Travel Travel Travel: Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Secretary Kerry will travel to Geneva, Switzerland, on March 2nd to address the high-level segment of the 28th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. While in Geneva, the Secretary will also meet with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov to discuss Ukraine and regional issues of common interest.

The Secretary will then travel to Montreux, Switzerland, to met with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif as part of the ongoing EU-coordinated P5+1 nuclear negotiations.

From Montreux, the Secretary will travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to meet with King Salman and other senior Saudi officials to discuss the situation in Yemen, ISIL, and other issues of shared concern.

And finally, from Riyadh the Secretary will then travel to London, United Kingdom, where he will meet with Gulf foreign ministers to discuss shared regional priorities.

On Syria, reports today – Tuesday from Human Rights Watch and today from the Syrian Network for Human Rights document the Assad regime’s continued widespread use of barrel bombs. These credible reports highlight the daily horrors facing Syrians and further expose Bashar al-Assad’s insulting and blatant lies to the media and his citizens that regime forces don’t use these weapons.

Echoing the UN Commission of Inquiry’s February 20th findings on the range of regime atrocities against Syrians, Human Rights Watch and the Syrian Network for Human Rights confirmed for the third time in less than one week that the Assad regime inflicts daily terror on the Syrian people with barrel bombs, which have killed an estimated 12,000 people, mainly civilians.

We’ve been clear that there’s no better recruiting tool for ISIL than the brutality of the Assad regime. As we have long said, Bashar al-Assad lost legitimacy long ago and will never be an effective counterterrorism partner.

While the Assad regime continues to massacre the Syrian people, I would also like to highlight, by stark contrast, the moderate opposition’s work this week in Paris, where two major parties, the Syrian Opposition Coalition and the National Coordination Body, met and recorded agreement on a draft roadmap for a political solution that would ultimately stop the bloodshed. The effort reflects the moderate opposition’s ongoing work for a democratic, pluralistic, united Syria that fully respects the state of law and the rights of every citizen through a negotiated process consistent with the principles of the Geneva communique.

With that –

QUESTION: On the trip, just for one – is that what were you going to ask? Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: On the trip. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I just wanted – when did you say the date – did you give the days of the meetings?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the first day in Geneva with the Human Rights Council meeting is Monday.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Then he will travel to Montreux, so he’ll be there Monday evening. Tuesday/ Wednesday he’ll travel to Saudi Arabia. He’ll be there Thursday, and then London Friday.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what date his meetings with Foreign Minister Zarif will be? Will they be Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday or possibly all of the above –

MS. PSAKI: It’s still being worked through, Arshad, so I’ll expect I’ll have more on that in the next 24 to 48 hours.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah. Let’s get this over with, because I know that you won’t have a lot to say about it, but about the name – the revelation of the name of this Jihadi John guy. I’m – I don’t expect you to say anything more than any of your colleagues have said, but I’m just wondering, the description or – the description of this person, whether or not this is or is not his name, is of a middle-class, college-educated person who had a job, who had employment. And I’m just wondering if the fact – that fact, if it is in fact true, gives you any pause to the idea that it is primarily economic disadvantagement, joblessness, that kind of thing that is fueling this rise in the Islamic extremism.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me just reiterate, just for everybody, some on-the-record points here, just so everybody has them. We continue to investigate the murder of American citizens by ISIL. We will not comment on ongoing investigations and, therefore, are not in a position to confirm or deny the identity of this individual. As the President has said, no matter how long it takes, the United States will not rest until we find and hold accountable the terrorists who are responsible for the murders of our citizens. We are working closely with our international partners, including, of course, the British Government, to do everything we can to bring these murderers to justice. Along with our coalition partners, we will continue to lead the fight to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

Broadly speaking on your question, without addressing the specific reports about the individuals, I think our view is that that is a factor in terms of the lack of opportunity. But we’re not suggesting it’s the only factor. There are a range of tactics that ISIL, of course, takes.

QUESTION: Could I just –

QUESTION: Sorry. Just one more –

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: — (inaudible) if I may.

QUESTION: Yeah, on the same –

QUESTION: This one is back to the travel. Is –

MS. PSAKI: Sure. For the trip? The –

QUESTION: Yeah. Is it clear that the meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov will be on Monday in Switzerland?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: In Geneva, rather.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Good. Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Go ahead, Barbara. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Sotloff family spokesman said that the family was relieved to have a name of the killer and that they wanted this man to be brought to justice, to be brought to a court, to trial. Is there any – do you think that the fact that he’s known now or been named, is that a step towards bringing him to justice?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would refer you to the British authorities and the British Government, and they have spoken to this and put out their own comments. And I’ve seen those, as I’m sure you have as well and reported on them, and they’ve alluded to their commitment to bringing the perpetrators to justice.

QUESTION: But the Americans are also, you said, committed to that, given that this man has killed American citizens.

MS. PSAKI: Of course. We’re – and as I mentioned, we’re working with our British counterparts as well.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) argument that this makes it harder to find him?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to speculate. I think obviously we do everything we can to track down individuals working with our partners. And clearly in this case, our partners in the UK have the lead.

QUESTION: And you can’t – I’m sure you can’t, but let me just ask anyway.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Sure.

QUESTION: Can you address whether the U.S. Government has – regardless of whether the individual identified is, indeed, the person who killed the U.S. citizens, has that person’s name not been known to U.S. authorities for a long time?

MS. PSAKI: That’s just not something I can add more to.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you on the same topic –

MS. PSAKI: On the same issue that Barbara and Arshad –

QUESTION: Yeah, Mohammed Emwazi, this Daesh – John –

MS. PSAKI: The reported name?

QUESTION: The ISIS – whatever. He was born in Kuwait. Now, Kuwait is also known to – or many Kuwaitis are known to have supported ISIS, both with funds and recruits and so on. Is there any correlation between the two? Or, I mean, are you – do you know his family –

MS. PSAKI: Well, just because I think it’s important to be careful here, as I mentioned, I’m not in a position to confirm or deny the identity of this individual. The United Kingdom has the lead on that. I will say, broadly speaking, as it relates to Kuwait and any country in the region or the coalition, we are certainly aware that the issue of terrorist financing, the issue of support for some of these networks is something that has existed in some of these countries. There are a number of steps that have been taken. This is why these components are an important part of our coalition efforts.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I know I asked you this before, on rehabilitation – the people who are British or are Americans and so on who are there. What recourse they have to come back –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to offer to you, Said.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So recognizing that you’re not confirming this person’s identity, can I ask what you think of the claims from this Muslim group CAGE and from people who are friends of the individual that say that the fact that he was mistreated at airports and other places by figures of authority contributed to his radicalization? Is that a concern that this Administration –

MS. PSAKI: I just – because our British friends have the lead on this – this is – there’s an ongoing active investigation. I’m just not going to speculate on those reports.

QUESTION: But broadly speaking, is there concern that the way that individuals could be profiled or treated –

MS. PSAKI: But those are related to a specific individual, so it’s just not beneficial for us to entertain or address them.

Go ahead. Justin?

QUESTION: Do you have – is there a reason you won’t confirm or deny his identity? Do you have no intelligence on –

MS. PSAKI: The British authorities have the lead on this, so I would point you to them. And we are deferring to them.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And they have done the same thing.

QUESTION: How long have you had the identity of – how long have you had his identity?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have more information to share, Justin.

QUESTION: Because on the issue of rehabilitation, yesterday or the day before, the Iraqi foreign minister said that “We are willing to talk to ISIS, to bring them back into the fold.” Is that something that he should have said –

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check out his remarks, Said.

Let’s finish this topic, and then I’m happy to move on to a new one. Do we have any more on ISIL or this general area? Go ahead. ISIL? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, ISIL, but in Iraq, in Mosul.

MS. PSAKI: In Mosul?

QUESTION: Yes. Today, they destroyed one of the museums in Mosul. Did you have any reaction to – or have you seen the footage and would you confirm that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation. Obviously, broadly speaking, we’ve seen not just the brutality of ISIL; we’ve seen the horrific acts that they have undertaken around the world, the disrespect for historic sites, and certainly, this seems consistent with that.

QUESTION: Also, in Syrian side, yesterday there were reports that about 100 or 150 Christians were hostages. Do you have an update on the –

MS. PSAKI: Let me see. I don’t think I have too much of an update, but let me give you what I have on that. Let’s see here. Oh. One moment. And I know you probably saw the statements that we put out both from the NSC and from the Department that underscored that the United States condemns in the strongest possible terms ISIL’s brutal attacks in recent days on predominantly Syrian Christian villages in the northeast Syrian province. We’ve seen reported estimates of 100 to 350 civilians captured. Obviously, that’s a broad range. I don’t have any more specifics to confirm for you.

QUESTION: Do you communicate with the Turkish Government in this – on this specific issue whether they can do any kind of assistance for these hostages?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly – and you’re right, there are – ISIL burned and destroyed homes and churches. The violence has reportedly displaced more than 3,000 people. Obviously, we’re talking about the kidnapping of scores of civilians, including women, children, priests, and the elderly. Certainly, we’re in touch with our coalition partners about this horrific act and a determination of what can be done.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can we move on to Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Any more on Syria-Iraq while we’re there? Okay. Go ahead. To Iran, sure.

QUESTION: Yeah, just some – looking for some context on the characterization of the Netanyahu speech. I know we talked about it quite a bit. But at AIPAC’s policy conference last year, the Secretary made the following comment. He said, “No one can question why Israel looks at the Iranian program and sees an existential threat. We understand it. We understand it in our gut.” And you’ve said similar things.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So my first question is: Does the United States still agree with Netanyahu, which is the way he’s justifying his visit, that this poses an existential threat to Israel?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me say that a nuclear deal with Iran is not just about our national security interests and the security of our allies, including Israel. It’s about the security of the global community. And certainly, we – the Secretary, the United States, our P5+1 partners – would not be investing as much time and energy as we are in the pursuit of a nuclear deal if we didn’t believe that this was an existential threat, absolutely.

QUESTION: Okay. And you’ve said previously that you believe that a deal would be good for Israel’s national security interests. But do you see any tension between that and the acknowledgement recently that you are no longer fully briefing the Israelis on what they consider to be a national security issue?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’ve addressed this quite a bit in here, I know on some days where you weren’t able to be here, which is fine. And I conveyed that we have provided an unprecedented level of information. We will – we have continued to consult at every level with the Israeli Government. We will continue to do that in the days and weeks ahead. I don’t have anything to add to what I conveyed on that last week.

QUESTION: Okay. I assume you reject the notion that the Administration knows better what’s in Israel’s national security interests than the Israeli Government.

MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve been pretty clear on that point.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Do you have any more Iran questions or should we move on?

QUESTION: I do.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead. Or do you have another one? Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Why don’t we go to Matt?

MS. PSAKI: You want Matt to go and we’ll go back to you? Okay. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Yesterday when he was testifying on the Hill, the Secretary questioned Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment about his opposition to a potential Iran deal, and one of the reasons why he cited for questioning it was because the prime minister – before he was prime minister in his current iteration – was supportive of the 2003 Iraq war. And in fact – well, he just said supported it and vocally – vocal – was a vocal supporter of it. And I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more about what he meant since there were a lot of people, including himself at one point, who were supporters of that war, and why this makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment suspect and does not make anyone else’s judgment suspect.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary was simply stating the fact that as has been recorded, and in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own words, that he was a strong supporter of the Iraq war. He raised this to make the point that no one is infallible, including himself too, and that it’s important to approach international challenges with an open mind and with all of the options in mind.

I think I wouldn’t compare, though, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strong and vocal support for the Iraq war, and I would point you to the fact that the Secretary himself at the time also spoke out quite a bit about the path that the current – the administration at the time took and his opposition to many of those actions. So I wouldn’t put them in the exact same category.

But regardless of that, his point was about where we are with the Iran negotiations, and that we have to look at all of the options, look at all of the information that’s available, to – and have an open mind about how to approach this. And that’s what he’s asking from the prime minister.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, but you do understand why there are people who can’t really understand why he would use that, at least? I mean, I’m sure that there may be other things that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been wrong about, if – what –

MS. PSAKI: He was making more of a forward-looking comment –

QUESTION: Does it have to do –

MS. PSAKI: — about looking ahead to what we’re debating and what we’re discussing, and that was the point he was making.

QUESTION: And I suppose – I guess it is a relief that he’s willing to concede that no one is infallible, including himself. Does that –

MS. PSAKI: That includes – that is true, right? Even all of us.

QUESTION: Does that include the Pope?

QUESTION: Does that include the President?

QUESTION: Or the Pope?

MS. PSAKI: No one is infallible, Matt. I think that’s true.

QUESTION: But – so, okay. Well, so if no one is infallible, how is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu here in his opposition to a potential Iran deal is wrong and you guys are all right?

MS. PSAKI: What – the point the –

QUESTION: There is a – is there not a potential –

MS. PSAKI: Let me be –

QUESTION: — that you guys are wrong about this?

MS. PSAKI: The point the Secretary was making is that as we look to the Iran deal, let’s look at what the components are, let’s look at what the final details are, let’s look at whether or not it prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which we all agree is in the interests of Israel, it’s in the interests of the global community. Let’s not make a prior judgment.

QUESTION: But it’s the – but what is being opposed here is not that. You set that up as something that – as what is being – what the opposition is for.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think most would argue –

QUESTION: The opposition isn’t for that –

MS. PSAKI: — that there is an effort to prejudge an outcome when the details are not yet known.

QUESTION: Well, but it’s the approach that the prime minister has an issue with, not the goal that you both – that I think he would say that you share with him, which is to prevent Iran from –

MS. PSAKI: And we’ve said we have a disagreement on that.

QUESTION: But he says that – but he says – yeah, but he says that this is not the way to do that. And if you’re admitting that no one is infallible, or if that’s what the Secretary meant to say, and citing specifically Prime Minister Netanyahu and not any of the other people who perhaps didn’t support the Iraq war but are still opposed to the Iran nuclear –

MS. PSAKI: Well, we look forward to hearing what the alternative is, then. We haven’t seen a proposal on that front, Matt.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just follow up on this point very quickly?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: Just to understand the context in which this was said.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: When he talked about Netanyahu and the Iraq war. Did he say it in a way saying that look, this was wrong at the time to go into this kind of war, that – the fact that to go on false premise perhaps is very dangerous, is that what he was trying to convey?

MS. PSAKI: I think I’m going to leave it at what I conveyed.

Go ahead, Michael.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just – I know you had mentioned that you don’t have – you have a policy of non-interference in Middle East elections including the Israeli election.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you at all fear that accusing the prime minister of politicizing the U.S.-Israel relationship –

MS. PSAKI: Did I just do that?

QUESTION: No, but –

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Then what are you referring to?

QUESTION: Are you saying that – are you saying that the Administration has not accused the prime minister of politicizing the U.S.-Israel relationship?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not. But what is your question or your point?

QUESTION: I’m asking, have the comments in recent days that have certainly suggested that the prime minister is responsible for politicizing the relationship, making it a relationship between Likud and the Republicans, as the President said, is –

MS. PSAKI: The – simply a suggestion of the fact that it is – our relationship is not a partisan relationship. It’s a relationship between two countries, and we hope that that will continue.

QUESTION: But do you fear that that – the characterization that has been perpetuated, do you fear it risks leaving some Israeli voters with the slightest impression of interference?

MS. PSAKI: We did not ask or push for the whole process that’s been handled in the way it has been handled to be handled in the way it’s been handled. So I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary disappointed that he’ll be missing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC as well as his speech to Congress for an important meeting in Montreux with the foreign minister of Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the timing of our negotiations are based on what makes sense in the talks, and obviously, we’re just a couple of weeks away, as you all know, from our goal of agreeing on a political framework. So it was the necessity to – to meet next week.

QUESTION: Okay. One other thing that the Secretary was asked about and spoke of in his hearings yesterday, or maybe it was the day before – I think it was yesterday – was the revelation or the alleged revelation by the Mujahedin-e Khalq of this alleged parallel nuclear program run out of this structure. The Secretary, when he was asked about it, said that you guys were – are aware of this.

MS. PSAKI: Of these claims, yes.

QUESTION: No, not of the claims. He specifically said that he was – that you guys were aware of this facility and that it was something that was going to have to be addressed. Does that mean that you’re aware of this and you have concluded that it is not a problem? You are aware of it and concluded that it is a problem, in which case it will have to be addressed? And if it does have to be addressed, does it have to be addressed in this – in these nuclear talks?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we don’t have any information at this time to support the conclusion of the report.

QUESTION: Well, but he said it would have to be addressed. So what does that – that’s what I – he said the issue with this facility –

MS. PSAKI: That we’d look into the reports and – but obviously, we don’t have any information to suggest that the conclusions in the reports are accurate.

QUESTION: But you can’t say that they’re inaccurate either, right? You don’t know.

MS. PSAKI: We don’t have any information to suggest they are. So I guess it’s –

QUESTION: One way or another. But so is that what he meant when he said that this would – that these – this is one of the questions that has to be addressed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ll look into the reports. We don’t have any information at this point in time to suggest the conclusions are accurate.

QUESTION: Well, right, but wouldn’t it make sense to make sure that either the conclusions are inaccurate or accurate before you proceed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, right. But he was asked the question, so he answered the question, just as I am. But –

QUESTION: Okay. Well, does that mean that the talks that are going on – that are ongoing right now and the talks that will resume in Montreux next week don’t depend on the resolution one way or another for this –

MS. PSAKI: No. I mean, if anything changes with our – what information we have, then we’ll address that at the time. But it’s – that’s not the case right now.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, and I know this is a hypothetical but I think it’s an important one, are you saying that you could go ahead and conclude a deal with the Iranians if they agree to (inaudible) without these allegations being disproven?

MS. PSAKI: Well, in our view, they haven’t been proven, so it’s sort of disproving a negative. Obviously, we’ll look into the reports, but we don’t have any information as the U.S. Government to conclude that these are accurate.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you – but you don’t have any information to conclude that they’re inaccurate either. Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: I guess we could play this game all day, but –

QUESTION: Well, it’s – well, no, it’s not a game. I just – if you don’t know one way or another, wouldn’t it make sense to find out?

MS. PSAKI: The report came out yesterday or the day before, correct.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: We don’t have any information to support it or conclude it from the United States Government. If that changes, I’m sure we’ll address it.

QUESTION: But it – but the – I – the Secretary said that it was one of many questions that had to be addressed, and I’m wondering if it has to be addressed.

MS. PSAKI: I’m just trying to convey what he meant from here.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so that leads me to believe, and correct me if I’m wrong, that it’s possible for a deal to be done – a framework deal or a full deal, without the answers to these –

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s purely a hypothetical. Obviously, we said we’re looking into these reports that came out 24 to 48 hours ago. We don’t have information to support them at this time.

QUESTION: But it suggests – but what he said suggests that you were aware of this facility before these reports came out. Is that wrong? Am I – did I misinterpret what he said?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to look at his remarks. I – again –

QUESTION: Well, can you answer? Do you know if you were aware of this facility and the possible – and the possibility that this facility was being used in a nefarious way before the MEK made its announcement?

MS. PSAKI: Well, given we don’t have any information to support the actual report, I would just leave you with what I’ve conveyed on this.

QUESTION: Jen, would it be fair to say that you will find out one way or the other, before you move forward on this process, whether or not the reports are accurate?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we’ve said we’d look into the reports. I don’t know what information will be available to support them, if any. So we’ll look into them. If there’s an update, we’ll provide that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) when you said we don’t have any information to support the conclusion of the report. The central conclusion of the report was that this was an undeclared nuclear facility, which of course, would be in violation of their NPT commitments, et cetera. Can you say that that is the central – that is indeed the conclusion that you’re referring to?

MS. PSAKI: That’s, yes, my understanding.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Can we go to the Israeli-Palestinian issue?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: And can I just – I just want to make sure I understand this. You are saying that you have no way to prove or disprove the allegation that was made in – yesterday. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: I don’t understand –

MS. PSAKI: To prove. I don’t know about disproving reports from an outside organization that has a record of putting out information that sometimes is inaccurate.

QUESTION: Right. But that is a big “sometimes,” because they did put out in at least one instance that I’m aware of.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, but we’re talking about –

QUESTION: So, pretty – it’s pretty accurate information, so –

MS. PSAKI: If we have information to provide in addition to what I said, we will provide that. I don’t have any more to share at this point in time.

QUESTION: Jen –

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Why don’t we do peace – or Middle East?

QUESTION: Very quickly. The Secretary called Mahmoud Abbas yesterday. Could you –

MS. PSAKI: He did. I don’t have a readout of that, Said. I’m happy to – we can get you one after the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay. Are they taking any measures, because of the – the PA is really on the verge of collapse completely?

MS. PSAKI: As we’ve discussed quite a bit in here.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you if you are aware of the attacks that were conducted – the burning of a mosque and then a church today.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: If you have any comment on that.

MS. PSAKI: We are concerned by recent attacks against Christian and Muslim religious sites, namely the arson and vandalism of a mosque in the Palestinian village of Al-Jaba’ah west of Bethlehem, on February 24th, and today’s arson and vandalism at the Greek Orthodox seminary on Mount Zion in Jerusalem. We condemn these attacks. Such provocative and hateful acts are never justified.

QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, the Israelis have flooded the areas – farm areas of Gaza with some waste water and so on. Do you have any comment on that? Are you aware –

MS. PSAKI: With some waste?

QUESTION: Yeah, waste water, whatever, I don’t know what they call it.

MS. PSAKI: I can check into those reports.

QUESTION: Could you check? Yes.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation of those.

QUESTION: Jen –

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: It’s my understanding that the Secretary is on the Hill meeting Senate Democrats?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: What is that about?

MS. PSAKI: He has been, obviously, consulting quite a bit with Congress over the last couple of days. And as I understand it, this came about from a conversation with Senator Reid about continuing to have discussions about a range of issues.

QUESTION: But is it – I mean, is it a classified briefing?

MS. PSAKI: I can check. I don’t believe so, though, Arshad. I think it’s just an effort to continue to consult while he’s in town.

QUESTION: Does it have to do with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit and whether or not they attend his speech?

MS. PSAKI: No, it does not. That is a decision that senators will make. I expect it’s more likely they’ll talk about a range of foreign policy issues that we’re all talking about today and he talked about in the briefing yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you check and let us know if that is indeed what it was about?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. But it’s not about whether or not they attend Prime Minister Netanyahu’s –

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jen. National Security Advisor Susan Rice met yesterday with State Councilor Yang Jiechi of China in New York City.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on it?

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the White House. They would have a readout of our national security advisor’s meetings.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Thank you. And thank you, Jen, for the last two years bearing asking –

MS. PSAKI: Oh, thanks.

QUESTION: — Turkey questions and your (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: My pleasure.

QUESTION: On Turkey – this question was asked to you about a week ago, that there is this security bill. Now it’s being passed at parliament one by one. About thirty of them have passed. And leading rights groups across the globe, like Freedom House or Amnesty International – actually, Amnesty International waged a worldwide campaign against the bill. They claim that this bill is going to undermine democracy or threatens “human rights.” What is your comment on this?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any specific comment on the bill. It’s an internal matter for Turkey. As you know, we speak regularly, including in our annual human rights report, about any concerns we have about media freedoms and freedom to protest and other issues.

QUESTION: So these groups says that this bill must be stopped. And Susan Corke, director of the Freedom House, says it is no exaggeration to say that the future of Turkish democracy hangs in the balance with this law. And you are telling me that it’s internal matter, it is –

MS. PSAKI: I just conveyed what our views are on human rights, on freedom of speech. I don’t have anything to add. If there is, I’m happy to share that with you.

Go ahead, Michael.

QUESTION: Just – sorry, quickly back to –

MS. PSAKI: Israel?

QUESTION: — Israel and the Palestinian issues.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the prime minister’s office says that Israel will be hooking up the new Palestinian city of Rawabi to Israel’s water grid and would take some of the frozen Palestinian Authority tax revenue to pay part of its massive electricity bill and ensure an uninterrupted flow of electricity to Palestinian cities. It’s just in, but do you have any comment?

MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to talk to our team about it. I think certainly we’d see that as a positive step, but let me look into the details.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: I just want to follow up on a few – two questions last Monday, I think –

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: — Monday of this week, we asked – one is about the – any update – do you have any update about Erbil and Baghdad agreement? Is there anything that –

MS. PSAKI: I think I provided everything I can provide on Monday, but do you have any additional –

QUESTION: No, Monday you –

MS. PSAKI: I provided quite a few details on Monday, but did you have a new question?

QUESTION: No, any update from – because that’s, I said, there was a briefing for the diplomats.

MS. PSAKI: I think I posed to you that you should ask the question of the Government of Iraq as well as Kurdish authorities, given that there are reported payments from last year that they passed payments in their budget, and that they have both committed to continuing with this agreement.

QUESTION: That is –

MS. PSAKI: So I don’t have anything new to add from that.

QUESTION: Right, but that’s – the payment you mentioned last year, it was less than 20 percent of their annual budget anyway – for the last year, but for this year. This is – the agreement is for this year, not for 2014.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: In 2014, they haven’t sent the money, anything. But the other thing is I asked you about the Peshmerga hostages by ISIS. Has KRG government asked (inaudible) –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to offer on that.

QUESTION: Like, did they ask anything (inaudible) –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to read out.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: As you know, sometimes there is quite a bit of sensitivity for good reason about hostages held from anywhere around the world, so we don’t typically –

QUESTION: But if they asked your government to help, would you – would the United States help?

MS. PSAKI: We don’t typically even, broadly speaking, outline that from – publicly.

QUESTION: Okay. So one more thing about that. Also still going to Iraq. Since the – anyway, these days the focus is on ISIS and the terrorism thing, but there’s another thing, which is Iraq is also troubling with, is the human rights, also including Kurdistan region of Iraq. In the recent report of the Freedom House, Iraq was characterized as “not free.” Do you have anything on the decline of human rights and also of freedom of speech and media? Because in the recent years, United States fund or support to human rights and also the media declined. Is there any way that you will support – increase your fund to, through the international organization or directly from the – through the Embassy to the media to promote freedom of speech?

MS. PSAKI: Okay, I’m – I just want to make sure I understand your question. Whether we are thinking about increasing our funding –

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: — for – to civil society groups in Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: We just put out a budget. I would point you to the specifics of what are included in there, which would outline what our proposals are for the next year.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Very quickly. You mentioned the Human Rights Watch report today. They also reported that the Peshmerga and the KRG are preventing Arab residents who have – who fled to their area from going back to their villages into areas that are disputed among them. Are you aware of that report?

MS. PSAKI: I am not. I don’t have any confirmation of that; don’t know if it’s accurate. We can look into it, certainly.

Justin, did you – or were you just scratching your head or –

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m just (inaudible).

MS. PSAKI: Okay, that’s fine. I understand.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: All right. Oh, Michelle, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Washington Post reported that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s nonprofit organization received money given by foreign countries during her tenure here at the Department. Any hesitation by the Department of State that this was proper business for the top diplomat to conduct here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think according to The Washington Post article that you referenced and a statement, I believe, that was put out by the Clinton Foundation, they said they received a contribution from the Government of Algeria for Haiti relief efforts soon after the Haiti earthquake devastated that country, which it should have submitted for review by the Department. At the time, as you all may remember, the United States was, of course – the government was supporting worldwide efforts to provide humanitarian relief for Haiti. The commitment by the foundation to provide information about foreign government contributions, broadly, went beyond the requirements of ethics law and regulations. And the purpose is to allow, of course, the Department to identify foreign policy concerns that might arise in connection with a particular donation.

So obviously, we like to review and we have reviewed every donation that has been submitted. But in this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us.

QUESTION: Can you acknowledge, like, the look at impropriety here, especially for the American people that may look at this as this is pay-for-play is going on here?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the question there is we’re talking about a contribution to a Haiti relief fund that was an international crisis that the United States broadly supported. So I’m not sure, and maybe you can share more with us, about what exactly the conflict of interest would have been there.

QUESTION: I suppose some people might say that for a – the countries would be getting access to Secretary Clinton.

MS. PSAKI: But what’s the evidence of that?

QUESTION: I’m just –

MS. PSAKI: Well, they’re – that’s the question. So – and I don’t think there’s an answer that’s been provided or is one that suggests there was one.

QUESTION: Are you confident that there will be no other revelations of other donations given in violation of the agreement signed with the Obama Administration?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the foundation put out a statement on this. We obviously review any submission that they present to us. They have shown a commitment. Their commitment has been over and above the letter of the law, so – and that’s been consistently followed.

QUESTION: Are you confident that donations to the foundation and/or – or I should say and the vetting that went into speaking appearances by former President Bill Clinton during Secretary Clinton’s tenure were complete, that they – that you’re confident that there was no impropriety or appearance of impropriety with perhaps this one exception – I understand that you’re saying there wasn’t any, but that the procedure that was outlined and agreed to was followed in all cases, except for this one?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, there was a letter that was submitted – I think early, even before the Administration started – in 2009 that covered everything from Secretary Clinton’s financial interests, speaking, writing, and consulting of former President Bill Clinton. In several respects, as I’ve mentioned, the commitments went far beyond applicable laws and regulations.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we can’t speak to – we speak to what we – information we have and what’s been reviewed, and that’s certainly what I can address.

QUESTION: Okay. But you’re confident that – in general, you’re pleased? You think that everything went according to the way it was supposed to go? Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Well, they went – they submitted – they have committed to something that was above the letter of the law. I can’t speak to information I don’t have access to, but –

QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But you’re satisfied that they kept that commitment? That’s all I’m asking.

MS. PSAKI: As – for all the information I have, absolutely.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: ISIS. At one of the hearings yesterday, the Secretary was asked some questions about the Administration’s proposed AUMF. Specifically he was asked whether groups that pledge allegiance to ISIS could be targeted under it. He said that only if they’re known to be operationally connected. I was wondering if this building or anyone in the Administration has assessed that any of these groups outside of Iraq or Syria are operationally connected to ISIS, and is there some kind of list that – of these groups that would qualify for a targeting –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a new assessment. And that is, as we’ve talked about – actually, you and I have talked about it quite a bit in here – this is something that we continue to review and continue to assess. And the point he’s making, which I think you certainly understand, is that just because a group says we’re with ISIL it doesn’t mean that they are operationally linked to ISIL. And as the President has said and the Secretary also reiterated, we’re not going to be limited geographically even though right now, of course, the President has not made the decision to go beyond Iraq and Syria. I don’t have any new public assessment beyond that, though.

QUESTION: Just because, I mean, if there’s a formal procedure that the Administration is using to make these judgment calls about who is and isn’t, I guess at what point is that determination made? Are they added to a list? Like just procedurally, how is that conducted? And if you’re saying that – are you saying that none of these groups have gone through that full vetting process?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just conveying there’s nothing more I can convey to you publicly. I can certainly check and see if there’s any more we can convey publicly. Sure.

QUESTION: Could I ask you a quick question on Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, you would say that – they claim the militants (inaudible) pull back, and the Russians are saying that the ceasefire is holding. Could you confirm or comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, the OSCE monitors have observed a decrease in ceasefire violations in the last few days, though violations do continue. And for the second day in a row, the Ukrainians have not experienced any casualties. But there are still violations in some areas, so I wouldn’t say it’s accurate to suggest that there is an abiding by the ceasefire all across eastern Ukraine.

QUESTION: But can you confirm that they are pulling their heavy weapons and whatever –

MS. PSAKI: We have seen some reports of that, but we don’t have confirmation of that because the OSCE have been – has been unable to send their monitors into the area to confirm that. So we don’t have eyes on the ground in that regard.

QUESTION: Yesterday during the morning session of testimony, if I’m not mistaken – they tend to run together –

MS. PSAKI: The nine hours or more.

QUESTION: — the Secretary said that – suggested that additional sanctions on Russia would be contemplated if there were additional actions in eastern Ukraine that merited a significant response. He talked about if there’s another Mariupol or –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Why isn’t the separatists driving out of Debaltseve all the Ukrainian troops after the ceasefire was supposed to go into effect sufficient for additional sanctions to be imposed on the Russians?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, what the Secretary was conveying is consistent with what our policy has been in this regard, that we obviously watch what’s happening on the ground and that impacts what consequences we may put in place. We obviously continue to consider a range of options, including sanctions. There’s active discussions in the Administration about that which the Secretary was referring to, as well as with our partners. But I’m just not in a position to outline for you the timing of that or what it means in terms of the decision making.

QUESTION: But why doesn’t the gobbling up of a strategic city with rail links that are important for the areas that the rebels have already seized, why isn’t that an action that merits additional sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: We weigh a range of options on the ground and make a determination about the appropriate steps. I don’t have anything more to outline for you in terms of internal deliberations or thinking on that.

QUESTION: But doesn’t it leave the impression that the rebels and what you say are their Russian backers, or in some cases actual Russian troops and equipment, can essentially get away with seizing another city?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it certainly should not. We have not hesitated to put sanctions in place or consider a range of options in the past. We continue to. And just because we have not announced or decided about what we will do or when we will do anything next, it does not mean those discussions are not ongoing.

QUESTION: But his suggestion was that it would require additional events on the ground – another Mariupol – for there to be sanctions that he said were already teed up. And I – the reason I’m asking the question is if part of the point of having sanctions is to eventually shift their policy and part of it, presumably, is to deter the Russians from pursuing what you say has been their policy of aiding the separatists to essentially seize control of chunks of another country, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t act more quickly or decisively in the face of their seizure of another city.

MS. PSAKI: He was simply conveying that we clearly are watching what’s happening on the ground and that will impact our future actions. He wasn’t making – drawing a line that there must be future actions for us to take additional steps. Obviously, if they continue on this path, that will lead us to put more consequences in place. If they take a different path, that will have an impact.

QUESTION: But there are no consequences for Debaltseve?

MS. PSAKI: We haven’t announced or I have nothing to announce for you in terms of any decision-making, Arshad. It doesn’t mean there aren’t ongoing discussions about what we may do.

QUESTION: Right, but I think the question is that you do not support the separatists having control of Debaltseve.

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. So I think the question is a fair one. If they’ve – that’s something that’s already –

MS. PSAKI: Oh, I wasn’t saying it wasn’t.

QUESTION: Right, but that’s something that’s already happened.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: If your position is that that’s a bad thing, why is there no action in response to it?

MS. PSAKI: It doesn’t mean it happens four minutes later, Matt. We obviously continue to discuss –

QUESTION: Well, we’re not talking about four minutes.

MS. PSAKI: — what the appropriate actions are, what the appropriate consequences will be. I have nothing further to predict for you.

QUESTION: Okay. I want to go back to a part of a back-and-forth that happened either earlier this week or last week –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — about – you were talking about the separatists in the east and how they were not Ukrainians and that they were not in their own country.

MS. PSAKI: Well, as I said on the day –

QUESTION: Were you – right.

MS. PSAKI: — they are supported by Russia. There are Russian materials in there. They are trained by, and that’s what I was referring to.

QUESTION: But are you – so – but is it the position of the United States that Ukrainians – people who have Ukrainian citizenship who are fighting the government of Kyiv, in Kyiv, or forces of the government in Kyiv, are not actually Ukrainians?

MS. PSAKI: No, but I’m conveying, as we all know and we’ve confirmed many times, that there are Russian hands on this effort that’s happening in eastern Ukraine.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if one accepts that that is true – and it is disputed by some –

MS. PSAKI: I understand who it’s disputed by.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Well, so do I. But anyway, are you saying that separatists who you – because they are getting this Russian backing that you talk about, this support, are no – have given up their citizenship of Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: I was not, but –

QUESTION: Okay. I just –

MS. PSAKI: — we’ve also seen that Russia consolidated its control over the separatist movement following its August invasion by removing problematic separatist leaders who did not follow Russian instructions. We’ve seen Russia supply and train separatist militants. We’ve seen that Russia transfer hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro-Russia separatists. So the point is that they are clearly involved, engaged, and have their hands in this everywhere.

QUESTION: Russia?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Right. I get what you’re saying there, but I’m just wondering if you believe that separatists, who are Ukrainian, who are fighting the government in Kyiv, have forfeited –

MS. PSAKI: No, I did not intend to suggest that.

QUESTION: Okay. You’re talking – you’re talking about Russians who are there who are not citizens of Ukraine –

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

QUESTION: — and in a non-sovereign country.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Yemen, very quickly?

MS. PSAKI: Yemen? Sure.

QUESTION: Yesterday the Security Council commended, I guess, the return of President Hadi to Aden, his movement to Aden. I just wanted to ask you: Have you been in touch with him in any way or capacity since the last time we asked –

MS. PSAKI: Not as of when we talked about it on Monday. I’m not aware of contact since then. I’m happy to check on it, Said.

QUESTION: Sorry, can I get in one more on Ukraine?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just on the whole ceasefire thing –

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: — and the idea that if they do, the separatists continue to go, there will be more action.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Is your view right now that things are improving and that the – or not? I mean, are there – you say there will be more costs to Russia if they continue to go down the road that they were on.

MS. PSAKI: In –

QUESTION: Is it your judgment that they are still on that road, or are they on a better road now?

MS. PSAKI: It depends on how you compare the roads. There are – there is a reduction we’ve seen over the past two days.

QUESTION: Which is a good thing.

MS. PSAKI: Which is a good thing. But there are still violations.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: So I wouldn’t say that – I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a positive step. It’s just a slight improvement, but obviously, there are still violations across eastern Ukraine.

QUESTION: So the actions that you believe Russia is continuing to take are actions that could draw new sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

Go ahead, Michelle.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Yemen?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Based on information from the U.S. ambassador in Yemen, we were told that the Marines had to give up their weapons curbside at the airport. But what we’re hearing is that the Marines spent a considerable amount of time in the terminal, unable to defend themselves and the diplomats. Are you comfortable with that amount of risk?

MS. PSAKI: The Marines – I would point you to them – they put out an extensive statement about the steps they took, the protocol they followed, the fact that they destroyed their weapons on site. They did that a couple of weeks ago. So I don’t have more information to add to that.

QUESTION: Sorry to go back one more time to Iran –

MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: — but the prime minister’s office says that Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have initiated an invitation to the prime minister to meet in a bipartisan fashion after his speech. Do you think that’s positive? Do you think –

MS. PSAKI: Which I think the prime minister declined, if I’m correct.

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, a new invitation.

QUESTION: It’s a new invitation that’s a bipartisan invitation from congressional leadership.

MS. PSAKI: We’ll leave that to congressional leadership and the prime minister to work through.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: One more on Iraq. Jen, in the past you’ve provided a lot of informations about the arms and supplies –

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — to Peshmerga and the Iraqi army forces and even Anbar tribes. But still we are hearing from the KRG officials, including Bayan Sami, the KRG representative in U.S., in Washington, that that’s not enough and we are not getting what we need. What do you – what’s your comment on that?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more to add in terms of the arms we’ve been providing. I think I said tens of thousands of tons. I think any independent individual would evaluate that as quite a bit of assistance, and we’re not the only country providing assistance. So beyond that, I don’t have any further comment.

QUESTION: Is there any hope that that will increase since –

MS. PSAKI: We’ve continued to increase it. I have nothing to outline for the future, but we’ve been very supportive. Obviously, we work through the Government of Iraq. That will continue. That’s our policy. But we’ve continued to be supportive of their efforts.

QUESTION: But why they are keep saying that? I mean –

MS. PSAKI: I would ask that question and pose what we’ve provided.

QUESTION: And they said it’s only three brigades, which is not like enough to protect city of Kirkuk, not even Muslim –

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: Because in the money like you provided it says only for three brigades. Is there any reason for only three brigades?

MS. PSAKI: Again, I would – again, I outlined for you very specifically all of the military equipment we’ve provided. Other countries have done the same. I would recommend you gather that all together and ask them the question on why that’s not enough for what they need right now.

QUESTION: That’s 3 billion with a B?

MS. PSAKI: Hmm? I don’t have the numbers in front of me. I’ve outlined them several times from here, but I can get them to you if you’d like, in terms of the equipment provided.

QUESTION: The Secretary yesterday was asked I think the same kind of question by Kay –

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Kay Granger?

QUESTION: Yeah. And he started to go down this what appeared to be an enormous list of weapons and –

MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Which is – I’ve done that in here as well. I just don’t have it in front of me at this moment.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. But your understanding is that’s $3 billion worth of –

MS. PSAKI: I don’t.

QUESTION: It said three brigades. That’s –

QUESTION: Oh, three brigades. I’m sorry. Okay.

MS. PSAKI: We can get around to all of you, if you’d like, the list of equipment. And as I mentioned, it’s not just the United States that’s provided.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: North Korea.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: There’s a think tank report that came out recently that says that North Korea could have 100 nuclear weapons by 2020. What’s your reaction to this? Does this square with the Administration’s assessments? And just do you think this warrants more sanctions?

MS. PSAKI: We just don’t get into those assessments from here.

All right. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:42 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 - February 26, 2015

Travel Travel Travel

jeudi 26 février 2015

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - February 26, 2015

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire