Daily Press Briefing
TRANSCRIPT:
12:11 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MS. PSAKI: Good afternoon.
QUESTION: This is the first time in history I think the briefing has ever been moved up.
QUESTION: Just made it.
QUESTION: Is there a reason for that?
MS. PSAKI: No, actually there’s a group of journalists from around the world here for the Edward R. Murrow Program.
QUESTION: We just spoke with them.
MS. PSAKI: So I’m going to a lunch with them, and I wanted to see if I could attend it, and I know you – none of you ever mind an early briefing.
QUESTION: All right, so conspiracy theorists should stand down. Is that what you’re saying?
MS. PSAKI: Conspiracy theorists should stand down, yes.
QUESTION: Why are you willing to be on time for them but not for us? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re here, aren’t we, Arshad?
QUESTION: Today, yes, but what about all the other days?
MS. PSAKI: We want to make sure we’re as prepared as we can be for the questions you’re going to ask, to be honest.
Okay, a couple of items for all of you at the top. The – I know there is a statement or there will be a statement from the White House, but I want to just reiterate from here the United States Government expresses its deep condolences on the passing of Zambian President Michael Chilufya Sata. Our sympathies are with the president’s family and with the people of Zambia during this time of mourning. We anticipate a peaceful and constitutional transition and welcome Vice President Scott’s appointment as acting president in line with the Zambian constitution. We note that the passing of President Sata came just days after Zambia celebrated 50 years of independence. As President Obama wrote President Sata on October 21st, the U.S. Government is proud to count Zambia as a partner through its first 50 years.
Also, on Russia and Ukraine, we’re deeply concerned about new criminal charges expected to be filed against Ukrainian pilot Nadia Savchenko, who’s currently undergoing a forced psychiatric evaluation in Russia’s infamous psychiatric hospital, the Serbsky Center. These new charges that she illegally crossed the border into Russia defy logic. Ms. Savchenko was abducted in eastern Ukraine by Russia-backed separatists and smuggled to Russia against her will. Her detention, which earlier this week was extended through February 13th, is an outrage and a violation of Russia’s commitments under the Minsk Agreement. We urge Russia to release her immediately.
Finally, Assistant Secretary of State Danny Russel and Vietnamese Vice Foreign Minister Ho Xuan Son will lead the U.S. and Vietnamese delegations today for the fifth U.S.-Vietnam Asia-Pacific Dialogue at the State Department. The two delegations will discuss a range of regional and global issues, including preparations for the upcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit, the East Asia Summit, and the U.S.-ASEAN Summit in November. Vice minister – Vietnamese vice foreign minister, sorry, also met with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman today to review U.S.-Vietnam relations ahead of the 20th anniversary of bilateral relations in 2015 and discuss – and to discuss regional and global issues.
Matt.
QUESTION: Twenty years already?
MS. PSAKI: Already.
QUESTION: It seemed like just yesterday that –
MS. PSAKI: Time flies.
QUESTION: Yes, indeed. All right, so I want to get back to Russia and Ukraine, but that can wait for a little while into the briefing. So let’s start – well, I wanted to start by just saying the state of relations between the U.S. and Israel – discuss. But since that will leave you with far too much room to maneuver, how about this, and I’ll try and keep this family-friendly by using the phrase “chicken salad” rather than the other word: What is going on here? Why are there senior Administration officials running around trashing the prime minister of Israel?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say on your first question, even though it wasn’t a real question, the U.S.-Israel relationship remains strong, our security bonds have never been greater, and the ties between our nations are unshakeable. We remain fully and firmly committed to Israel’s security. On the comments, we think such comments are inappropriate and counterproductive. I spoke with Secretary – the Secretary about this this morning, and he certainly feels strongly that a war of words is not productive from either side. Obviously, we believe that moving forward, it’s in the best interests of both sides to address any issues that may arise appropriately and respectfully and not through personal attacks.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, just because they’re counterproductive and unhelpful, or whatever it was that you said, doesn’t necessarily mean that whoever said them doesn’t think that, doesn’t agree with the sentiment – with the “chicken salad” sentiment itself. So are there those in the Administration who believe that this is an accurate depiction of or an accurate description of Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously, as you know, the article was sourced to anonymous sources in the Administration. So does that individual, whomever they are, think that? Perhaps. But the Secretary of State, the President of the United States, people who are leading our relationship don’t view that language and those words as appropriate or accurate.
QUESTION: All right. And you said that this – you – when you spoke to the Secretary about it this morning, he said – or you said as a result of your conversation with him that you don’t think name-calling or whatever, a war of words, between either side – by either side is appropriate.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So that suggests that you think that some on the Israeli side have been doing similar if not the same. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’re all familiar with not just public record but media reports over the last several months. Certainly, we don’t think that is productive or constructive in our relationship at any point in time.
QUESTION: Do you think it says anything about the fact that when the Israeli – when Israeli Government officials have criticized the Secretary or the President or whoever, they have actually done so by name or their names have been attached to it, and this Administration, when it seems to want to vent frustration or irritation with the Israelis, does it under cover of anonymity. Do you see –
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think also these comments, as you know, were from an anonymous source. I don’t know who that individual was and what level they were at. So I’d also certainly take them with a grain of salt.
QUESTION: Do you have suspicions?
MS. PSAKI: I do not.
QUESTION: Are you trying to figure out – is the Administration trying to figure out who made these inappropriate and counterproductive comments?
MS. PSAKI: No.
QUESTION: Why not?
MS. PSAKI: There are anonymous sources in all of your stories every single day. If we spent all of our time focused on that effort, we wouldn’t be working on diplomacy.
QUESTION: Well, that’s true, but a lot of anonymous sources are speaking on background and they are authorized to speak on background, correct?
MS. PSAKI: And many are not –
QUESTION: This one – are you –
MS. PSAKI: — as I don’t have to tell all of you, who are reporters.
QUESTION: Well, that – yes, true. But so you’re saying that – you’re not disputing that an official in the Administration said this, but you’re saying that they were not – that if they did say this, they were speaking only for their – on their personal view. Is that what you’re saying?
MS. PSAKI: I think it’s more accurate to convey that it’s – I’m not disputing the accuracy of the reporting of the reporter. I don’t have any other information beyond that.
QUESTION: Right. But you’re saying that if someone in the Administration said this, it’s a personal view rather than a –
MS. PSAKI: I just said it’s not representative of the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that the comments attributed to the anonymous U.S. official were authorized?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t. No.
QUESTION: Okay. And did you see Prime Minister Netanyahu’s response, and in particular his reference to the security of – I think he said the Israeli people and Jerusalem, although he may have said Israel and Jerusalem. But implicit in his comment was that Jerusalem is theirs, which, of course, is not a position that the United States – belongs to Israel – which is not a position that the United States –
MS. PSAKI: Are you referring to his comments from yesterday or –
QUESTION: I saw them today.
MS. PSAKI: I think – I didn’t – I know he made comments like that yesterday, I believe. I don’t think they were in response to this article, but –
QUESTION: I think – let me see if I can find it during the course of the briefing.
QUESTION: He made other statements today too.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Well, we’ll take a look at those. I spoke to the comments from yesterday, but you can continue if there’s another question on that, or if you want to find them we can go back to this.
QUESTION: Well, given your disavowal of this official or these officials’ comments made anonymously, is the Administration giving any thought to granting Israel an apology, as one official suggested today to Haaretz?
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ll be clear, as the Secretary speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu pretty frequently, as all of you know. And if this issue comes up, he would make clear this isn’t the position of the Administration.
QUESTION: Let’s talk about something that –
QUESTION: Have they – hold on. Just – sorry. Just very brief.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Have they spoken since yesterday afternoon?
MS. PSAKI: No. They have not since yesterday afternoon.
QUESTION: Well, let’s talk about something that was brought up in Jeffrey Goldberg’s article near the end – the suggestion that because of the Administration’s deep frustration with the Netanyahu government, that next year at the United Nations it would remove its cover, it would not run interference for Israel on contentious issues – everything from the Palestinians’ status to questions of human rights. Is that accurate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, Roz, our position hasn’t changed. We’re not going to get ahead of, obviously, actions that have not yet been taken, but we strongly believe that the preferred course of action is for the parties to reach an agreement on final status issues directly. We’ve long made clear that negotiations are the means to do that. I don’t think that has changed for quite some time.
QUESTION: But no – but his point was –
QUESTION: Can I go back to my question? Oh, sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah. But his point was not so much on a specific policy issue but just on the fact of whenever Israel comes up for criticism at the United Nations, the U.S. has been pretty much lockstep in voting to protect it, to issue – yeah.
MS. PSAKI: Right. I just – I think I just addressed it by conveying our position hasn’t changed. I’m not going to get ahead of actions that have not been taken or laid out.
QUESTION: Can I just ask on the basic premise of Roz’s question?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Is there frustration within the U.S. Administration about what the positions that Israeli prime minister or Israel as a country has been taking in recent months?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as in any diplomatic relationship, if there are points of frustration, we’ll raise those through appropriate channels. I think the point is that doing that publicly is not constructive or productive.
QUESTION: But do – is there a feeling that, perhaps within the Administration, that you’ve run your course, that there’s nothing much more you – you tried to start – restart talks and those collapsed for the reasons we know. The settlement building is still going on; something that you condemn as incompatible with any pursuit of peace. So is there a feeling within this Administration that, basically, you have run your course of what you feel you can do with Israel?
MS. PSAKI: No, that’s not how we view it. The Secretary and his team continue to look at various options to push forward objectives and, obviously, the objective of reaching a two-state solution. But as we’ve made clear, it’s ultimately up to the parties. And if they’re willing to go down that track, then we’ll be there to support them. But obviously, it’s not currently on that path.
QUESTION: Have you any reason to believe that Israel is willing to go down that track?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think they’ve stated that they’d like to see a two-state solution. Obviously, actions, as I’ve said – as I said yesterday, like the announcement of new settlements are counterproductive to that.
QUESTION: So the –
MS. PSAKI: Or contradictory, I should say.
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead, Arshad.
QUESTION: Just – can I follow up on Jo’s question?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you – is there a feeling that while the Secretary of State wants to keep pushing the two-state solution that this – that Netanyahu is not the leader who will do it? I mean, it was very strongly stated in the article – it called him a coward, couldn’t take the political decisions necessary, only looking after his political future, whatever. But is there a sense in the State Department, a sort of unease, about Netanyahu not being the one to deliver on this?
MS. PSAKI: No. The – Prime Minister Netanyahu is the leader of Israel. The Secretary speaks to him on a regular basis. That doesn’t change the fact that neither have sides – neither side has made the choices necessary in order to move towards a two-state solution. Obviously, you know what happened this spring. So that remains the facts.
Go ahead, Arshad.
QUESTION: So the exact quote from today from Prime Minister Netanyahu is, “Our supreme interests, chiefly the security and unity of Jerusalem, are not the main concern of those anonymous officials who attack us and me personally, as the assault on me comes only because I defend the state of Israel.” It’s that phrase that the prime minister of Israel says, that Israel’s “supreme interests” are the security – are “chiefly the security and unity of Jerusalem.” Does it dismay you to hear that formulation, particularly the one on the unity of Jerusalem, given your position stated not two minutes ago that these are all matters, including Jerusalem, that should be subject to negotiation?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, I don’t know that that’s a new view by Israel or the prime minister, and you’re certainly well aware that, obviously, the status of Jerusalem is a final status issue that would need to be discussed and addressed. I think our issue with the recent construction building is that it’s prejudging an outcome, and it’s not one that certainly the other side has agreed to. So I think that’s why we expressed such a strong concern about that issue and those announcements, I should say.
QUESTION: Jen, just back to one of Roz’s questions. You do not – the Administration does not intend to apologize to the prime minister for those comments of the –
MS. PSAKI: I think I conveyed –
QUESTION: But is that –
MS. PSAKI: — we intend to make clear that it’s not representative of –
QUESTION: But do you feel – you don’t feel the need for an apology because this was said by an anonymous official rather than, let’s say, the Vice President saying something about Turkey, in which – or Saudi Arabia – in which he makes a phone call to apologize for?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously every circumstance is different. I think I’ve been clear and the Secretary will be clear when he speaks with Prime Minister Netanyahu next that it doesn’t –
QUESTION: Do you know –
MS. PSAKI: — represent our views.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you know when that might be? They have the call planned?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t, though they speak every couple of days, so –
QUESTION: Okay. And then I think my last one on this is: It is being widely opined that this whole kerfuffle marks a low point in U.S.-Israel relations and that the relationship is in crisis. Do you feel – does the Administration think that the relationship with Israel is in crisis?
MS. PSAKI: We do not. We do think that there are moments where we disagree. We obviously disagree with the settlements that they announced earlier this week.
QUESTION: Well, is this –
MS. PSAKI: We expressed that.
QUESTION: Is this one of those moments? Because I mean, I think people in this town are probably the only ones who think it isn’t in crisis.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, I’m – what I’m conveying is that there are issues where we express concern and there’s disagreement. But that doesn’t change the fact that we have an unshakable bond with Israel – the United States does – and that will continue.
QUESTION: And that doesn’t – I mean, and you think that those – it’s the position of the Administration that when there are differences they should not be aired in a rude, insulting, or otherwise impolite way. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. So why isn’t – there are certain people – Senator Cruz, your favorite senator, one of them – saying that the President and the Secretary of State should find out who said this and fire them. Why not make an effort if this is – you think that this is unhelpful and destructive to the relationship, these kinds of comments? Why not make the effort to find out?
MS. PSAKI: Matt, our focus is on continuing to work closely with Israel on their security, continuing to work through any areas of disagreement.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: And that’s where it will remain.
QUESTION: But this Administration also has a history of trying to force reporters into revealing their sources, does it not?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think you’re talking about some specific incidents that are different than this one.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Should we move on to a new topic?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: No questions today? Okay. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Yes, I have one.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know. I thought a lot was in the news this morning.
QUESTION: I have a related – a somewhat related Israel –
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: It’s not Israel. It’s Egypt, actually. You were asked yesterday about Gaza buffer zone in Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: Yes, I was. I talked to our team about this. There’s still a bit we don’t quite know about how it would be set up or how it would look. We’re talking to the Egyptians about that. We certainly share their concern about security in the area, but we also expect the Government of Egypt to ensure that the rights of those being displaced are respected. So we’re having an ongoing discussion with them.
QUESTION: How exactly do you go about protecting the rights of people you’re forcibly evicting from –
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’re trying to determine more information on how this would look, what it would be. Obviously, we understand they have security concerns. We respect that. We help them quite a bit, as you know. But – all right, in the back. Egypt or –
QUESTION: But in general, do you support such a move such as that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I’ll leave it as what I just said. Obviously, we understand they have security concerns. We are – believe that the rights of those being displaced need to be respected. So we’ll keep having that conversation.
Any more on Egypt, or we can move on? Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: In your talks, were there any indications from Egypt on about how many people, families, would be affected?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of detail. I can see with our team, but I doubt we have that level of detail here.
Egypt or –
MS. PSAKI: Azerbaijan, okay.
QUESTION: This week, you know Azerbaijan, Armenian, and French president meet in Paris. I would like to know what’s the Washington viewpoint about this meeting, and how is Azerbaijan and Armenian – is close for big name peace agreement?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we continue to encourage the sides to take constructive steps to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The sides can build on the momentum generated during the President’s three meetings this year by adopting measures that builds trust and confidence, and certainly that can be done through dialogue. Secretary Kerry also had meetings, as you may know, in Wales. And they can also enter into a genuine negotiation process to advance a peaceful and lasting settlement to the conflict. So certainly, we would encourage that through dialogue.
Arshad, go ahead.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Israel for a moment?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: And I apologize; I wasn’t here yesterday, but at least from a quick glance at the index of yesterday’s briefing it’s not clear to me whether these topics came up. On Monday, you were asked if you had any sense of where the – you had called for a speedy and transparent investigation into the death –
MS. PSAKI: Oh, I did talk about this yesterday –
QUESTION: Did you?
MS. PSAKI: — or the day before. Yeah.
QUESTION: It was the day before, but I think we had asked for a follow-up, because the day before, on Monday, you did not know kind of where that investigation stood.
MS. PSAKI: I did talk about it yesterday a little bit. I mean, I talked about how the Israeli national police is handling the investigation on the death of the three-month-old, talked about the 14-year-old. We continue to press for –
QUESTION: Okay, I’ll go back and look at it. Apologies.
MS. PSAKI: And we can talk, of course, more.
QUESTION: And then there’s nothing new on –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new today.
QUESTION: So you’re still waiting for the Israelis to complete the investigation. Is that –
MS. PSAKI: Yes. And we continue to press them for a speedy resolution in every conversation.
QUESTION: And there was –
QUESTION: And finally, is there any involvement of the Palestinians in the investigation or Palestinian authorities?
MS. PSAKI: I would refer you to the Israelis on that question. They’re leading.
QUESTION: But – yeah, but you guys asked for – I’m asking you because you asked for a speedy and transparent investigation. Surely one aspect of transparency would be that you would actually know who’s doing the investigating. And I guess I’m interested in –
MS. PSAKI: The Israeli authorities are leading it, so that’s why I would refer you to them for who’s participating in it.
QUESTION: But in terms of the other comments that were made that raised eyebrows, caused a little bit of kerfuffle, it’s still the opinion of the Administration that this – that the Palestinian American teenager should not be identified as a terrorist? Is that – I wasn’t here yesterday either.
MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed. We’re talking about a 14-year-old’s death, which is tragic under any circumstances. Obviously, there’s an investigation that’s ongoing. We don’t condone violence, but we’ll let that play itself out.
QUESTION: And do you yet – since I presume you’re in touch with the Israeli authorities about their investigation, do you yet have clarity on the question of whether the 14-year-old Palestinian American was indeed throwing a Molotov cocktail before his death?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more information on that. We’ll let the process see itself through.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: But I’m more than happy to see –
MS. PSAKI: Are there any more on Israel? Okay.
QUESTION: Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So another story that was published yesterday, this one in The Wall Street Journal, talks about how the Administration is seeking detente or a detente with Iran. There was a lot of stuff in there that I think has been public knowledge and we already knew, i.e. the negotiation not with Hamas but through Turkey and Qatar with Hamas. But there was another part of it about intelligence sharing with the Lebanese and helping Hezbollah. Is that accurate?
MS. PSAKI: I will check with our team on the specific component. Let me say about the story in general that, as we’ve been clear since the beginning of the P5+1 talks and our – kind of any engagement with Iran, our focus is on the nuclear issue. It doesn’t mean it hasn’t changed our concerns about other issues with Iran as it relates to human rights, state sponsorship of terrorism, and we’ve consistently raised those concerns and will continue to.
So – and on Hezbollah, obviously, our positions on Hezbollah – and Hamas, of course, since it was also mentioned in there, I believe – haven’t changed. We continue to believe they’re both designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. We are concerned about Iran’s support for both groups. I can check if there are any other specific –
QUESTION: But you’re not helping them out in any way?
MS. PSAKI: I would be shocked, yes.
QUESTION: Well, there’s shocked and then there’s Claude Rains shocked.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: And also on Iran, in The Atlantic story, this – or one of these unnamed officials talks with some apparent pride about how you, the Administration, was able to forestall an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Is that part of what the official said the Administration’s view, or is that again just a personal –
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a range of comments in that story about Iran, as you know because you’ve read it. I will say that obviously, it’s been no secret that our objective is a diplomatic – is continuing on a diplomatic path and taking a diplomatic approach. And that’s why we are pursuing the JPOA or we’re implementing it, and why we’re pursuing a comprehensive agreement. So clearly we want to prevent military action. I don’t think we’ve made a secret of that.
QUESTION: Right. But are you proud of the fact that the – is the Administration proud of the fact that it, quote/unquote, “boxed” Israel in or out of conducting some kind of military operation against the Iranians?
MS. PSAKI: No. We are proud of the fact that we reached an agreement that was credible and that was able to stall and roll back the program. Obviously, there’s more work to be done. That’s why we prevented additional action.
QUESTION: Well, that’s one side of looking at it. The other side is that you’re proud that you managed to forestall a military attack on Iran, which Israel believes to be an existential threat to its –
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think the objective here – which we share with Israel, even if we don’t agree on every component of how to get there – is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
QUESTION: Okay. So in other – right.
MS. PSAKI: And that is why anybody is talking about military action.
QUESTION: But – okay, so it’s just a way of looking – it’s just a different way of looking at the same thing. It wasn’t – you’re not proud of boxing – you say you’re not – the Administration isn’t proud of boxing Israel out of an attack, but yet you are proud of what you did that had that effect.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we have been consulting, as you know, with Israel very closely at very high levels throughout the course of the Iran negotiations.
QUESTION: Right. And how’s that going?
MS. PSAKI: I would say we have an open dialogue, Matt, and we talk with them about where the status of the negotiations are, and we hear their concerns, and we have through the process.
QUESTION: The Israeli officials, from the prime minister on down, are dead-set and publicly vocal about their opposition to this. So this ongoing dialogue doesn’t seem to have done anything in terms of bringing the Israelis on board, if that’s the right way to put it. Is that not correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, I think we are continuing to work on this. Obviously, we don’t have a comprehensive deal at this point in time. The proof is in the pudding, the details matter, and we’ll continue to consult with Israel as we pursue that.
QUESTION: All right. So my last one, then, on this is that – one often uses the phrase “glass half-empty, glass half-full.” Is it not possible for people or is it not logical for people to look at what you just said, that you’re proud of the JPOA and the fact that that managed to stall at least in the short term the – and roll back the Iranian nuclear program – is not another way of looking at that, or is it illogical to look at that and say you’re also happy that you prevented a military attack on Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the – I think what I’m getting at here, Matt, and what I tried to get at was that we have been very open and forward about the fact that we would prefer a diplomatic option and a diplomatic path to resolving this to a military option. That’s why, in part, we’ve been pursuing this – these diplomatic negotiations. So I don’t think –
QUESTION: Okay. Well, look, I’m not trying to make an argument either way. I just want to know if you think that it is not logical to look at what has happened and conclude that the Administration is happy or glad, proud, that it managed to do something or negotiate something with the Iranians that prevented a military strike.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we are going to see where the comprehensive negotiations lead. Certainly, we’d prefer for that to continue and proceed than a military outcome. I don’t think we’ve made any secret of that.
QUESTION: Did you see the – there was a report yesterday that – or this morning that the Iranian Government had to deny publicly to its parliament that a deal has been reached, which, according to one MP, crosses Iran’s redlines. I wondered if you had a reaction on that.
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what that means. Can you tell me a little bit more about what they –
QUESTION: Well, I think it means more that they’ve obviously set what they believe their parameters will be on what is acceptable, and according to one parliamentarian who was talking in the parliament, he said that there was a deal that’s been reached that – “the redline’s been crossed in an implicit agreement which will no doubt weaken the rights of the nation and trample upon all our nuclear achievements.” And so the Iranian Government had to come out and say no, we haven’t reached a deal yet. And apparently the foreign ministry’s actually thinking of prosecuting this guy now.
So I wondered if you had any reaction to that, and whether you – and what it signals in your efforts to try and reach this deal with – before November 24th.
MS. PSAKI: Well, it is accurate. Otherwise, you would all know that we haven’t reached a deal. But we’re continuing to work on it. Obviously, we’re at a pivotal point in time. I don’t know that I have much more of a reaction than to convey that we’ve known from the beginning that there are political audiences and different political challenges for each country, including Iran. And so perhaps that component is not a surprise.
QUESTION: Is your deal – what the P5+1 is prepared to offer, is that on the table and it’s now up to the Iranians to accept or not –
MS. PSAKI: I’m not –
QUESTION: — or is it still to be tweaked?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into that level of detail, other than to convey that even the technical experts are continuing to meet. There’s many – there’s much more work that needs to be done, so I would assume there’s more work that needs to be done.
QUESTION: And Secretary Kerry’s meeting with Cathy Ashton today at a dinner – what’s that – what’s the purpose of that?
MS. PSAKI: He is, but she’s – he’s hosting the dinner in her honor given that her term is ending. And so, as you know, he’s worked very closely with her over the last two years, wanted to have a chance to thank her and – for her leadership on many issues that we work together on. It’s not a working dinner, but certainly, we wouldn’t be surprised if Iran was discussed.
Okay, I’m almost getting the hook, but let’s do some more here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: The hook?
MS. PSAKI: It’s been about 30 minutes. I have to go to this lunch.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Secretary Hagel made some remarks this morning, and –
MS. PSAKI: Secretary Hagel, did you say?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: And he said we’re not going to get everything right, but we – there’s some big things we’ve got to get right, and he talked about China and climate change. Do you think the State Department has the same idea of what big things have to be gotten right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would absolutely agree. If you spend any time with Secretary Kerry – and anyone who has, they would know that he brings up climate change in almost every opportunity, every meeting, every dinner, every discussion. And he’s certainly been leading the charge on this front within the Administration. So his discussions with the Chinese – a part of the agenda has continued to be climate change and standards. And he discussed that with State Counselor Yang just a few weeks ago when he hosted him at his house in Boston, and we certainly expect that will be a prominent topic of discussion next week when there are APEC and EAS meetings.
QUESTION: Can we talk about something else that Secretary Hagel raised?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The fact that he’s accepted the Joint Chiefs’ recommendation that all U.S. troops who are working on the Ebola response will be spending 21 days, at least, in isolation once they return from their assignment – is there now any thought in this building of having a similar requirement for those in the State Department who have been helping out with the Ebola response? And if so, why; if not, why not?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, any State Department Official would certainly abide by regulations, whether they’re federal regulations, state regulations, et cetera. And obviously, there were some that were just announced by the CDC two days ago, so I’d point you to that.
I would just highlight the fact that there is a difference between military troops – thousands that may be returning – and the diplomatic corps, which is a smaller number, as you know. And our view at this point in time is that that can continue to be managed through the regulations that have been put forward.
QUESTION: But does – consider the fact that the troops that have been deployed – and not all 3,000 have been deployed – are not supposed to be working with any infected persons. They’re at most setting up facilities that others would be using.
MS. PSAKI: I was touching on the numbers.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: The numbers.
QUESTION: But still, they’re saying that even though there’s still a very small risk that any U.S. forces would possibly be exposed, they’re doing this out of an abundance of caution and out of an effort to try to reassure the families of those who are serving.
MS. PSAKI: I understand that.
QUESTION: So what’s the difference?
MS. PSAKI: I saw Secretary Hagel’s comments. The difference is what I just outlined about the numbers and how we manage it.
QUESTION: I’m curious, though, Jen. I mean, it only takes one person to infect several. As we saw in Dallas, it was one person with it who infected two.
MS. PSAKI: Which is why the CDC put in place new regulations.
QUESTION: Right, I understand that. But I don’t understand why the difference – how many – I mean, there’s got to be a couple hundred American diplomats in these three countries and –
MS. PSAKI: Not who travel back to the United States and – on that regular basis.
QUESTION: They don’t ever come home?
MS. PSAKI: Not in one day, no.
QUESTION: All right. Well, on – I’ve got two more on Ebola.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: One is on – do you know anything about the CDC or you guys being involved in a conference in Cuba about how to deal with Ebola?
MS. PSAKI: I can check on that for you, Matt.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Not that I’d heard of.
QUESTION: And then the last one on this is: There was a report last night and again this morning about this memo that was – the State Department memo –
MS. PSAKI: Sure, let me address that.
QUESTION: — about bringing –
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. One, just factually, the document referenced was drafted by a midlevel official but not cleared by senior leaders. It never came to senior officials for approval. And any assertion that the memo was cleared by decision-makers is inaccurate. There are no plans to medevac non-Americans who become ill with Ebola to the United States. We have discussed allowing other countries to use our medevac capabilities to evacuate their own citizens to their home countries or third countries subject to reimbursement and availability. But we’re not contemplating bringing them back to the United States for treatment.
QUESTION: So the – but essentially, what you’re saying is that one guy somewhere in this building came up with this idea and put it on paper, but it never went anywhere? Is that what you’re saying?
MS. PSAKI: Correct. It’s also weeks old and the memo isn’t current because European – our European partners –
QUESTION: All right. Okay.
MS. PSAKI: — have addressed this matter by providing their own guarantees, but go ahead.
QUESTION: One problem that – I mean, that I see is that a week ago, the Pentagon and the White House was insisting that, no, no, no, there is no overall quarantine order and it’s just this one commander, or these guys who are in Italy. And now all of a sudden, today we have Secretary Hagel saying no, it’s going to be – it’s Pentagon-wide and it’s going to go to all of the troops that are there. What is there to prevent this memo from coming back to life, as it were –
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think with this –
QUESTION: — and becoming policy? Has it been flat out rejected or is it just kind of sitting on a shelf someplace and maybe could be implemented at some point?
MS. PSAKI: It’s sitting on a shelf or on a computer – since we use computers nowadays – by the individual who wrote it, I suppose. I think the important point here is that our European partners, since several weeks ago when that was written, have addressed this by providing a guarantee to international health workers that they would either be flown to Europe or receive high-quality treatment on the spot. So it’s not applicable at this point.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, in general, why was this never approved? I mean, it seems – I mean, you could make the argument that the U.S. has great healthcare facilities, that no one who has contracted the disease in the United States has actually died. So I think there might be some who could make the argument that why not bring people?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, but many countries have decided to make that decision to deal with it themselves, and we’ve certainly been discussing with them how to do that.
QUESTION: So this has been discarded as unnecessary rather that rejected –
MS. PSAKI: It was never discussed at any levels, in any serious level with decision-makers. So I don’t – wouldn’t say it was discarded, but –
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Along the lines of what Matt was saying, on page 5 of the memo, it says that it was approved by Nancy Powell, the head of the Ebola Coordination Unit. Doesn’t that suggest it was fairly further along in the process?
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to look at the approval memo. As I understand, and just so you know, sometimes there are people listed. It doesn’t mean they cleared it. It just means there are people who need to clear a memo. So I will check and see if there was anybody who actually cleared it.
QUESTION: Do you know if the memo was being circulated to other agencies like Homeland Security?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any information on who it was circulated to.
QUESTION: Can we switch to Russia-Ukraine?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin is quoted as saying that Russia has been invited to take delivery of a Mistral helicopter landing ship on November the 14th. Is that your understanding?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t have more information other than to point you to the fact that the French would have to actually deliver those in order for that to be accurate. President Hollande said just a couple of weeks ago that the ceasefire needs to be entirely respected in Ukraine and that the Minsk accord needs to be fully implemented in order for France to proceed with delivery of the first Mistral-class helicopter carrier to Russia. So I would point you to the French to see what they would say about that.
QUESTION: Absent those circumstances obtaining regarding the Minsk plan and the full respect of the ceasefire, et cetera, would you want the Mistral to be delivered?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we continue to believe that his comments and their decision was a wise decision. So we certainly support it.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about your opening –
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — or your second one, just on the –
MS. PSAKI: Savchenko?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: What do you mean by expected to be – charges expected to be filed? Is there – have there been reports to that effect?
MS. PSAKI: There have been reports to that effect, yes.
QUESTION: And what – so you believe that she is covered by the Minsk agreement on releasing prisoners?
MS. PSAKI: Prisoners. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is that – and what makes you say – and I don’t know, but you’ve described this place that she’s being held as an “infamous Russian psychiatric facility.” Is this –
MS. PSAKI: It’s well known on the ground is what my understanding is, Matt.
QUESTION: Okay. Infamous or famous?
MS. PSAKI: Well, infamous has a –
QUESTION: I know.
MS. PSAKI: — more negative undertone, as you know.
QUESTION: Right. Didn’t you say “infamous?”
MS. PSAKI: I did.
QUESTION: You did. Okay. So this –
QUESTION: On Kobani?
QUESTION: Is it not infamous from the Soviet era?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, I believe that’s the case. You two can get together after the briefing and discuss it.
QUESTION: All right. But anyway – but you’re – so you’re deeply concerned that they’re going to file these charges, but you don’t know that they are. It’s just that –
MS. PSAKI: We don’t have more information than what I just outlined, obviously. We’re just concerned about her –
QUESTION: Gotcha.
MS. PSAKI: — treatment and ongoing detainment.
QUESTION: On Kobani. Do you have any update on the passage of Peshmerga members and FSA members to Kobani today from Turkey?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen the reports that Peshmerga forces are crossing into Kobani. We welcome the support they would provide to Kobani’s defense. We’ll certainly let officials on the ground confirm when that’s done, completed, or the status, I should say.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Russia just for one second? Sorry. You can finish.
QUESTION: About FSA members, do you have any idea how many members have crossed the –
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen reports that a group from the Free Syrian Army have crossed into Kobani, and we’d welcome their support. But I would point you to Turkey and the FSA for more specifics.
QUESTION: You have no numbers?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more numbers. I’d point you to them for that.
QUESTION: My apologies –
MS. PSAKI: One, and then we’ll go to you, Lalit.
QUESTION: — if this came up yesterday. Did it – I don’t know if it did or not. The Russian foreign ministry or the Russian embassy has responded to what you said the other day about – did that – did this come up yesterday?
MS. PSAKI: No.
QUESTION: Okay, all right. So they say that not only are they not harassing U.S. diplomats in Moscow, but that you guys are breaking all sorts of traffic rules and that their diplomats here, or Russian officials here, are being harassed as well with these incessant phone calls and attempts at recruiting. Do you have any response to that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I said the other day, but it’s worth repeating, the safety and well-being of our diplomatic and consular personnel abroad and their family members is something we take very seriously. We also take very seriously the safety and well-being of foreign diplomats and consular officials, and we take our commitments under the Vienna Convention very seriously. Personnel at U.S. embassies and consulates respect local traffic laws, as they are required to do by the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations, and we – they are expected to pay fines for traffic violations such as parking and other issues. I know there was a reference in the story which you just referenced, or referenced in the comments, I should say.
I’m not going to, obviously, get into intelligence matters, but we regularly engage and continue to work and will continue to work with our Russian counterparts on a variety of issues, including this, of course.
QUESTION: Including when you say that, “engage,” that means you’re trying to recruit them to be spies?
MS. PSAKI: Well, no. I’m talking about any concerns –
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: — they would like to express or discuss.
QUESTION: And I just have to – I mean, I realize that the situation in New York with parking tickets and all that kind of thing with the UN is one thing. But I’m not sure how you can say that you guys respect all local traffic laws when the city of London has been complaining for years that you’re refusing to pay the congestion fees, which amount to millions and millions and millions of dollars. So how do you square that?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I would put the two in the same category, Matt. Obviously, I’m referring to Washington – we do around the world. I don’t know all the circumstances around that, Matt, but –
QUESTION: All right. But you would deny or you say that it is not correct that Russian officials in Washington are subjected to harassment like these incessant phone calls and such?
MS. PSAKI: I would say we take our commitments under the Vienna Convention very seriously.
QUESTION: But that doesn’t mean they’re always respected. Just taking them seriously doesn’t mean they’re always respected. And I’m not suggesting that this is not – this is only a one-way street. It’s clearly there’s a two – clearly, both sides are doing things that are – have annoyed the other side. Is that not accurate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ll – you have seen our reports on our views.
All right. Let’s just do a few more here. Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: On Bangladesh. The U.S.-Bangladesh Partnership meeting is going on in this building. Do you have a readout of it, what being discussed – what has been discussed? I think it concluded today.
MS. PSAKI: I think it did convene today. Under Secretary Sherman, I think, was involved in this.
QUESTION: Yes. Yesterday –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a readout. Let me check with our team and see if we can get you one after the briefing.
QUESTION: Okay. And one more: Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan is traveling to the region, and then he’s going to China for – attending the Istanbul conference.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you know what U.S. wants to achieve in this conference in Beijing this week?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I – this is another topic I can get you a little more on, but I would just say that part of our engagement is talking to partners around the world who have had a role in Afghanistan and working with the security forces there as we plan for our wind-down of our troop presence. And certainly, there are a range of countries that can play a role, so I would expect that will be the focus of the discussion.
QUESTION: I have –
QUESTION: Can we just go back to Bangladesh?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, but –
QUESTION: I have one more.
MS. PSAKI: — could we do one more Lalit, and then we’ll go to you? Okay.
QUESTION: It’s on India. The Vietnam’s foreign minister is traveling to India, and India has announced to help Vietnam in training its forces and also supplies some of its missiles – BrahMos missiles – to Vietnam. How do you see India’s move in this? China is obviously irate about it.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly encourage strong relationships in the region. I don’t have more details than that, so I’d point you to those countries to speak to that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: A Bangladesh court today imposed a death sentence on an Islamist leader for war crimes during the 1971 war of independence. Some of his supporters have already protested the sentence. Does the United States believe that the – there have been fears expressed that these trials are not very transparent and they’re kind of a political ramification from the tensions that have been going on for decades in Bangladesh. Does the United States believe that the trial was fair and transparent, and do you have any kind of concerns about any further violence breaking out?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say, as we have said since the time of the first verdict in Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal, we support bringing to justice those who committed atrocities in the 1971 war. We understand the importance of this process in closing a painful chapter in Bangladesh’s – Bangladeshi history.
We also believe – as you touched on, Jo – that trials should be fair and transparent, and in accordance with international standards Bangladesh has agreed to to uphold through its ratification of international agreements, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As Ambassador-at-Large Stephen Rapp has said, countries that impose a death penalty must do so with great care in accordance with very high standards of due process and respect for fair trial guarantees. I’m not in a position to evaluate the trial, other than to convey that those are values and standards that we expect countries to abide by.
QUESTION: What about the fears of more violence, possible – because it’s a very divided society? Do you believe that there could be further violence on the streets of other cities outside of the capital?
MS. PSAKI: I have not talked to our team about that specifically. I haven’t heard predictions of that, but let me talk to them and see if there’s more to convey.
QUESTION: Very quickly –
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: — a colleague has asked me to ask about North Korea and reports that Kim Jong-un had 10 more people executed.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on that?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
We’ve seen the press reports regarding the execution of North Korean officials. We don’t have independent confirmation from here, of course, but if confirmed, this is another example of the extreme brutality of the North Korean regime. Otherwise, we’d refer you to the Republic of Korea for any additional information if they have it.
QUESTION: The Republic of Korea, not the DPRK?
MS. PSAKI: Correct, although I think you –
QUESTION: Because –
MS. PSAKI: I think you have a reporter there, but –
QUESTION: They’re not exactly the most forthcoming.
MS. PSAKI: Yes, I would guess that. Most opaque and – one of the most opaque.
Okay, let’s just do a few here.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I just ask very briefly – there was a landslide in Sri Lanka today –
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — in some tea plantation area. I believe there were earlier this morning around 300 people missing. Has your Embassy on the ground been in touch with the local authorities, is there any help being asked for, and are there any American citizens involved, as far as you know?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, our heart goes out to the people of Bangladesh, the Government of Bangladesh. I’m not aware of specific –
QUESTION: Sri Lanka.
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry, Sri Lanka. Let me say that again.
Our heart goes out to the Government of Sri Lanka and the people of Sri Lanka. I’m not aware of specific requests that have been issued – I can check and see if that has changed – nor am I aware of American citizens involved. But obviously, these events are just happening, so we can keep you abreast if any new information becomes available.
All right, let’s just do one more, and then –
QUESTION: Okay, one more.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: The minister of public order of Greece was here yesterday at the State Department. As I understand, he have several meetings with officials from the State Department, the CIA, et cetera.
MS. PSAKI: Which minister was this? I’m sorry.
QUESTION: The public order. He’s responsible for terrorist and –
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. Can you give us a readout, and if you can’t right now, can you send us one?
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check and see if we have more to offer on that front.
Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 12:58 p.m.)
DPB #184
The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
Source: Dept. Of State – Releases
Collected Department Releases: Daily Press Briefing: October 29, 2014
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire