re clearly – this is not – does not seem to be all knitted up here? I don’t know, why wouldn’t it be? MR KIRBY: We want all nations, particularly in the region, to do everything they can against the threat of terrorism. We certainly want to see all nations in the region step up and intensify their efforts against ISIL, no question. We are doing the same. We’ve taken a hard look at what we’re doing against ISIL and we’ve decided to intensify our efforts too. So we’d like to see all that as coordinated as possible. But again, without having direct knowledge of the process itself through which this was established and the communication that was done to establish it, it’s hard for me to answer your question. QUESTION: (Inaudible.) MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: (Inaudible) from Azerbaijan. How do you assess the meeting between Chairman James Warlick and the separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh? A couple days ago, the chairman meet with separatists in the Congress. How do you – do you assess it? MR KIRBY: I don’t know that I – I may have to take your question, ma’am. I don’t know that I have a reaction for you on that specific issue, okay? Let me -- QUESTION: At -- MR KIRBY: Let me take the question for you. Yeah. QUESTION: Yes. On Taiwan, China criticized the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Do you have a response to the opposition? MR KIRBY: Yeah. Were you talking about the meeting in late December? Is that what you were talking about? QUESTION: Yes. MR KIRBY: I might have something on that. (Laughter.) QUESTION: Surprise. MR KIRBY: It took me a little while. QUESTION: It just came to you. MR KIRBY: No, no. It just came – yeah, I just flipped to it. So this is a – you’re talking about a meeting between the Azerbaijani and the Armenian presidents, supposed to be held at the end of late December? Is that what your question was? QUESTION: No, no. (Laughter.) How do you assess their meeting between the Chairman James Warlick and separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh? Because last day ago, a meet with separatists in the Congress. MR KIRBY: Yep, going to have to take that one. Going to have to take that one. You asked about Taiwan. All right, let me – hang on a second here. So today the Administration notified Congress of a 1.83 billion defense arms sales package to Taiwan. This notification follows previous notifications by the Administration, totaling over 12 billion. Today’s notification is consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and our support for Taiwan’s ability to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. There’s no change to our longstanding One China policy based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. QUESTION: Follow up? MR KIRBY: Janne. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: A follow-up on Taiwan? QUESTION: On North Korea? MR KIRBY: You guys fight it out. QUESTION: Yeah. MR KIRBY: Which one do you want? QUESTION: Follow up. MR KIRBY: Follow up. Go ahead. QUESTION: It’s worth asking about. QUESTION: Go ahead. Go ahead, follow up. QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Go ahead, follow. QUESTION: So -- MR KIRBY: Justin says it’s worth asking about. QUESTION: (Inaudible) 1.83 – that’s a lot – billion. QUESTION: What – could you tell us what makes you to decide to sell arms to Taiwan after four years you haven’t done anything? MR KIRBY: What makes what? QUESTION: What makes you to decide – to make this decision after four years? You haven’t sold any arms to Taiwan in the past four years. Why now? MR KIRBY: Look, we make decisions on arms sales to Taiwan based on our assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs, period. And we’ve been – I mean, this is not something that hasn’t been long in coming. It’s – but we make these decisions based on our assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs. QUESTION: But what -- MR KIRBY: That’s the only factor. QUESTION: We have seen recently the cross-strait relation has been improved. The two leaders has – they just had a historic meeting in Singapore last month. And also U.S.-China also have lots of close cooperation in many areas. So do you take these factors into your consideration? MR KIRBY: The factors that we take into consideration are – is our assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs. Always has been and will continue to be the deciding factor for these sales. QUESTION: But would you consider to try to minimize the repercussion for U.S.-China relation? MR KIRBY: This – we – this is not a new thing, our support to the defense needs of Taiwan. Nothing’s changed about our One China policy, and as I said at the outset, these sales are in complete concert with that policy. They’re done based on a clear-eyed assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs. As for our relationship with the – with China, that is – remains an important relationship that we’re going to continue to work at. And because we are being consistent, there’s no other message that needs to be taken away from this other than that we take seriously our commitment to the defense needs of Taiwan. QUESTION: But just last one -- QUESTION: John -- QUESTION: -- the Chinese foreign ministry actually just said they asked the U.S. to cancel its sales to Taiwan to avoid harming its relation across the Taiwan Strait and between U.S. and China. MR KIRBY: Well, look, I mean, the Chinese can react to this as they see fit. This is nothing new. Again, it’s a clear-eyed, sober view of an assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs, and that’s what drove this. There’s no need for it to have any derogatory effect on our relationship with China, just like there was no need in the past for it to ever have that effect on China. We still want to work to establish a better, more transparent, more effective relationship with China in the region, and we’re going to continue to work at that. QUESTION: John, to follow up, one is that you did not consult with China on this arms sale. Do you? And then secondly, you just said that this arms sale is a reflection of assessment of Taiwan’s self-defense capability. So is this sale a reflection that Taiwan is not – does not have enough -- MR KIRBY: No, it’s based on an assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs, which we routinely conduct, period. That’s it. And we have been in contact with Taiwan and PRC counterparts today on this very matter. I’m not going to get into the detail of diplomatic discussions, but we have been in contact. QUESTION: You have been in contact with PRC today regarding this arms sale? MR KIRBY: Yes. QUESTION: Did you tell them before or after you notified Congress? MR KIRBY: I would just tell you that we’ve been in contact with them today, and I won’t talk about the details of diplomatic discussions. QUESTION: Is it -- QUESTION: Was it after the notification to Congress? I can’t imagine you’d tell them before, but -- MR KIRBY: I won’t go any farther than I just did. QUESTION: Okay. QUESTION: John -- QUESTION: I mean, it seems like -- QUESTION: Last question. QUESTION: Sorry. QUESTION: A follow-up on that. It seems like the message from the Chinese Government is that this will negatively impact cross-strait relations. Is that not a concern? MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to the Chinese about that and their view of this. I mean, I’m not going to speak for them. As I said, this is based on an assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs. It’s in keeping with our policy. There’s no change in that, and there’s no reason for this to have a derogatory effect on the relationship with China. It’s based on a clear, sober-eyed – a sober, clear-eyed view of our assessment of Taiwan’s defense needs. I’m going to have to only take a couple more and then I’m going to have to go. Yeah. QUESTION: Back on Syria real quick. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: It sounds like the U.S. and Russia are narrowing their division on the list – who’s the terrorists, who’s not a terrorist, who’s in the opposition. Do you hope to further close that gap on Friday? MR KIRBY: I think we need to see what comes out of Jordan before we can make a definitive statement about closing any gaps. And I won’t – until Friday, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to get out ahead of that process. I think the Secretary spoke to this in Moscow yesterday, that it was a good discussion with Foreign Minister Lavrov and President Putin, and that they are both working hard to try to solidify not just our views about what a political transition can look like, but the international community’s. So again, without getting into details and getting ahead of the meeting on Friday, I can just say that the – there is solid political momentum and diplomatic momentum as well. We want to see what the Jordanian effort produces before I think anybody’s going to be able to sort of make a call here one way or the other. QUESTION: John? QUESTION: If there are these – if there are differences, could it – are you concerned it could complicate or stall the process in any way, these lists with the various gaps? MR KIRBY: If there’s -- QUESTION: If there’s differences. Even after Jordan, U.S., Russia -- MR KIRBY: I mean, there’s – obviously, there’s still differences of opinion about a lot of things with respect to the political future of Syria. If there weren’t, there’d be no reason to sit down and talk on Friday in New York. And as I’ve said earlier, I think you can fully expect that there’ll be additional multilateral settings going forward. Nobody expects coming out of New York City on Friday that every issue’s going to be resolved. So that’s the task of diplomacy. That’s what it – that’s what it’s all about, is to try to narrow the gaps as much as possible and to make the necessary compromises for the greater good. And that’s why it’s important, again, to go to New York and to continue these discussions. But if you’re asking me if remaining gaps are going to sort of put a grind or halt the process, I don’t believe the Secretary thinks that that’s the case at all. I mean, for him it’s – it makes it all the more important to continue the process because there are still differences and because there are still things that need to be resolved -- QUESTION: John? MR KIRBY: -- not just between the United States and Russia, but inside the ISSG writ large. Yeah. QUESTION: Did – Jordan has given a draft to you? I mean to understand the process. Because Jordanians, the – at least will be a suggestion, right? I mean, what’s -- MR KIRBY: As far as I know, that work is still ongoing, and it’s an iterative process. So I don’t want to -- QUESTION: Did you receive any -- MR KIRBY: -- I don’t want to set up the expectation that this is some sort of homework assignment where these -- QUESTION: No, but I mean did you receive any draft, and did you reply to Jordanians on this draft? MR KIRBY: As I said, it’s an iterative process, the work’s ongoing. I don’t have a report or a report card to hand to you and show you what it is. The Jordanians are still working their way through this. And if that work is complete in time for the discussion in New York so that the international community, the ISSG – which Jordan is a member – can sit down and talk about it, then they will. But if it’s not done, that doesn’t mean the meeting in New York still won’t happen and still won’t be important. QUESTION: All the ISSG members gave this authority to Jordanians? I mean, how they will determine the groups, for example? By vote or -- MR KIRBY: It was a consensus view coming out of Vienna that Jordan would take the lead and work on this, and they are. QUESTION: A last question on -- QUESTION: Could you please provide some explanations on yesterday’s statement of John Kerry in Moscow saying that if Minsk agreement are implemented in full, sanctions against Russia would be lifted? And does it mean that Crimean issue is no more on the table anymore? And -- MR KIRBY: Does that mean that what’s not on the table anymore? QUESTION: Crimean issue. The annexation of Crimea is not an issue and not a strong argument for your sanctions? MR KIRBY: No. We still don’t recognize the annexation of Crimea. That very much is still an issue, and the Secretary said that there will – there can be no sanctions relief with respect to eastern Ukraine without a Minsk agreement being fully implemented. And look, the onus is on Russia to meet its commitments. He was very clear about that. QUESTION: A belated question on this. This is on the – President Putin’s decision to suspend the free trade agreement with Ukraine. MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, the -- QUESTION: Russian President Putin today said that he had made a decision to suspend a 2011 free trade agreement that the United – that Russia and Ukraine had had. Do you have anything on that? MR KIRBY: I don’t know if I do. Well, it’s not in my Ukraine tab. Let me see if it’s in my Russia tab. Is that where it is? I’ll have to take the question and get back to you. QUESTION: Yep. QUESTION: Also on Ukraine? Yesterday the Secretary said twice something to the effect of there is no policy of the U.S. to isolate Russia. MR KIRBY: Right. QUESTION: I remember after the seizing – the annexation of Crimea, the President himself spoke about taking steps that will isolate Russia. When did this policy change, that no longer are you actually taking steps or trying to isolate Russia? MR KIRBY: There’s no – there – there’s no change to talk about, Brad. QUESTION: Oh, of course not. MR KIRBY: What we’ve said is Russia will, as it – with respect to Ukraine and Crimea, that they took actions that isolated themselves and that the sanctions were only going to make it – they were only going to raise the cost on Russia as a result of their own actions which were isolating themselves. And that’s what the Secretary’s referring to. There’s not a – there’s not an object policy in place that is – you pull it off the shelf and here’s the isolate Russia policy. QUESTION: There isn’t? There never was any policy like that? MR KIRBY: They are, through their own actions -- QUESTION: All right. MR KIRBY: -- isolating themselves. And that’s why the Secretary raised the issue in Moscow and thought it was important to do so. Got to go, guys. I got to go. Oh, I’m sorry. You – I promised you. Wait, one more question. North Korea. QUESTION: Okay. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had – has admitted that recently (inaudible) I mean hydrogen bomb to pursue the China to exert influence in North Korea. Do you think China is cooperating with the United States? MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything for you on that, Janne. And we wouldn’t talk about intelligence matters anyway. QUESTION: All right, thank you. MR KIRBY: All right, thanks. (The briefing was concluded at 3:03 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.
|
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
[wanabidii] Press Releases: Daily Press Briefing - December 16, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment