Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 30, 2014
Index for Today’s Briefing
TRANSCRIPT:
12:44 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Okay. I think we have a quorum. A couple of items for the top: The United States extends its deepest condolences to the Government and the people of Sri Lanka and the families affected by the recent landslides. The United States has received an official request for assistance from the Government of Sri Lanka. The ambassador – our ambassador on the ground has exercised her authority to declare a disaster and request assistance from Washington. The Department of State is currently working with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to respond quickly. We commend the Government of Sri Lanka and its armed forces for their rapid response and valiant search and rescue efforts.
It has been 100 days that – since Jason Rezaian, a U.S. citizen and reporter for The Washington Post, has been detained in Iran. That is 100 days too long. We echo the appeals of his family and friends and repeat our call for his immediate release so that he can be reunited with his loved ones. We also call for the release of U.S. citizens Amir Hekmati and Saeed Abedini, and again ask the Iranian authorities for their cooperation in finding Robert Levinson.
Finally, yesterday, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk were in Doha, where they met with Qatari Prime Minister al-Thani, the minister of defense, and assistant foreign minister to discuss cooperation with Qatar across the five lines of coalition effort. They conveyed their appreciation for Qatar’s participation in coalition airstrikes in Syria, noted our support for steps Qatar has taken to counter ISIL’s access to financing, and discussed a number of other ways in which Qatar can continue its contributions to international coalition efforts.
They then traveled to Abu Dhabi, where they met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed and other senior Emirati political, military, and national security officials. They also conveyed their appreciation for the UAE role in military airstrikes in Syria, noting important steps that the UAE has taken to tighten their counterterrorism laws and make it illegal for Emiratis to fight abroad. As with other stops, they discussed a number of steps in which the UAE can continue its contributions across the five lines of global coalition efforts.
They then traveled to Muscat for meetings with senior Omani political and military officials. While there, they conveyed their appreciation for the strong and historic partnership with Oman, and found broad agreement on the threat of ISIL and the comprehensive strategy for confronting it.
In all three countries, they also thanked interlocutors for their efforts in confronting ISIL online and countering ISIL’s messaging. Senior Emirati, Qatari, and Omani officials joined the U.S. and Kuwait in making strong statements at the Communicators Conference in Kuwait earlier this week. While there is still work to be done, we are encouraged by the consensus views.
I should also note, just so you’re all aware, that General Allen also did interviews with Al Jazeera, al-Arabiya, and Sky News Arabia, and the – I should say the transcripts of those are up on the website if anyone wants to take a look at them.
Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Thanks. Let’s start in the Middle East. The situation in and around Jerusalem is tense, to say the least, and getting intenser or more tense. I’m wondering if you have anything to say about that, as well as about the shooting of an American citizen last –
MS. PSAKI: I do, and I – you can all expect we’ll send out a written statement from the Secretary about the situation on the ground as well. That should be out later this afternoon.
But let me say we condemn yesterday’s shooting of a U.S. citizen in Jerusalem. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family. We’re in touch with authorities as we seek more information.
We’re extremely concerned by escalating tensions across Jerusalem and particularly surrounding the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. It is absolutely critical that all sides exercise restraint, refrain from provocative actions and rhetoric, and preserve the status quo in – on the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount in word and in practice. It must be reopened to Muslim worshippers. The continued commitment by Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians to preserve the historic status quo at this holy site is critical. Any decisions or actions to change it would be both provocative and dangerous.
And finally, we’ve been in close touch, as I’ve mentioned or alluded to, with senior Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian officials to try to de-escalate the situation. I expect the Secretary will be speaking with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the next 24 hours as well.
QUESTION: But – so since this shooting happened last night, there hasn’t been any –
MS. PSAKI: No. They’ve been working to schedule a call.
QUESTION: All right. And then you said – any change to which situation would be provocative and dangerous? I’m sorry.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we support the longstanding practices regarding non-Muslim visitors to the site, to Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. And consistent with our respect for the status quo, we would like to see it returned to that.
QUESTION: You would like to see a return to what it was yesterday, before the shooting happened?
MS. PSAKI: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And you said it would be – it must be reopened to non-Muslim worshippers – or must be reopened to Muslim worshippers.
MS. PSAKI: Right.
QUESTION: Should – what is –
MS. PSAKI: The status –
QUESTION: — the U.S. position on non-Muslim worshippers who might want to go to –
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s consistently been the case that we believe that Muslim worshippers should be able to worship, that there’s been a consistent –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — position of the United States.
QUESTION: Right. But you condemn the shooting of an American citizen who had advocated for non-Muslim worshippers to be able to go. But you don’t support that –
MS. PSAKI: Our position has not changed. It doesn’t mean we don’t condemn, of course, the shooting –
QUESTION: No, I understand that.
MS. PSAKI: — and the death of an American citizen.
QUESTION: I get that. But he advocated something that you don’t necessarily support. That’s – or he advocated –
MS. PSAKI: Our position hasn’t changed on this issue. That’s true.
QUESTION: Okay. That’s it for me.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) can I bring up what – so the Secretary has not spoken to Netanyahu since the slur, the U.S. slur – and I won’t repeat it.
QUESTION: Come on. Let’s have some fun.
MS. PSAKI: Matt called it chicken salad yesterday, I think.
QUESTION: Chicken salad?
QUESTION: Yes. We can say chicken scratch. How’s that? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So there’s not been a discussion over the last few hours?
MS. PSAKI: They’ve been working to schedule a call. We’ve reiterated that that is not the position of the United States. You’ve heard Secretary Kerry say that himself this morning. So –
QUESTION: One of the things that he also said this morning was that on the idea of getting the Israelis and the Palestinians back to the table and getting an agreement – he said we still think it’s doable. How on Earth can he think that it’s still doable, given the situation as it is today, and given the – whether or not chicken scratch is appropriate or whether or not it was said or whether or not – whatever, with the tensions that have built up between Washington and the prime minister?
MS. PSAKI: How is it possible?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think what the Secretary was referring to in response to a question was the fact that, of course, we’re always going to keep the door open to a peace process and one that would achieve a two-state solution. We feel that’s the only way to have final, lasting peace in the region.
QUESTION: Right. I mean, you can’t – your business is to not close off an option. But I just don’t understand how he can say that he thinks that it’s still doable in the current –
MS. PSAKI: Well, he didn’t indicate it was starting tomorrow. Obviously –
QUESTION: He was kind of forward — I mean, he was kind of optimistic, in a climate where – I mean, the name-calling and the back and forth notwithstanding, there is some – I mean, wouldn’t you acknowledge there’s some serious tensions in the relationship right now, not only because of this thing that happened the other day, but over comments that the defense minister have made about Secretary Kerry –
MS. PSAKI: Which were months and months ago.
QUESTION: Which were months and months ago, but did result in a little bit of snubbing last week, no matter – I mean, I think it’s been pretty acknowledged.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Elise –
QUESTION: Let me finish.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: And then the settlement construction and all of that stuff – I mean, obviously the security relationship is going to remain sacrosanct, but you provide a lot of political support to Israel right now that I don’t think necessarily they should take for granted, maybe.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Elise, where we have deep concerns about highly contentious planning and construction, we make our views heard, as you’ve heard us talk about over the last couple of days. We’ve certainly also expressed publicly but also privately that taking steps like that are counterproductive to what their stated goal is, which is peace in the region.
QUESTION: Exactly, so how does the Secretary come out and say that restarting peace talks and getting back to the table right now is feasible when you have this – Israelis taking those type of actions, the Palestinians are looking to go to the United Nations – I mean, don’t you think it’s a little bit rosy assessment of where things are right now?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think that was his intention. He was making clear that – and reiterating what we’ve said many times and what he believes, which is that this is the only way to resolve this cycle of tensions that we’ve seen in the region. And that’s why he will keep the door open and remain available as long as he is in this position.
QUESTION: So he was saying that it’s possible, as opposed to saying that it looks like they could do it at any – I mean, imminently.
MS. PSAKI: Well, he also said and has said many times that, of course, it’s up to the parties to make those choices, and certainly, we can’t do that for them, and that’s his belief as well.
QUESTION: Jen –
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry – is this still on Israel?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: In your opening when you talked about – you said it must be reopened to Muslim worshippers, you’ve seen the Palestinian spokesman or – spokesman for the Palestinian president say that the closure of it was a declaration of war. What do you make of that?
MS. PSAKI: We wouldn’t characterize it in that way or echo that.
QUESTION: Well, is that the kind of language that you’re looking for?
MS. PSAKI: We didn’t characterize it that way, so I don’t think it’s –
QUESTION: Well, okay, fair enough. The Israelis have been accusing President Abbas of inciting this kind of behavior. Do you believe that that is the case?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly have been encouraging the leaders of all parties to exercise not only decisive leadership, but to work cooperatively together and lower tensions, and obviously, lowering tensions means lowering rhetoric and also taking actions that reflect that.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Jen, you said you’re extremely concerned with the situation in Jerusalem. In terms of the security operation that you’ve seen so far, are you concerned with that or are you so far satisfied; you just don’t want an escalation?
MS. PSAKI: Do you mean by the Israeli authorities?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. PSAKI: I wasn’t speaking to that. I was speaking to the tensions that obviously we’re all aware are happening on the ground right now.
QUESTION: Right, but so far, you haven’t seen anything that you’ve found to be disturbing –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know if there’s – if you want to be more specific, what – might be more helpful.
QUESTION: I’m going to move on, actually –
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — just to the slur. There seems to be a sense in Jerusalem that there are folks in the Administration that are holding back open, public, coordinated and – criticism of Netanyahu and his government until the midterms. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that because that’s something that’s come up frequently in this room.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I can assure anybody who thinks that that the President and the Secretary of State don’t feel – feel that those comments were inappropriate and counterproductive, and they’ll feel that way next Wednesday as well.
QUESTION: Sorry, they “do” feel it was –
MS. PSAKI: They do feel, yes –
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: — and they will feel that way next Wednesday as well.
QUESTION: One point of language that was authorized that I saw from one of your colleagues at NSC was that the U.S. Government is deeply concerned about Israel’s future, and that was a criticism that I thought was – that I hadn’t seen before and that it was particularly broad and piercing. Has that been the case for some time? Why –
MS. PSAKI: Do you have more context of what was said? I’m not sure what else was said around that specific comment.
QUESTION: It was from one of the spokespeople at the National Security Council, and they said – were saying that we’re deeply concerned about Israel’s future and we’re going to continue expressing our concerns, we’re not going to paper over our differences. But there’s a difference between, like, individual policy differences and being deeply concerned about Israel’s general future.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, obviously, we’ve been speaking about tensions in the region. I would point you to them to ask more specifics on that question.
QUESTION: Well, can I ask about Sweden?
QUESTION: Wait – oh, okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. Israel recalled the ambassador in Sweden in protest of the recognition of a Palestinian state. Now, I mean, are you concerned that this is not a one-off? There’s a lot of talk in Europe about other countries accepting a de facto Palestinian state. And so I’m just wondering when you talk about – kind of concerned about the future, it doesn’t seem like Israel will just continue to be able to call ambassadors around the world. I mean, do you think this is the right way to be dealing with this instead of addressing the issue?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly believe that the status quo is not sustainable and have long believed that. And obviously, no one wants to see a situation where there’s a cycle after cycle of violence and tensions and that the Israeli people are concerned about their safety and security, the Palestinian people have concerns. That’s why we support a peace process and a resolution.
As it relates to Sweden – and let me just reiterate this just so we can get it out there – as you know, we support Palestinian statehood, but it is – it can only come through direct negotiations between the parties that resolve final status issues and end the conflict. Certainly, it doesn’t require our view. It requires the facts out there of what we’ve seen from some countries responding to the lack of a resolution of a peace process out there, and I think that speaks for itself.
QUESTION: Jen, sorry for being late. On this very point, it can only come about through direct negotiations. Direct negotiations have been going on for a very long time, for the better part of these last 23 years, and we really have not seen a state for the Palestinians let alone sort of the end of settlement activities and so on. In the absence of a – at least on the horizon, in the absence of any kind of breakthrough in the near future, what would you advise the Palestinians to do in order to sustain a place where they can build a state and at the same time not cross you, so to speak?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, it’s a fair point you’ve raised, in the sense that it’s not just negotiations. It’s obviously a direct – a final status agreement between the parties that will resolve the tensions over the long term. So that certainly is what our goal and our objective is. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, certainly both sides can take steps to reduce the tensions, and that relates to rhetoric and actions, and that’s what we would encourage them to do.
QUESTION: Does the idea of, let’s say, the United States that has been really this sort of husbander or the shepherder of this whole peace process all throughout – doesn’t it become more palatable, the idea that the U.S. should sort of propose its own, knowing that we know where the state is going to be? It’s not going to be on the moon. It’s going to be on the West Bank and Gaza, right? Roughly ’67 borders. Knowing that, wouldn’t it be prudent for the U.S. to actually take a step and it would not – it would be in conformity with the international law and what you guys agree on, correct?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, it remains the case that it will – would require the parties to agree on every issue –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — whether that’s security issues or borders, as you referenced. So that may feel satisfying for one day of a news story, but we obviously have to factor in a range of factors as we determine what the next steps should be.
QUESTION: But let me just, if you’ll allow me a follow – to follow up – this is like the Hatfields and the McCoys. I mean, both parties are not going to agree or see eye-to-eye on every issue on every detail, and so on. So they’re –
MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s why they need to compromise.
QUESTION: They need to compromise. But don’t –
MS. PSAKI: That’s part of a negotiation.
QUESTION: I mean, don’t you feel that the United States ought to be coaxing them into compromising?
MS. PSAKI: The United States remains ready, willing, available to play a facilitating role and contribute in any way we can. But the parties need to make the choices necessary.
QUESTION: Okay. And finally –
MS. PSAKI: I think we have to move on here, Said, because there are other issues.
QUESTION: Just very quickly, I know you probably addressed the tensions –
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and I’m sure you probably –
MS. PSAKI: I gave a – I spoke about it at the top, yes.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I –
MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead.
QUESTION: I just want to know if there’s any update on the investigations into the two cases of American citizens being killed.
MS. PSAKI: No, there are no updates that I have.
QUESTION: All right. And have you – it’s been some time now. It’s been a week –
MS. PSAKI: It’s been a couple of days, yes.
QUESTION: It’s been about a week.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: It’s been –
MS. PSAKI: It’s been about a week.
QUESTION: — almost a week or more than a – what’s today? Thursday. So one was Wednesday and one was Friday.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, it’s been a week.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you not at all concerned that the investigations are –
MS. PSAKI: We continue to press for a speedy resolution of the investigations.
QUESTION: But would you call this speedy, though?
MS. PSAKI: Elise, it’s been a week. We discuss this in every – almost every conversation we have, but there hasn’t been a resolution yet.
QUESTION: Right, but – right, but there was a resolution to the – a very speedy resolution, apparently, to the – what happened last night.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: That investigation appears to be closed now with the death of the alleged assailant. Is that –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details on the status of the investigation. So –
Go ahead.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) were you able (inaudible) independent sources that he was, in fact, the alleged assassin or would-be assassin? The Palestinians (inaudible) themselves?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details on it than I shared at the top.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Jen, sorry to return to this –
MS. PSAKI: It’s okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: — but I got the context that you were asking for, and I assume, naturally, that this position is the same as your colleagues at the NSA: “We raise our concerns as a partner who is deeply concerned about Israel’s future and want to see it living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors.” Again, maybe I’m harping on it too much, but the language seems to be such that it’s broader – it’s a broader critique. Is that –
MS. PSAKI: I think that statement is pretty clear and consistent with what we’ve said, which is that when you look at recent announcements of settlement activity that clearly are going to raise some tensions in the region, that those type of steps are counterproductive to the stated goal of having a two-state solution. And that’s what it’s referring to.
QUESTION: Jen, I have one more on Sweden’s overture today.
MS. PSAKI: On Sweden? Sure.
QUESTION: Yes. Do these recognitions – and we’ve had several others, several other countries do the same – ultimately, do they weaken the hands of negotiators in that they give the Palestinians a sense that perhaps there are other options, other ways to get the recognition that they are seeking? Will these types of overtures ultimately work against the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven’t had that specific concern expressed by our team who does negotiations. I think, obviously, finding a – coming to a conclusion of negotiations – which we’re certainly not at that point – is – there are a great number of motivations for that, including the fact that the international community would like to see two states living side-by-side, and certainly Israel wants to have not just – Palestinians not just want to have a Palestinian state, but the Israelis want to continue to have productive and constructive relationships with countries around the world. I’d have to talk to them and see if that’s a specific concern they have, not one that I’ve heard them express.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: You were going to get back to us on the reaction to the UN report, which kind of looked for new action against North Korea, possibly recommending a referral to the International Criminal Court.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, that recommendation was included in the Commission of Inquiry’s final report. As you also know, we’re not a party to the ICC, and we typically don’t make specific recommendations. But we do support the recommendations included in the report, and we’ll work with the Security Council on that.
QUESTION: But I mean, just in a more general, without talking about, like, referral to the international court, I mean, do you think it’s time for more international action, in general, to be taken against North Korea for its well-documented human rights violations?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, this is something that the UN and our special rapporteur of the UN has done quite a bit of work on. We’re continuing to work with them. There are a range of recommendations in there that include additional action. So we’ll see what happens with those recommendations.
QUESTION: But I mean, do you think that enough has been done to address North Korea’s human rights record without talking about –
MS. PSAKI: Clearly, North Korea continues to have one of the worst human rights records in the world. So that’s one of the reasons the Secretary did the event, to highlight these issues when we were at the UN – or sorry, at the UN General Assembly meetings in New York. And clearly, there’s more that can be done. What is that and what form it takes is something we’ll have to continue to work with our UN partners on.
QUESTION: Now, thank you to my colleague Matt for asking yesterday about those soap operas. But I mean, on a more general sense, there is a – there are several reports and widespread belief that the regime is continuing to purge party officials. Can you speak to that? Is that a concern of yours? And what does it say about the –
MS. PSAKI: I spoke to it yesterday. I don’t have any more information. I mean – but what I said is that, while I can’t confirm it independently, of course, this is another example of the extreme brutality of the North Korean regime, if true. And certainly if there is more information to be shared, we’ll have more to say.
QUESTION: The regime put out some photos today of North Korea – of the leader, King Jong-un, inspecting fighter planes and the such, kind of trying to portray this image of North Korean military might. And there’s been a lot of rhetoric coming from North Korea, but there’s also been a lot of mixed messages about this charm offensive. So what do you think’s going on, and is there a concern that North Korea could be planning something?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t know that we have much more analysis other than to convey that, clearly, they have their own audience to portray and project who their leader is and what their leader is doing. While I don’t have more details on where he was for quite some time, obviously there were questions raised about that. So beyond that, I don’t have any other predictions of what it means or what the photos might mean.
QUESTION: And just one more. Now that Jeffrey Fowle has been released, is there any optimism that Kenneth Bae and Matthew Todd Miller will be released? Or do you think that that was just a one-off and you have a ways to go on these others?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly continue to press for that. I don’t have anything publicly I can share. Obviously, we’re working on that every single day. But I wouldn’t go so far as expressing optimism. I don’t think we’re quite at that point yet.
QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up question?
MS. PSAKI: On North Korea? Sure.
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to a statement by North Korean foreign ministry a few hours ago that there will be unpredictable consequences –
MS. PSAKI: The North Korean foreign ministry?
QUESTION: Yes, yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: If the resolution on human rights is adopted at the United Nations. Do you have any response?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think without having taken a look at the statement, I would say, as we’ve long said, that that type of rhetoric and threats is unproductive and does nothing to help North Korea take steps to show the international community they want to abide by their obligations.
QUESTION: One more on North Korea.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There was a report – AP report from Pyongyang that North Korea has decided to quarantine all foreigners regardless of where they are coming from to – because of Ebola fears. Do you have a – what do you think of that?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure that there are travelers flowing into North Korea that would be impacted by that, but – and I don’t have any confirmation of that specifically. Obviously, we’ve taken steps here to put in place new guidelines through the CDC that we think are the right approach. Beyond that, I don’t think I have much more.
QUESTION: Well, if you’re taking steps, I mean, don’t you think that all countries should be taking steps?
MS. PSAKI: Well –
QUESTION: Including North Korea?
MS. PSAKI: Every country is going to make decisions as it relates to their travelers, how it impacts them. I don’t have any more specifics or details on North Korea’s guidelines, I should say.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s do Turkey and then we can do – just because we haven’t gone to him yet, if that’s okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkey and Syria, a couple questions.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: One on Turkey. Today, Washington Post was reporting that Turkey and U.S. alliance in crumble, there are some serious problems between the countries. Is there any way you can give us your assessment?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say that – don’t believe everything you read because Turkey remains not only an important NATO ally but a partner in these efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. You’re aware and I’m sure have been reporting the progress being made with the Peshmerga moving in to help push back on ISIL in Kobani. We continue to have an active dialogue with Turkey about additional steps they can take. And as you know, we work with Turkey on a range of issues, so I don’t think that is the view or experience of this building in any way.
QUESTION: On Kobani, I think that there are different numbers regarding Peshmergas. What’s your understanding? How many Peshmergas do you think entered Kobani?
MS. PSAKI: I understand why you’re asking. We’re just not going to be confirming numbers from here. I would certainly encourage you to make that request of Turkish authorities.
QUESTION: Would you encourage more Peshmergas to move? Are you in touch with Turkey or KRG on –
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen the reports. We certainly, as you know, welcome the steps that are – have been taken and are being implemented right now. And we’ll continue to discuss with them what additional role they may play.
QUESTION: Some suggested these Peshmergas, whatever the number is, will be taken care of by the U.S. or the coalition in terms of salaries or other necessities. Do you know anything about that?
MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that. Not that I’m aware of. Our role, as you know, is the airstrikes, and you’re familiar with the drops we’ve done, et cetera.
QUESTION: Yesterday, you issued a statement regarding Syrian regime –
MS. PSAKI: Barrel bombs.
QUESTION: — bombardment on camp. Do you have any channels to channel your condemnation to directly Syrian regime? How do you coordinate or –
MS. PSAKI: I’m not quite sure what your question is.
QUESTION: You do this condemnation publicly.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: My question is: Is there another way you also convey your strong condemnation directly with the Syrian regime?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve long had a means of communicating. We obviously don’t outline that. We talked about how we did that in advance of the airstrikes, but I don’t have any more for you on that.
QUESTION: One more. Saudi Prince Turki just yesterday stated that ISIS wouldn’t be threat if the U.S. had armed Syrian moderate rebels in the past. Do you have any response to that?
MS. PSAKI: Said if – say that one more time.
QUESTION: ISIS – ISIL wouldn’t be threat if U.S. had armed in the past Syrian moderate rebels.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first remind you that, obviously, we increased the scale and scope of our assistance more than a year ago, and we’ve continued to do more to support the moderate opposition, including the train and equip program that you’re familiar with. But I would also remind you that the impact of ISIL or the threat of ISIL is not just to Syria; it’s also to countries in the region. We’ve seen the growth in Iraq. Obviously, we saw the – we’ve seen the growth of safe havens in Syria, but there are a range of ways that the threat of ISIL grew, and I don’t think we would view that as an accurate depiction of what happened.
QUESTION: Conversely, was it unwise, perhaps, to flood the Syrian opposition with so much aid in the past, seeing that, how they morphed into ISIS today?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure – are you suggesting –
QUESTION: Well, I mean many of these elements, many of these moderate elements, sort of morphed, developed into ISIS and have joined ISIS.
MS. PSAKI: I would disagree with that notion.
QUESTION: And perhaps maybe –
MS. PSAKI: Said, that’s not accurate. But go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s not accurate? You don’t think that much of you aid went actually to elements that may have grown to be ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there are times when we would look into this if we feel it’s happened, but making a sweeping statement like that is simply just not accurate.
QUESTION: Do you feel that at least part of your aid may have found its way to groups that are now ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve spoken, as you know, as it relates to even the recent airdrops about the one parcel that did go, but I would caution anyone from making sweeping statements like that. They’re not accurate.
QUESTION: Okay. I’m not talking about recent, but let me ask you this.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: The Syrian regime said today – complained today about the sort of breaching its sovereignty by Turkey, by ferrying Kurdish Peshmerga from Iraq into Syria. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen those comments, Said. We’ll let you know if we have anything more to say.
QUESTION: Do you feel that Syria can assert or should complain about its sovereignty?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, obviously, the threat that we’re seeing in Kobani is also a threat to Turkey; that’s over the border, as you know. But beyond that, I don’t have anything else to add.
QUESTION: So that – it transcends Syria’s –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more to add. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Just one more follow-up. Two days ago, I asked about FSA groups fighting with the al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusrah and whether you plan to coordinate with the FSA. There are a number of reports that the U.S.-vetted FSA commanders are asking more help to be able to fight with the al-Qaida in Idlib province. Do you have anything new on this front?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to provide from here.
QUESTION: Egypt.
MS. PSAKI: Egypt – or go ahead, Lesley.
QUESTION: I have one on this.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) that the Obama Administration has expressed concern about a proposed plan for the president to stay on, even though he’s been ruling for 27 years. Today there’s been further protest over this. Has the U.S. directly told the president or his advisers that he should – the best is for him to step down?
MS. PSAKI: We have been directly in touch with the Government of Burkina Faso. In terms of specifics of the readout, I’d have to check with our team on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Is it your understanding that they backed down on this plan to allow him to run for another term?
MS. PSAKI: That the government has backed down?
QUESTION: That the government has. There were reports to that effect earlier. Do you – are you aware of that?
MS. PSAKI: That is not my understanding from our team on the ground.
QUESTION: That they still intend to try to go through with this.
MS. PSAKI: I haven’t seen a change to the concerns that we’ve expressed, no.
QUESTION: Has there been any change in your view of what’s going on in Egypt and the Sinai and their efforts to create a buffer zone? Do you feel that the regime is conducting itself in a very heavy-handed way?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I spoke –
QUESTION: Is that –
MS. PSAKI: I spoke – no, no –
QUESTION: In the last 24 hours.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, I understand. I understand, Said. I spoke to this a little bit yesterday, but I would say certainly we believe that Egypt has the right to take steps to maintain their own security. And we understand the threat that they are facing from the Sinai. That’s why we have provided the Apache helicopters. We also continue to encourage them to take into account those that would be internally displaced by this, but they’re working through the plan and we’re continuing to support their efforts to take steps to defend their own borders.
QUESTION: The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner gave a very strong statement that Egypt was really abusing or disregarding the human rights of the population of the areas in question. Do you agree with her?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one of the reasons why we continue to reiterate publicly but – and privately as well is that we believe that the impact on the internally displaced would be – is an important factor. But we also believe that they should be able to make decisions about their own security.
I have to go in a couple of minutes, so let’s get around to everybody. Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: I have one on ISIS.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you have any indication of ISIS spreading its wings in countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan? There were some media reports, but do you have any indication of them having base in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
MS. PSAKI: So the last time I talked with our team about this was about a week or so ago, and we’ve seen reports that there are individuals who have said that they are supportive of the objectives of ISIL, but we had not seen anything more widespread than that. I’m happy to check and see if anything has changed on that front.
QUESTION: So just to clarify, you don’t see the IS leaders targeting people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or other parts of India –
MS. PSAKI: Well, we know that there are –
QUESTION: — other parts of the world besides (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: ISIL is – obviously continues to take broad steps to recruit, but in terms of a presence growing or a successful recruitment effort, the last time I spoke with our team about this, that was not something that they were concerned about at this point in time.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Jen, I have a question.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Pam.
QUESTION: Ebola. We – earlier in the week, you mentioned that Ambassador Power, while in West Africa, when she returned, she and her delegation would abide by whatever state guidelines were in place. I know that tomorrow she has a public event in New York. That state at this point is requiring twice-day monitoring by a health official. Is she going to take part in that? Is she taking part in that? And is she doing anything beyond that, considering she’s just back from this affected region and she’s still within that 21-day period?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, she’s on her way back. As we have said from the beginning of her trip, she will abide by whatever state and local authorities require of her and her team in addition to adhering to CDC recommendations. Based on the CDC classification system and her itinerary, we anticipate the trip will be considered low-risk, but obviously, that will be evaluated by the proper authorities. Her itinerary was also reviewed by CDC officials prior to her departure and was not deemed to pose a significant health risk to the traveling party.
As – now that she’s concluding her trip or on her way back, it remains the case that she and her delegation did not have contact with those with Ebola. She did not enter any Ebola treatment units. They observed all hand-washing protocols and conducted temperature screenings, and the delegation was accompanied by health control officers. But in light of that, obviously, determinations will be made based – when she enters the United States, and she’ll certainly respect whatever the recommendations are.
QUESTION: She’s not going to be making any trips to New Jersey. The governor of New Jersey will not abide by the CDC.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I said, she’ll abide by whatever state and federal regulations are.
QUESTION: Just three quick ones –
QUESTION: Well, hold on. Just on that, I mean – I believe that she and her delegation left from Andrews. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t recall what airport she left from.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering what – if the airport that they’re returning to is one of the airports that’s been identified as –
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to her team. I know they may be on a plane, but we’ll check and see if there’s more information we can provide.
Go ahead.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Three weeks out from the 24th, roughly, do you have any substantive status report?
MS. PSAKI: I would –
QUESTION: Has there ever been substantive status reports? (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: I didn’t just say status reports.
MS. PSAKI: For the first time today, I’m going to break down for you what the points of disagreement are. (Laughter.)
The Secretary spoke to this this morning, and I would certainly point you to that. Obviously, this – the latest was that technical experts returned from Vienna last week to brief their capitals. The P5+1 political experts are remaining in close touch and hopefully we’ll have more by the end of this week to tell you about when they’ll be meeting next. We have been clear since the talks started and before – from before that engagement that before they start – or I should say we’ve been clear since they started that this would be difficult. We’re obviously at a pivotal point. We believe we can conclude these by the deadline. I don’t have much more of a substantive update for you. But the Secretary spoke to this this morning, too.
QUESTION: Sure. Just one more, Said.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: There are Democratic aides on the Hill, lawmakers on the Hill, who were saying they don’t want to be surprised – not just by the substance of a deal, but even if there is a deal at all. And obviously, you say that you’re in like unprecedented, close coordination with the Israelis. They also seem to be relatively clueless whether there’s going to be a deal at all. Do you think there’s going to be any sort of sense – will you be saying that you’re optimistic or pessimistic, or will we have a sense before the 24th, or is this going to be a surprise to everybody?
MS. PSAKI: I think if we do our job right, members of Congress will have a better sense than you may –
QUESTION: Yeah. Fair enough. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: — since we will have those conversations privately, since that’s the best way to pursue a negotiation. Obviously, in any negotiation it’s tough to predict several weeks out, which is often the pivotal point, where things will land. We know it’s tough, we’re working at it, and we continue to believe we can get this done by the 24th.
QUESTION: You said “if we do our job right” – is there a question that you might not do your job right?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I was raising a question. I think I was just pointing out –
QUESTION: You said if –
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: — we wouldn’t be discussing it publicly.
QUESTION: And it’s whether we do our job right, right?
QUESTION: I see.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. I just can do a couple more here. Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: I came late. In the beginning of the briefing –
MS. PSAKI: That’s okay.
QUESTION: — did you give a readout about the – on the Secretary’s meeting with the IAEA director general?
MS. PSAKI: I did not. I believe I have one. Hold on one moment. Let me check. And if not, we’ll send it to you right after the briefing.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Why don’t we send it to you, Samir. We have it all – it’s done. So I may just not have grabbed it and put it in my book. So we’ll send it out to all of you right after the briefing.
Let’s just do –
QUESTION: Can I ask a quick question on the Secretary?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Because Marriv, an Israeli newspaper, is quoting sources – and from The New York Times – that there’s going to be a major shuffle right after the elections that will include Secretary Kerry, perhaps, and Secretary Hagel. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t actually believe that’s what the story stated, and the Secretary spoke to this this morning.
QUESTION: Right. I’m sorry, I missed it, so –
MS. PSAKI: No, it’s okay. I would point you to those comments.
QUESTION: Do you have any information on U.S. citizen Stacey Addison, who was just rearrested in East Timor?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The charges have not been spelled out.
MS. PSAKI: One moment. I think I do have something on this. We can confirm that U.S. citizen Stacey – Dr. Stacey Addison was originally detained on a drug charge on September 5th. She was conditionally released on September 9th, but was not allowed to leave the country. She was detained again on October 29th when she appeared in court to retrieve her U.S. passport and was sent to a prison in Dili. A consular officer visited her in prison on October 29th. As you know, we take seriously our obligation to assist United States citizens abroad. We remain in close contact with her and we’re providing all consular assistance. We’ve seen reports indicating that the prosecution filed an appeal to the original decision, allowing her to be released on her own recognizance, leading to her detainment again. Obviously, this is a case we are working very closely with her on.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
MS. PSAKI: All right. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:27 p.m.)
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 – Briefs
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing: October 30, 2014
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire