Home
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
2:24 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: Hello.
MS. PSAKI: I promise we will do an earlier briefing tomorrow. So I know it’s been late all week.
QUESTION: How about like 10:00 A.M?
MS. PSAKI: All right, Matt. That’s fine.
QUESTION: Since it’s Friday --
MS. PSAKI: That’s fine.
QUESTION: -- and we can all go home and watch the Nats game. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Perfect. I think there’s a direct relationship between Nationals baseball and diplomacy, so I think that should work out fine.
Okay. A couple of items for all of you at the top. As you know, Secretary Kerry met with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Minh this morning to discuss progress on implementing the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership launched by President Obama and President Sang in July of 2013. Secretary Kerry highlighted the conclusion of the U.S.-Vietnam Civil Nuclear Cooperation 123 Agreement and expanding maritime security cooperation as examples of the strength of bilateral ties in keeping with U.S. efforts to integrate Vietnam fully into regional maritime security initiatives. The Secretary informed Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Minh that the State Department has taken steps to allow for the future transfer of maritime security-related defense articles to Vietnam. This policy supports Vietnam’s efforts to improve its maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities.
They also discussed the importance of concluding the TPP negotiations and expanding bilateral trade and investment. The Secretary noted that achieving further progress on human rights is integral to our bilateral relationship and is necessary for a further deepening of bilateral ties, including in security cooperation. They also discussed regional issues and recent developments in the South China Sea. Following discussions at the ASEAN Regional Forum in August, the Secretary welcomed efforts to defuse recent tensions, and they agreed on the importance of claimants implementing Article 5 of the Declaration of Conduct and avoiding actions that threaten to escalate disputes and cause instability. They both noted the importance of the upcoming 20th anniversary of bilateral relations next year and expressed their desire to mark this milestone with high-level visits.
The Secretary also met this morning with Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to discuss U.S.-India security cooperation and other topics of regional and bilateral interest. The meeting today builds on discussions held during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the United States and will cover issues – and covered issues, I should say, such as defense cooperation, international terrorism and terrorism finance, and law enforcement cooperation. This meeting was an important step in reinforcing our shared resolve. Recent U.S.-India – the recent U.S.-India joint statements of expanding our cooperation to bolster national, regional, and global security.
Finally, as you may all have seen, Special President – Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen and Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk arrived in Iraq today for intensive consultations with Iraqi Government officials and regional Iraqi leaders on how the United States can support Iraq in the fight against ISIL. That Special Envoy Allen went to Iraq for his first international trip in his new capacity speaks to the importance of – the United States places on coordination with and support for Iraq as we build this global coalition to degrade and defeat ISIL. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk’s discussions in Iraq and elsewhere will follow on the coalition-building efforts that President Obama and Secretary Kerry led at the NATO summit in Wales, during meetings in Jeddah and in Cairo, and most recently in New York at UNGA.
From Iraq, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will travel on to Brussels for meetings with NATO and EU leadership, where the focus will be cracking down on ISIL’s foreign fighter pipeline and countering its financing streams. Then they will travel on to Amman for consultations with Jordanian officials and key regional players. From Amman they will travel to Cairo to meet with Egyptian Government officials and the Arab League ambassadors. Their conversations there will follow on President Obama’s recent meeting with President Sisi in New York and Secretary Kerry’s discussions during his last trip to Cairo. They will finally conclude their visit in Turkey, a key NATO ally, where they will meet with Turkish military and political leaders to discuss their potential contributions to the international coalition, including combating the threat from foreign fighters. In Turkey, they will also meet with Syrian opposition leaders, both affirming our continued support for their brave efforts in the fight against ISIL and continuing our ongoing dialogue about the best ways to support these efforts.
In conversations with General Allen and Ambassador McGurk – in these conversations they will have they will discuss coalition cooperation across the five lines of effort – not just military support for our partners, but also – with our partners, I should say, but also stopping foreign fighters, slashing ISIL’s access to financing, maximizing humanitarian assistance and protection for vulnerable victims of the conflict, and exposing ISIL’s extremist, nihilistic message for what it really is. There’s been lots of attention paid to the military component, as we’ve discussed in here, but this trip is about more than that. It’s about expanding this coalition and about building on the five lines of effort that they’re focused on. They will also finally return to the region later this month to meet with other key coalition partners as well, so this will be the first of a number of trips.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Hey, Matt, can I ask one real quick one? Can you repeat the phrase on Vietnam? You said that the Secretary had told the Vietnamese official that the United States has taken steps to provide for the future transfer of defense-related --
QUESTION: To allow for.
MS. PSAKI: Of maritime-security-related defense articles to Vietnam.
QUESTION: Does that mean arms?
MS. PSAKI: It – it’s – let me see if I have a little bit more on this, Arshad. And I’m sure for anyone who’s interested we can get you a more intensive briefing, too.
QUESTION: They’re --
MS. PSAKI: It’s --
QUESTION: I think all will be clear before --
MS. PSAKI: Let me see, Arshad, if I can get you a more specific --
QUESTION: I mean, maritime security could be --
MS. PSAKI: Surveillance – let’s see. Maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities. We can see, Arshad, if we can get you a more specific breakdown after the briefing.
QUESTION: I was going to get back to Vietnam later on --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- but I want – but I want to start with the trip, but particularly Turkey, which you will have seen – at least I hope you will have seen – that the parliament voted today to authorize them to – do you have any reaction to that? And – well, start with that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, we’ve been closely engaged with Turkey. We welcome the Turkish parliament’s vote to authorize Turkish military action. We’ve had numerous high-level discussions with Turkish officials to discuss how to advance our cooperation in countering the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Those will continue, and we look forward to strengthening that cooperation. There’s – sorry – a fly up here. (Laughter.) There’s a fly up here. Sorry. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: A bee.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it’s a bee.
Special presidential envoy mentioned, of course, will be traveling there. As I mentioned yesterday, of course, Turkey has experienced directly the impact of this crisis. And we’ll continue our conversations over the course of the coming weeks.
QUESTION: Is there anything in particular that you would like to see them do, now that they’ve – now that they have this authorization?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, it provided broad authority. So the phase we’re in now is discussing what particular role they’ll play.
QUESTION: So then if they’ve done this today, why is it that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk aren’t going there until the end of this bizarrely constructed trip? Which I also want to ask why fly to Brussels from Baghdad and then back to the Middle East? It doesn’t seem very climate change friendly.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you’ve experienced, Matt, and others have, sometimes you work with the schedules of your counterparts.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Obviously, this trip’s been in the works for some time. And certainly we’ll be engaged with Turkey over the coming days, not just – we’re not going to wait for that engagement for their trip, but --
QUESTION: Okay. But so – but so they will be, once they get there, discussing the coordination? Or are you saying that the coordination can happen outside of a face-to-face meeting?
MS. PSAKI: Well, they’ll discuss it when they’re there, but certainly we’ll be engaged through our officials – high-level officials on the ground, as well as high-level officials in Washington between now and then as well.
QUESTION: Do you see there is a greater urgency now in particular areas right along the Turkish border for there to be military action but from coalition members with boots on the ground?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know and you’ve seen from the daily updates, we, along with coalition partners, have been partaking in airstrikes in that area near Turkey because of the threat posed by ISIL there. Or sorry, I’m not sure if you --
QUESTION: Well, I was asking about boots on the ground, not about airstrikes.
MS. PSAKI: I think there are, obviously, a range of options that can be under consideration, but I’m not going to get ahead of those discussions with Turkey about what role they should play.
QUESTION: When he will be arriving to Ankara, Ambassador McGurk and General Allen?
MS. PSAKI: Next week. But again, we’re still finalizing some specifics about the trip. So I think we’ll have more technical updates with each day about who’ll they be meeting with and what day they’ll arrive, et cetera.
QUESTION: Should we assume that each city one day? I mean, Iraq, Baghdad, Brussels, Amman, Cairo, and Ankara (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: About that, but some may spend more than one day. So again, I said the end of the trip is Turkey, so I would assume the end of next week.
QUESTION: And – but the meetings with the president, the prime minister, is there any --
MS. PSAKI: Again, as I just said, because we’re talking about a week and a half from now or near the end of next week, I think we’ll have more updates on specific meetings as we get a little bit closer, and as soon as we have that information, we’ll make it available.
QUESTION: So it’s almost one month that – when President Obama started to discuss this issue with the Turkish side since the Wales summit. So how do you see right now the – where we are in terms of the fight against the ISIL in terms of the contribution coming from Ankara?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, we welcome the Turkish parliament’s vote to authorize Turkish military action, as I mentioned. Turkey has – and their leaders – have indicated they want to play a more prominent role with the coalition. We welcome that. They’re an important counterterrorism partner, an important NATO ally, so we understand the sensitivity that they had for several weeks with – the country had with their diplomats, and now we’re ready to move forward. And they’ve indicated they want to be an active partner.
QUESTION: Do you believe that – are you on the same page with the Turkish leadership in terms of the priorities in this fight? I mean, ISIS is obviously the priority for U.S. side, but do you think that the Turks also are seeing ISIS as a priority while --
MS. PSAKI: I think Turkey, from all of our discussions with them, certainly understands the threat posed by ISIL. But I would point you to them for more on that particular question.
Do we have more on Turkey or should we move on to a new topic?
QUESTION: Can we just – can we go to Vietnam?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you have now – as I believe U.S. officials elsewhere in the building may have said – that you have now lifted the ban on the provision of defense materiel to Vietnam solely for maritime security-related items?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: (Laughter.) Sorry if I wasn’t clear in the beginning. I should note also, Arshad, that obviously, we remain – our security relationship remains under constant review. Clearly, there’s more work that needs to be done in areas like human rights, and that’s one thing that the Secretary conveyed during the meeting, and this is, of course, a partial lifting.
QUESTION: And would it be fair to understand this partial lifting as very much a function of the United States desire to offer support to countries such as Vietnam in their maritime disputes with China?
MS. PSAKI: I would look at it more, Arshad, as a response to the fact that they’ve made progress in some areas like human rights that we’ve talked to them about, that President Obama spoke with them about in 2013 and Secretary Kerry spoke with them about when he was there in December. And they’re an important partner and this is responsive to their request.
QUESTION: So it has nothing to do with the fact that a Chinese – if I’m not mistaken – towed an oil rig into disputed waters?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted in my readout of the meeting, certainly they discussed maritime security, and that is a prominent part of our discussion every time we meet with them.
QUESTION: But the – you can’t say that the removal of the longstanding ban with regard to maritime security items is related to that specific issue?
MS. PSAKI: Well, in part, in order to fully integrate Vietnam into maritime security initiatives that we have partnerships on throughout the region. But there are also components of steps in progress on reforms that they made in the country that prompted the action.
QUESTION: But one shouldn’t view it as China-related at all?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve addressed it.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. PSAKI: Or go ahead – I’m sorry, are we Vietnam here?
QUESTION: No, Vietnam.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: One, did – was the Chinese foreign minister yesterday informed about this decision? Because as much as you want to say it doesn’t – it’s not related to Vietnam, it is to anyone who can – has – (laughter) – to anyone with any kind of vision, I think. Was the Chinese foreign minister told about --
MS. PSAKI: Not that I recall, Matt.
QUESTION: Not that you know? Okay. And the other thing is that I – you have to forgive my influence, I mean – influence – ignorance on this. This only applies to maritime security? It’s not like you’re going to sell them tanks or anything, right?
MS. PSAKI: That is right. It applies to partial lifting of defense articles.
QUESTION: And when it – when he says that – or you say that you have – you are taking or you have taken steps to allow for the future transfer, does that mean that you could go ahead and just sell them, or does it have to go – does there have to be some kind of congressional notification or approval or anything? Does – what’s the process?
MS. PSAKI: Well, my understanding is that Congress has been notified, of course, about this decision. So in terms of the technical pieces of what needs to happen, is that what you’re asking? Or --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: Let me check if there’s more that needs to happen --
QUESTION: I mean, is there --
MS. PSAKI: -- or if it can move forward from here.
QUESTION: Does there – I mean, basically, I’m asking you: Does there need to – does it still have to be signed off on by someone, whether it’s the Hill or whether it’s the Pentagon or whether – whoever it is? Or is this kind of a blank – blanket you can have whatever you want as long as it is in this maritime security box?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – why don’t we get you all a list of what this is applicable to. My understanding is that now this is at a point where it can move forward, but we will make sure there are not additional steps that need to be taken.
QUESTION: And then – and I should know this, but unfortunately I don’t, and maybe you don’t have it up there either, but how – has this ban – how long has this ban on all lethal arms sales been in place? Has it been since 1975?
MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that, Matt, but I’m happy to take that with the other couple of questions about the issue.
QUESTION: Right, I’m just --
QUESTION: It was all defense materiel, though. It wasn’t just lethal, right, the ban?
MS. PSAKI: I – we will check the ban and how long it’s been --
QUESTION: Well from whenever it is, is this the first time you’re going to be selling or sending weapons, lethal or otherwise, military kind of stuff that’s covered by this ban since --
QUESTION: The war.
QUESTION: -- 1975, since you were sending stuff to South Vietnam? That’s the question.
MS. PSAKI: My bet is that is accurate, but why don’t we --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- double-check on that. Should we move to a new issue? Go ahead.
QUESTION: To Israel.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: What was the thinking behind the appropriateness of making the comments that you did yesterday while hosting the prime minister of Israel on housing, on settlements?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, it was responsive to actions that were happening on the ground that we were asked about. And so we were responsive to those.
QUESTION: Right. But in all the time you reviewed situations, you choose to hold comment.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think we choose to hold comment on this particular issue at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So you considered it completely diplomatically appropriate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we were responding to events on the ground, and I obviously spoke to it yesterday, as did my colleague at the White House. So I think we’ll leave it with those comments.
QUESTION: Okay. In terms of the content of the criticism, the prime minister responded in various different interviews. He said that he’s not going to tell Jews where to buy and not buy property. He said that it’s private property. What is the proposal of the – is there some sort of alternative proposal of the Administration? What are they suggesting the prime minister do? Because obviously, the criticism was pretty sharp and pretty specific.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, because you’re well versed in this issue, it requires the building and several stages of building of these buildings and apartments in order for there to be places for individuals to buy. So we’re talking about settlement activity and the fact that there are multiple stages in the process and the fact that it continued, and that’s why we expressed our concern.
Do we have any more on this, or should I move on to a new --
QUESTION: Well, just – yeah, I do --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- because you just said the phrase “settlement activities.” My understanding, this was stuff in East Jerusalem, which is technically not settlement. Is there – are you – you’re not implying --
MS. PSAKI: Our position is not changing. I was answering the question broadly. Obviously, as we stated yesterday, we’re also referring to provocative actions that can make it more difficult to move forward in a peaceful manner in the region.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that the Administration’s point was taken, well taken, by Prime Minister Netanyahu, considering his reaction that was just mentioned, his --
MS. PSAKI: Well taken and --
QUESTION: Well taken, understood, or that he – that it’s accepted. Because he didn’t – he basically rejected it and said you guys didn’t know what you were talking about.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have our information clear, and we responded to the facts on the ground.
QUESTION: But now I asked yesterday if there is any consequence to this criticism.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we voiced our views, Matt, and I think that’s an important step to take and is warranted in these particular cases.
QUESTION: Okay, but there is a – you’re not going to do anything else if they continue to go ahead with this, this specific --
MS. PSAKI: It doesn’t – Israel remains an important partner, a security partner, a friend and ally. That has not changed.
QUESTION: Unless – because the comment was actually saying that should they proceed, it will put space between them and their closest allies.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’re talking about what the – what we’ve already seen to be the response from the international community to ongoing activities such as these.
QUESTION: Right. I don’t want to harp on the point, but you say they’re taking provocative actions. Surely from a diplomatic perspective, this building sees that hosting a head of state and criticizing that government while you are hosting him --
QUESTION: Head of government.
QUESTION: Head of – what did I say?
QUESTION: I believe Israel has a president, doesn’t it?
QUESTION: That’s true. That’s true. Is a provocative action, is it not?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’m going to leave it where my comments were yesterday.
QUESTION: I have a very tangential question to this.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But have you seen this conference that the Iranians are putting on right now which is all about how Israel and the CIA conspired to – for 9/11 and all this --
MS. PSAKI: I have not seen reports of this conference. Where is the conference?
QUESTION: It’s in Tehran, I think. But there’s --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you guys had any --
MS. PSAKI: We will look into that.
QUESTION: -- thoughts about this. I mean, it’s sponsored by the government, clearly, so it – the Iranian Government. So it’s --
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: In the same interview responding to P5+1 agreements, Netanyahu said he wants zero enrichment capability, and if President Obama agrees to a deal with Iran that he finds unacceptable, Israel always has the right to defend itself. Do you have any response to that? Are you willing --
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve been clear that we’re not going to accept a deal that we would find doesn’t meet our threshold, doesn’t meet the threshold of the global community. And we’re not going to accept a bad deal. We are keeping the Israelis and others partners fully abreast of the progress being made and the discussions that are happening, and that was part of the readout from the President’s meeting yesterday.
QUESTION: In that same interview with Andrea Mitchell, she asked him if they share the same standards for a bad deal. And he said, “I hope so.” Now, this is after countless meetings between them and their staffs. Can you not say confidently that they share the same standard for --
MS. PSAKI: I think we both believe Iran should not acquire a nuclear weapon, and that it’s in the interest of the global community that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapon. So we’re working through the process with our P5+1 partners to prevent them from doing so.
More on Iran or a new topic? Okay. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: Hong Kong?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The student deadline, of course, has passed. The chief executive did not resign but did offer to hold talks with some of the protestors. Going forward, of course, Hong Kong has threatened to use force if these students do try to occupy the buildings. The U.S. has been clear in its support of the students’ rights for democracy. If this confrontation does take place, what kind of effect will it have on U.S. policy toward China? Will there be any change? And then also, are the talks continuing between the U.S. and China? Is there ongoing dialogue today in the wake of these new developments?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, not only the meeting yesterday morning but the Secretary had another meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi last night as well. They discussed – they really focused their conversation on global issues, and I – let me give you a quick readout of that just while I have – while I have the opportunity.
They spent – because of the limited time remaining before the President’s upcoming trip, they focused a fair amount of the meeting on the President’s upcoming trip to China for the APEC summit. Both sides, of course, reaffirmed the importance of his trip. They also discussed Iraq, the dangers of ISIL and the spread of extremism, North Korea – they spent a bit of time on that issue and the nuclear threat, Iran, our concerns about U.S. citizens being detained in North Korea, which the Secretary also raised, and cooperation on Afghanistan.
Our focus is on continuing – there is, of course, an open line of communication with China. They are familiar, certainly, with where we stand on this issue. The Secretary spoke to it yesterday. You saw that it was raised by the President as well as the Secretary during meetings yesterday, and we certainly have a large presence on the ground in China, as you know. We continue to urge dialogue between the authorities and protestors. We would certainly be concerned if there was an escalation by authorities. We will see what happens. But we continue to encourage that and urge restraint in all of our conversations.
QUESTION: Would an escalation by authorities perhaps result in a shift in U.S. policy toward China?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get ahead of where we are. Certainly, we hope that is not the case, and that’s why we’re continuing to urge restraint both publicly and privately.
Any more on China or Hong Kong? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkey.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey, sure.
QUESTION: About the charity organization. Turkish charity, Kimse Yok Mu. Kimse Yok Mu’s right to collect charity donations has been withheld by the Turkish Cabinet of Ministers, despite a report prepared by inspector assigned by the interior ministry, not a single irregularity was discovered. The Kimse Yok Mu’s charity is the only aid organization in Turkey that holds UN Economic and Social Council status. I just would like to ask that do you have any comment on?
MS. PSAKI: I do not. We would refer you to the Turkish Government.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Can we actually – can we stay in the --
MS. PSAKI: Turkey? Sure.
QUESTION: Turkey. Yeah. So there were reports that a U.S. citizen named Jordan Matson has joined the Syrian Kurdish group, the Kurdish People’s Protection Unit. It’s also known as YPG.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that this is true, that this U.S. citizen has joined that group? And second, is there – does the United States have any concerns about American citizens not joining foreign terrorist organizations or U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations such as ISIL, but joining other foreign military groups or militant groups that are fighting ISIL? Does that worry you?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we’re certainly aware of these reports. Because of privacy concerns we can’t speak to it further. On your second question, we have warned, as you know, U.S. citizens to defer all travel to Syria. We recommend any U.S. citizens remaining depart immediately. We also, of course, remain concerned of – about any citizen traveling to take part in military operations regardless, and certainly we have a concern about ISIL, but we are warning any citizen from traveling there for any purpose.
QUESTION: And your concern about any U.S. citizen traveling to take part in military operations of any sort, including operations against ISIL, which might actually be something that the U.S. Government might find useful – but what is the concern? Just that they’re putting themselves at risk or that they could be kidnapped, or what is the fundamental concern there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we’ve long had a Travel Warning in place about travel to Syria. We can’t provide protection for U.S. citizens in Syria or routine consular services. And so certainly, we provide that information to everybody.
QUESTION: But there’s no law barring this, correct?
MS. PSAKI: A law?
QUESTION: Yeah. There’s no law barring somebody from going abroad to join a non-FTO military organization, a U.S. citizen?
MS. PSAKI: I can check, but not that I’m aware of, Arshad, a specific law.
QUESTION: Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There’s a press report saying that the Assad regime is intensifying its airstrikes against provinces – against rebel forces in the west of Syria, provinces like Aleppo and these areas there, while the U.S. allies are focusing on the north. Is this going to be okay for the coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we – I don’t have any conformation of the Assad regime’s military plans or what they’ve implemented. As you know, we provide information of our own airstrikes and what steps that we’re taking. And we’ve seen that ISIL is trying to take control of the border crossings with Turkey by taking opposition-held towns, which you may have seen, of course, between Aleppo and the border, including numerous Kurdish villages. We’ve done quite a few airstrikes in that area over the past couple of days. I’m not sure what you mean by “is it okay with the coalition”.
QUESTION: The Kurdish villages are in the north --
MS. PSAKI: Right, and that’s part of our --
QUESTION: -- but the Assad regime is bomb – intensifying this recently – bombings in provinces in the west.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation of what the Assad regime is doing in Syria at this point in time.
QUESTION: I know, but is it – will this be okay for the coalition, Assad to be free to operate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think we’re not coordinating with them. They’re not a part of the coalition, so I don’t think I have any further add.
QUESTION: I forgot to ask you one --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: YPG, just for the record, is it designated as an FTO or is it designated under any of the other authorities as a terrorist group?
MS. PSAKI: It is not. PYD[1] – well, let’s see. PKK, as you know, is designated. I don’t believe YPD[2] is, no.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: I’ve got a couple very brief ones --
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Sure.
QUESTION: -- just to run through. First, Ukraine. Anything more on this mass grave --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- issue?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we are confident that the Ukrainian Government will continue to investigate these claims in conjunction with international experts, as they did when at least eight bodies were discovered in Slovyansk after the town was liberated from separatist control earlier this summer. The issue remains what we talked about yesterday: They don’t have access to this area because it’s separatist controlled, so they can’t get in to do an investigation partnered with international experts.
QUESTION: You don’t – it’s not your understanding that the OSCE monitors have already been there?
MS. PSAKI: They were alerted – OSCE monitors were alerted in late September to the location of unmarked graves, but this would be – any investigation would be under the authority of the Ukrainian Government.
QUESTION: Okay. And the situation in terms of the airport in Donetsk?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the Donetsk – let’s see – anything new on this --
QUESTION: You may not have anything new from yesterday, but --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I have anything in particular new, Matt, from yesterday.
QUESTION: Okay. My – and I have – the second of my three very brief ones: Your friends in Bahrain, while being a member of the coalition and everything, still have a lot – or seem to have a lot to – leave a lot to be desired on the human rights front that – although they did release or allowed the one activist to go, it now seems they’ve arrested a guy for a tweet. Do you have anything to say about that?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. We are concerned by the Government of Bahrain’s detention of human rights activist Nabeel Rajab, reportedly for tweets alleged to be “denigrating to a public institution.” We urge the Government of Bahrain to protect the universal rights of freedom of expression and assembly and to reconsider charges against citizens accused of peaceful expression of opinion. We also continue to call on the Government of Bahrain to abide by its commitment to fair and transparent judicial proceedings, and to resolve this case as expeditiously as possible.
QUESTION: Now, since they expelled your Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, you all have said that you’re working to reschedule that meeting.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What’s the progress on that rescheduling?
MS. PSAKI: I talked to him about it this morning. We’re still working on rescheduling it, and he’s looking forward to heading there.
QUESTION: Before the end of this – before the end of 2016 --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a --
QUESTION: -- while he still is in this job?
MS. PSAKI: -- timing update. I think part of it is that that would be a part of probably a trip to the region.
QUESTION: And is there any prospect of that in a near horizon frame – timeframe?
MS. PSAKI: I think there could be. It’s not yet scheduled.
QUESTION: All right. And my last one.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There was a move – or there is a move on the Hill by some members of Congress, particularly in the House, to get the U.S. to suspend the Visa Waiver Program for countries – European countries or for members of the Visa Waiver Program who have large numbers of passport holders who are fighting or believed to be fighting in Iraq and Syria. The three countries most often named are Britain, France, and Germany. Do you – I presume that the Administration would be opposed to this kind of legislation, but I’m just wondering if you have a formal response to it. Do you think this is a good idea? Is it a bad idea?
MS. PSAKI: I cannot imagine we support that, but let me check and see if there’s any --
QUESTION: Okay. You don’t have any – you don’t – no.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything updated on it, no.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
QUESTION: One more small one.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: There is a report that I have seen from a Sri Lankan newspaper suggesting that when Secretary Kerry met with the Sri Lankan president, I think it was during UNGA, that he had – that Secretary Kerry had indicated or suggested a softening in the U.S. position on Sri Lanka. The piece I saw didn’t specify what, but I think the inference was that it was a softening on human rights concerns in Sri Lanka. Is there any truth to that? Did he signal that he would take human rights less seriously there?
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely not. I saw the same story. The only thing that was right was that the Secretary did speak with the Sri Lankan president on the margins of the UN General Assembly. He did so with the express purpose of conveying that U.S. policy with regard to Sri Lanka has not changed and it certainly has not softened. We would, of course, like our relationship with Sri Lanka to achieve its full potential, but that will only happen if Sri Lanka builds enduring peace and prosperity for all of its diverse ethnic and religious communities. And that’s why the Secretary, in no uncertain terms, made clear to the president that Sri Lanka needed to take meaningful steps to act like a country that is no longer at war and instead is now building a future that includes all of its citizens. So certainly it had the opposite purpose.
QUESTION: Sorry, I had one more.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: And that was about a week or so ago, I think it was Marie, maybe it was you, was asked about a report about the State Department buying 160,000 protective suits, Ebola-resistant or preventative suits. And the company that makes these things has now put out some kind of a statement saying that yes, indeed, you did buy them. I’m wondering if you – I’m assuming it’s true. So why, and why 160,000?
MS. PSAKI: Let me check on that, Matt. As you know, we, of course, have been undertaking with – through the interagency a number of steps to help prevent the spread of the – of Ebola. But we’ll check and see what those suits will be used for.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. I can just do a few more here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, this is backtracking a little bit. But I was wondering if you had any response to Leon Panetta’s recently published comments saying that he argued for a residual force to be left behind to train and secure Iraq’s military and that we had the leverage to make it happen.
MS. PSAKI: I think Secretary Panetta had a long, long career of public service and certainly has played many prominent roles. I think factually or historically, what happened with Iraq was that we weren’t – we didn’t have the requirements needed to leave our troops there. And that simply is what happened at the time. We were certainly open to having a residual force. And so I don’t – I’m not going to get into who fought for what, which I know is part of what it – was described in the article.
QUESTION: Well, but that addresses the most interesting part of the question, which was his assertion that the United States had the leverage to make it happen. Do you not believe that was the case, that the United States did not have the leverage to persuade Iraq to give U.S. troops the protections you felt you needed?
MS. PSAKI: I think all I’m going to say here is that the United States and leadership at the time was certainly committed to doing everything we could to secure the requirements needed to have forces there. Obviously, we were unable to do that.
QUESTION: The way you phrased it just a little while ago, “We were open to it,” that’s kind of the same thing that you’re telling Congress right now about whether you need an authorization for use of force: We’re open to it but we’re not really going to push very hard for it because we don’t think we need it.
MS. PSAKI: I think that --
QUESTION: Is that not the – I realize it’s two completely different circumstances here, but the phrasing seems to be the same. Is it – would you take issue with this – someone saying that you were open to leaving a residual force in Iraq but you really weren’t going to push on it because you didn’t think it was particularly necessary or because the President really wanted to, quote/unquote, “end the war”?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m sure that my colleagues over at the White House are answering this question, and I will leave the majority of the answer to them, Matt. But we certainly supported having a residual force. I did not mean to be less enthusiastic about it. So --
QUESTION: Right. But you also support a new authorization for military force, but you don’t really need it so you’re not – or you say you don’t think you really need it, so you’re not pushing very hard to get it.
MS. PSAKI: I think they’re two different things.
QUESTION: Well, I know they’re two different things, but this is broader than that. I suppose it goes to the whole kind of – when the Administration decides it wants to go down one track or another, you’re open to it but you’re not going to really push very hard for something that might enhance that track, no?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, now we have the legal authority in order to take action. We certainly would welcome the support of Congress. You’re talking about whether we had the requirements needed for our troops to be safe from harm if we left a residual force there. I think it’s two different categories. We didn’t. I think I’m going to leave it at that.
Go ahead. Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Do you have any new information about the Ethiopian Embassy incident investigation?
MS. PSAKI: I do have a little bit of new information. Let’s see here. So obviously, the Secret Service and other divisions of government remain the point, but in general, where diplomats are involved in alleged criminal acts and the prosecutor’s office informs the State Department that it would prosecute but for immunity, the Department requests that the government of the diplomat waive his or her diplomatic immunity to permit prosecution in U.S. courts. If the government declines to waive immunity, the State Department requires the diplomat to depart the United States.
In this case, we requested a waiver of immunity to permit prosecution of the individual involved in that incident. The request was declined, and the individual involved has now left the country.
QUESTION: And can you just – because I don’t think you had the details the day that the incident actually happened. Although it’s been widely reported, it would be nice if you could actually confirm that the incident for which you requested the waiver of immunity so as to enable prosecution involved an Ethiopian national with diplomatic immunity discharging his firearm. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: It did involve an Ethiopian diplomat. I don’t have any other details on the specifics of the case.
QUESTION: You can’t even say it involved firing a gun?
MS. PSAKI: It’s been widely reported, and I think law enforcement agencies are confirming some of the details.
QUESTION: Technically, does that mean that this person has been PNG’d, or is it just that they – you asked them to leave and they will leave and they are leaving --
MS. PSAKI: They have left. They’re gone.
QUESTION: Have they been PNG’d? Are they allowed back into the country for any reason, other than to face the charge?
MS. PSAKI: Typically not.
QUESTION: Do you know in this case?
MS. PSAKI: I will double-check, but typically not.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there also an investigation concerning the protestors who are out near the embassy, trespassing, or anything along that line?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the U.S. Secret Service on that. That would not be the State Department.
All right. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
2:24 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: Hello.
MS. PSAKI: I promise we will do an earlier briefing tomorrow. So I know it’s been late all week.
QUESTION: How about like 10:00 A.M?
MS. PSAKI: All right, Matt. That’s fine.
QUESTION: Since it’s Friday --
MS. PSAKI: That’s fine.
QUESTION: -- and we can all go home and watch the Nats game. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Perfect. I think there’s a direct relationship between Nationals baseball and diplomacy, so I think that should work out fine.
Okay. A couple of items for all of you at the top. As you know, Secretary Kerry met with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Minh this morning to discuss progress on implementing the U.S.-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership launched by President Obama and President Sang in July of 2013. Secretary Kerry highlighted the conclusion of the U.S.-Vietnam Civil Nuclear Cooperation 123 Agreement and expanding maritime security cooperation as examples of the strength of bilateral ties in keeping with U.S. efforts to integrate Vietnam fully into regional maritime security initiatives. The Secretary informed Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Minh that the State Department has taken steps to allow for the future transfer of maritime security-related defense articles to Vietnam. This policy supports Vietnam’s efforts to improve its maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities.
They also discussed the importance of concluding the TPP negotiations and expanding bilateral trade and investment. The Secretary noted that achieving further progress on human rights is integral to our bilateral relationship and is necessary for a further deepening of bilateral ties, including in security cooperation. They also discussed regional issues and recent developments in the South China Sea. Following discussions at the ASEAN Regional Forum in August, the Secretary welcomed efforts to defuse recent tensions, and they agreed on the importance of claimants implementing Article 5 of the Declaration of Conduct and avoiding actions that threaten to escalate disputes and cause instability. They both noted the importance of the upcoming 20th anniversary of bilateral relations next year and expressed their desire to mark this milestone with high-level visits.
The Secretary also met this morning with Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to discuss U.S.-India security cooperation and other topics of regional and bilateral interest. The meeting today builds on discussions held during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to the United States and will cover issues – and covered issues, I should say, such as defense cooperation, international terrorism and terrorism finance, and law enforcement cooperation. This meeting was an important step in reinforcing our shared resolve. Recent U.S.-India – the recent U.S.-India joint statements of expanding our cooperation to bolster national, regional, and global security.
Finally, as you may all have seen, Special President – Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen and Deputy Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk arrived in Iraq today for intensive consultations with Iraqi Government officials and regional Iraqi leaders on how the United States can support Iraq in the fight against ISIL. That Special Envoy Allen went to Iraq for his first international trip in his new capacity speaks to the importance of – the United States places on coordination with and support for Iraq as we build this global coalition to degrade and defeat ISIL. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk’s discussions in Iraq and elsewhere will follow on the coalition-building efforts that President Obama and Secretary Kerry led at the NATO summit in Wales, during meetings in Jeddah and in Cairo, and most recently in New York at UNGA.
From Iraq, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will travel on to Brussels for meetings with NATO and EU leadership, where the focus will be cracking down on ISIL’s foreign fighter pipeline and countering its financing streams. Then they will travel on to Amman for consultations with Jordanian officials and key regional players. From Amman they will travel to Cairo to meet with Egyptian Government officials and the Arab League ambassadors. Their conversations there will follow on President Obama’s recent meeting with President Sisi in New York and Secretary Kerry’s discussions during his last trip to Cairo. They will finally conclude their visit in Turkey, a key NATO ally, where they will meet with Turkish military and political leaders to discuss their potential contributions to the international coalition, including combating the threat from foreign fighters. In Turkey, they will also meet with Syrian opposition leaders, both affirming our continued support for their brave efforts in the fight against ISIL and continuing our ongoing dialogue about the best ways to support these efforts.
In conversations with General Allen and Ambassador McGurk – in these conversations they will have they will discuss coalition cooperation across the five lines of effort – not just military support for our partners, but also – with our partners, I should say, but also stopping foreign fighters, slashing ISIL’s access to financing, maximizing humanitarian assistance and protection for vulnerable victims of the conflict, and exposing ISIL’s extremist, nihilistic message for what it really is. There’s been lots of attention paid to the military component, as we’ve discussed in here, but this trip is about more than that. It’s about expanding this coalition and about building on the five lines of effort that they’re focused on. They will also finally return to the region later this month to meet with other key coalition partners as well, so this will be the first of a number of trips.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: Hey, Matt, can I ask one real quick one? Can you repeat the phrase on Vietnam? You said that the Secretary had told the Vietnamese official that the United States has taken steps to provide for the future transfer of defense-related --
QUESTION: To allow for.
MS. PSAKI: Of maritime-security-related defense articles to Vietnam.
QUESTION: Does that mean arms?
MS. PSAKI: It – it’s – let me see if I have a little bit more on this, Arshad. And I’m sure for anyone who’s interested we can get you a more intensive briefing, too.
QUESTION: They’re --
MS. PSAKI: It’s --
QUESTION: I think all will be clear before --
MS. PSAKI: Let me see, Arshad, if I can get you a more specific --
QUESTION: I mean, maritime security could be --
MS. PSAKI: Surveillance – let’s see. Maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities. We can see, Arshad, if we can get you a more specific breakdown after the briefing.
QUESTION: I was going to get back to Vietnam later on --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- but I want – but I want to start with the trip, but particularly Turkey, which you will have seen – at least I hope you will have seen – that the parliament voted today to authorize them to – do you have any reaction to that? And – well, start with that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, as you know, we’ve been closely engaged with Turkey. We welcome the Turkish parliament’s vote to authorize Turkish military action. We’ve had numerous high-level discussions with Turkish officials to discuss how to advance our cooperation in countering the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Those will continue, and we look forward to strengthening that cooperation. There’s – sorry – a fly up here. (Laughter.) There’s a fly up here. Sorry. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: A bee.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think it’s a bee.
Special presidential envoy mentioned, of course, will be traveling there. As I mentioned yesterday, of course, Turkey has experienced directly the impact of this crisis. And we’ll continue our conversations over the course of the coming weeks.
QUESTION: Is there anything in particular that you would like to see them do, now that they’ve – now that they have this authorization?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, it provided broad authority. So the phase we’re in now is discussing what particular role they’ll play.
QUESTION: So then if they’ve done this today, why is it that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk aren’t going there until the end of this bizarrely constructed trip? Which I also want to ask why fly to Brussels from Baghdad and then back to the Middle East? It doesn’t seem very climate change friendly.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you’ve experienced, Matt, and others have, sometimes you work with the schedules of your counterparts.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Obviously, this trip’s been in the works for some time. And certainly we’ll be engaged with Turkey over the coming days, not just – we’re not going to wait for that engagement for their trip, but --
QUESTION: Okay. But so – but so they will be, once they get there, discussing the coordination? Or are you saying that the coordination can happen outside of a face-to-face meeting?
MS. PSAKI: Well, they’ll discuss it when they’re there, but certainly we’ll be engaged through our officials – high-level officials on the ground, as well as high-level officials in Washington between now and then as well.
QUESTION: Do you see there is a greater urgency now in particular areas right along the Turkish border for there to be military action but from coalition members with boots on the ground?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know and you’ve seen from the daily updates, we, along with coalition partners, have been partaking in airstrikes in that area near Turkey because of the threat posed by ISIL there. Or sorry, I’m not sure if you --
QUESTION: Well, I was asking about boots on the ground, not about airstrikes.
MS. PSAKI: I think there are, obviously, a range of options that can be under consideration, but I’m not going to get ahead of those discussions with Turkey about what role they should play.
QUESTION: When he will be arriving to Ankara, Ambassador McGurk and General Allen?
MS. PSAKI: Next week. But again, we’re still finalizing some specifics about the trip. So I think we’ll have more technical updates with each day about who’ll they be meeting with and what day they’ll arrive, et cetera.
QUESTION: Should we assume that each city one day? I mean, Iraq, Baghdad, Brussels, Amman, Cairo, and Ankara (inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: About that, but some may spend more than one day. So again, I said the end of the trip is Turkey, so I would assume the end of next week.
QUESTION: And – but the meetings with the president, the prime minister, is there any --
MS. PSAKI: Again, as I just said, because we’re talking about a week and a half from now or near the end of next week, I think we’ll have more updates on specific meetings as we get a little bit closer, and as soon as we have that information, we’ll make it available.
QUESTION: So it’s almost one month that – when President Obama started to discuss this issue with the Turkish side since the Wales summit. So how do you see right now the – where we are in terms of the fight against the ISIL in terms of the contribution coming from Ankara?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, we welcome the Turkish parliament’s vote to authorize Turkish military action, as I mentioned. Turkey has – and their leaders – have indicated they want to play a more prominent role with the coalition. We welcome that. They’re an important counterterrorism partner, an important NATO ally, so we understand the sensitivity that they had for several weeks with – the country had with their diplomats, and now we’re ready to move forward. And they’ve indicated they want to be an active partner.
QUESTION: Do you believe that – are you on the same page with the Turkish leadership in terms of the priorities in this fight? I mean, ISIS is obviously the priority for U.S. side, but do you think that the Turks also are seeing ISIS as a priority while --
MS. PSAKI: I think Turkey, from all of our discussions with them, certainly understands the threat posed by ISIL. But I would point you to them for more on that particular question.
Do we have more on Turkey or should we move on to a new topic?
QUESTION: Can we just – can we go to Vietnam?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Does that mean that you have now – as I believe U.S. officials elsewhere in the building may have said – that you have now lifted the ban on the provision of defense materiel to Vietnam solely for maritime security-related items?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: (Laughter.) Sorry if I wasn’t clear in the beginning. I should note also, Arshad, that obviously, we remain – our security relationship remains under constant review. Clearly, there’s more work that needs to be done in areas like human rights, and that’s one thing that the Secretary conveyed during the meeting, and this is, of course, a partial lifting.
QUESTION: And would it be fair to understand this partial lifting as very much a function of the United States desire to offer support to countries such as Vietnam in their maritime disputes with China?
MS. PSAKI: I would look at it more, Arshad, as a response to the fact that they’ve made progress in some areas like human rights that we’ve talked to them about, that President Obama spoke with them about in 2013 and Secretary Kerry spoke with them about when he was there in December. And they’re an important partner and this is responsive to their request.
QUESTION: So it has nothing to do with the fact that a Chinese – if I’m not mistaken – towed an oil rig into disputed waters?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I noted in my readout of the meeting, certainly they discussed maritime security, and that is a prominent part of our discussion every time we meet with them.
QUESTION: But the – you can’t say that the removal of the longstanding ban with regard to maritime security items is related to that specific issue?
MS. PSAKI: Well, in part, in order to fully integrate Vietnam into maritime security initiatives that we have partnerships on throughout the region. But there are also components of steps in progress on reforms that they made in the country that prompted the action.
QUESTION: But one shouldn’t view it as China-related at all?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’ve addressed it.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well --
MS. PSAKI: Or go ahead – I’m sorry, are we Vietnam here?
QUESTION: No, Vietnam.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: One, did – was the Chinese foreign minister yesterday informed about this decision? Because as much as you want to say it doesn’t – it’s not related to Vietnam, it is to anyone who can – has – (laughter) – to anyone with any kind of vision, I think. Was the Chinese foreign minister told about --
MS. PSAKI: Not that I recall, Matt.
QUESTION: Not that you know? Okay. And the other thing is that I – you have to forgive my influence, I mean – influence – ignorance on this. This only applies to maritime security? It’s not like you’re going to sell them tanks or anything, right?
MS. PSAKI: That is right. It applies to partial lifting of defense articles.
QUESTION: And when it – when he says that – or you say that you have – you are taking or you have taken steps to allow for the future transfer, does that mean that you could go ahead and just sell them, or does it have to go – does there have to be some kind of congressional notification or approval or anything? Does – what’s the process?
MS. PSAKI: Well, my understanding is that Congress has been notified, of course, about this decision. So in terms of the technical pieces of what needs to happen, is that what you’re asking? Or --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: Let me check if there’s more that needs to happen --
QUESTION: I mean, is there --
MS. PSAKI: -- or if it can move forward from here.
QUESTION: Does there – I mean, basically, I’m asking you: Does there need to – does it still have to be signed off on by someone, whether it’s the Hill or whether it’s the Pentagon or whether – whoever it is? Or is this kind of a blank – blanket you can have whatever you want as long as it is in this maritime security box?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – why don’t we get you all a list of what this is applicable to. My understanding is that now this is at a point where it can move forward, but we will make sure there are not additional steps that need to be taken.
QUESTION: And then – and I should know this, but unfortunately I don’t, and maybe you don’t have it up there either, but how – has this ban – how long has this ban on all lethal arms sales been in place? Has it been since 1975?
MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on that, Matt, but I’m happy to take that with the other couple of questions about the issue.
QUESTION: Right, I’m just --
QUESTION: It was all defense materiel, though. It wasn’t just lethal, right, the ban?
MS. PSAKI: I – we will check the ban and how long it’s been --
QUESTION: Well from whenever it is, is this the first time you’re going to be selling or sending weapons, lethal or otherwise, military kind of stuff that’s covered by this ban since --
QUESTION: The war.
QUESTION: -- 1975, since you were sending stuff to South Vietnam? That’s the question.
MS. PSAKI: My bet is that is accurate, but why don’t we --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- double-check on that. Should we move to a new issue? Go ahead.
QUESTION: To Israel.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: What was the thinking behind the appropriateness of making the comments that you did yesterday while hosting the prime minister of Israel on housing, on settlements?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, it was responsive to actions that were happening on the ground that we were asked about. And so we were responsive to those.
QUESTION: Right. But in all the time you reviewed situations, you choose to hold comment.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think we choose to hold comment on this particular issue at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So you considered it completely diplomatically appropriate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we were responding to events on the ground, and I obviously spoke to it yesterday, as did my colleague at the White House. So I think we’ll leave it with those comments.
QUESTION: Okay. In terms of the content of the criticism, the prime minister responded in various different interviews. He said that he’s not going to tell Jews where to buy and not buy property. He said that it’s private property. What is the proposal of the – is there some sort of alternative proposal of the Administration? What are they suggesting the prime minister do? Because obviously, the criticism was pretty sharp and pretty specific.
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, because you’re well versed in this issue, it requires the building and several stages of building of these buildings and apartments in order for there to be places for individuals to buy. So we’re talking about settlement activity and the fact that there are multiple stages in the process and the fact that it continued, and that’s why we expressed our concern.
Do we have any more on this, or should I move on to a new --
QUESTION: Well, just – yeah, I do --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- because you just said the phrase “settlement activities.” My understanding, this was stuff in East Jerusalem, which is technically not settlement. Is there – are you – you’re not implying --
MS. PSAKI: Our position is not changing. I was answering the question broadly. Obviously, as we stated yesterday, we’re also referring to provocative actions that can make it more difficult to move forward in a peaceful manner in the region.
QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that the Administration’s point was taken, well taken, by Prime Minister Netanyahu, considering his reaction that was just mentioned, his --
MS. PSAKI: Well taken and --
QUESTION: Well taken, understood, or that he – that it’s accepted. Because he didn’t – he basically rejected it and said you guys didn’t know what you were talking about.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have our information clear, and we responded to the facts on the ground.
QUESTION: But now I asked yesterday if there is any consequence to this criticism.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we voiced our views, Matt, and I think that’s an important step to take and is warranted in these particular cases.
QUESTION: Okay, but there is a – you’re not going to do anything else if they continue to go ahead with this, this specific --
MS. PSAKI: It doesn’t – Israel remains an important partner, a security partner, a friend and ally. That has not changed.
QUESTION: Unless – because the comment was actually saying that should they proceed, it will put space between them and their closest allies.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’re talking about what the – what we’ve already seen to be the response from the international community to ongoing activities such as these.
QUESTION: Right. I don’t want to harp on the point, but you say they’re taking provocative actions. Surely from a diplomatic perspective, this building sees that hosting a head of state and criticizing that government while you are hosting him --
QUESTION: Head of government.
QUESTION: Head of – what did I say?
QUESTION: I believe Israel has a president, doesn’t it?
QUESTION: That’s true. That’s true. Is a provocative action, is it not?
MS. PSAKI: I think I’m going to leave it where my comments were yesterday.
QUESTION: I have a very tangential question to this.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But have you seen this conference that the Iranians are putting on right now which is all about how Israel and the CIA conspired to – for 9/11 and all this --
MS. PSAKI: I have not seen reports of this conference. Where is the conference?
QUESTION: It’s in Tehran, I think. But there’s --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering if you guys had any --
MS. PSAKI: We will look into that.
QUESTION: -- thoughts about this. I mean, it’s sponsored by the government, clearly, so it – the Iranian Government. So it’s --
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: In the same interview responding to P5+1 agreements, Netanyahu said he wants zero enrichment capability, and if President Obama agrees to a deal with Iran that he finds unacceptable, Israel always has the right to defend itself. Do you have any response to that? Are you willing --
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve been clear that we’re not going to accept a deal that we would find doesn’t meet our threshold, doesn’t meet the threshold of the global community. And we’re not going to accept a bad deal. We are keeping the Israelis and others partners fully abreast of the progress being made and the discussions that are happening, and that was part of the readout from the President’s meeting yesterday.
QUESTION: In that same interview with Andrea Mitchell, she asked him if they share the same standards for a bad deal. And he said, “I hope so.” Now, this is after countless meetings between them and their staffs. Can you not say confidently that they share the same standard for --
MS. PSAKI: I think we both believe Iran should not acquire a nuclear weapon, and that it’s in the interest of the global community that Iran not acquire a nuclear weapon. So we’re working through the process with our P5+1 partners to prevent them from doing so.
More on Iran or a new topic? Okay. Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: Hong Kong?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The student deadline, of course, has passed. The chief executive did not resign but did offer to hold talks with some of the protestors. Going forward, of course, Hong Kong has threatened to use force if these students do try to occupy the buildings. The U.S. has been clear in its support of the students’ rights for democracy. If this confrontation does take place, what kind of effect will it have on U.S. policy toward China? Will there be any change? And then also, are the talks continuing between the U.S. and China? Is there ongoing dialogue today in the wake of these new developments?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, not only the meeting yesterday morning but the Secretary had another meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi last night as well. They discussed – they really focused their conversation on global issues, and I – let me give you a quick readout of that just while I have – while I have the opportunity.
They spent – because of the limited time remaining before the President’s upcoming trip, they focused a fair amount of the meeting on the President’s upcoming trip to China for the APEC summit. Both sides, of course, reaffirmed the importance of his trip. They also discussed Iraq, the dangers of ISIL and the spread of extremism, North Korea – they spent a bit of time on that issue and the nuclear threat, Iran, our concerns about U.S. citizens being detained in North Korea, which the Secretary also raised, and cooperation on Afghanistan.
Our focus is on continuing – there is, of course, an open line of communication with China. They are familiar, certainly, with where we stand on this issue. The Secretary spoke to it yesterday. You saw that it was raised by the President as well as the Secretary during meetings yesterday, and we certainly have a large presence on the ground in China, as you know. We continue to urge dialogue between the authorities and protestors. We would certainly be concerned if there was an escalation by authorities. We will see what happens. But we continue to encourage that and urge restraint in all of our conversations.
QUESTION: Would an escalation by authorities perhaps result in a shift in U.S. policy toward China?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to get ahead of where we are. Certainly, we hope that is not the case, and that’s why we’re continuing to urge restraint both publicly and privately.
Any more on China or Hong Kong? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkey.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey, sure.
QUESTION: About the charity organization. Turkish charity, Kimse Yok Mu. Kimse Yok Mu’s right to collect charity donations has been withheld by the Turkish Cabinet of Ministers, despite a report prepared by inspector assigned by the interior ministry, not a single irregularity was discovered. The Kimse Yok Mu’s charity is the only aid organization in Turkey that holds UN Economic and Social Council status. I just would like to ask that do you have any comment on?
MS. PSAKI: I do not. We would refer you to the Turkish Government.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Can we actually – can we stay in the --
MS. PSAKI: Turkey? Sure.
QUESTION: Turkey. Yeah. So there were reports that a U.S. citizen named Jordan Matson has joined the Syrian Kurdish group, the Kurdish People’s Protection Unit. It’s also known as YPG.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you have any reason to believe that this is true, that this U.S. citizen has joined that group? And second, is there – does the United States have any concerns about American citizens not joining foreign terrorist organizations or U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations such as ISIL, but joining other foreign military groups or militant groups that are fighting ISIL? Does that worry you?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, first, we’re certainly aware of these reports. Because of privacy concerns we can’t speak to it further. On your second question, we have warned, as you know, U.S. citizens to defer all travel to Syria. We recommend any U.S. citizens remaining depart immediately. We also, of course, remain concerned of – about any citizen traveling to take part in military operations regardless, and certainly we have a concern about ISIL, but we are warning any citizen from traveling there for any purpose.
QUESTION: And your concern about any U.S. citizen traveling to take part in military operations of any sort, including operations against ISIL, which might actually be something that the U.S. Government might find useful – but what is the concern? Just that they’re putting themselves at risk or that they could be kidnapped, or what is the fundamental concern there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we’ve long had a Travel Warning in place about travel to Syria. We can’t provide protection for U.S. citizens in Syria or routine consular services. And so certainly, we provide that information to everybody.
QUESTION: But there’s no law barring this, correct?
MS. PSAKI: A law?
QUESTION: Yeah. There’s no law barring somebody from going abroad to join a non-FTO military organization, a U.S. citizen?
MS. PSAKI: I can check, but not that I’m aware of, Arshad, a specific law.
QUESTION: Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There’s a press report saying that the Assad regime is intensifying its airstrikes against provinces – against rebel forces in the west of Syria, provinces like Aleppo and these areas there, while the U.S. allies are focusing on the north. Is this going to be okay for the coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we – I don’t have any conformation of the Assad regime’s military plans or what they’ve implemented. As you know, we provide information of our own airstrikes and what steps that we’re taking. And we’ve seen that ISIL is trying to take control of the border crossings with Turkey by taking opposition-held towns, which you may have seen, of course, between Aleppo and the border, including numerous Kurdish villages. We’ve done quite a few airstrikes in that area over the past couple of days. I’m not sure what you mean by “is it okay with the coalition”.
QUESTION: The Kurdish villages are in the north --
MS. PSAKI: Right, and that’s part of our --
QUESTION: -- but the Assad regime is bomb – intensifying this recently – bombings in provinces in the west.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation of what the Assad regime is doing in Syria at this point in time.
QUESTION: I know, but is it – will this be okay for the coalition, Assad to be free to operate?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think we’re not coordinating with them. They’re not a part of the coalition, so I don’t think I have any further add.
QUESTION: I forgot to ask you one --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: YPG, just for the record, is it designated as an FTO or is it designated under any of the other authorities as a terrorist group?
MS. PSAKI: It is not. PYD[1] – well, let’s see. PKK, as you know, is designated. I don’t believe YPD[2] is, no.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: I’ve got a couple very brief ones --
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Sure.
QUESTION: -- just to run through. First, Ukraine. Anything more on this mass grave --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- issue?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we are confident that the Ukrainian Government will continue to investigate these claims in conjunction with international experts, as they did when at least eight bodies were discovered in Slovyansk after the town was liberated from separatist control earlier this summer. The issue remains what we talked about yesterday: They don’t have access to this area because it’s separatist controlled, so they can’t get in to do an investigation partnered with international experts.
QUESTION: You don’t – it’s not your understanding that the OSCE monitors have already been there?
MS. PSAKI: They were alerted – OSCE monitors were alerted in late September to the location of unmarked graves, but this would be – any investigation would be under the authority of the Ukrainian Government.
QUESTION: Okay. And the situation in terms of the airport in Donetsk?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, the Donetsk – let’s see – anything new on this --
QUESTION: You may not have anything new from yesterday, but --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I have anything in particular new, Matt, from yesterday.
QUESTION: Okay. My – and I have – the second of my three very brief ones: Your friends in Bahrain, while being a member of the coalition and everything, still have a lot – or seem to have a lot to – leave a lot to be desired on the human rights front that – although they did release or allowed the one activist to go, it now seems they’ve arrested a guy for a tweet. Do you have anything to say about that?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. We are concerned by the Government of Bahrain’s detention of human rights activist Nabeel Rajab, reportedly for tweets alleged to be “denigrating to a public institution.” We urge the Government of Bahrain to protect the universal rights of freedom of expression and assembly and to reconsider charges against citizens accused of peaceful expression of opinion. We also continue to call on the Government of Bahrain to abide by its commitment to fair and transparent judicial proceedings, and to resolve this case as expeditiously as possible.
QUESTION: Now, since they expelled your Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, you all have said that you’re working to reschedule that meeting.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What’s the progress on that rescheduling?
MS. PSAKI: I talked to him about it this morning. We’re still working on rescheduling it, and he’s looking forward to heading there.
QUESTION: Before the end of this – before the end of 2016 --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a --
QUESTION: -- while he still is in this job?
MS. PSAKI: -- timing update. I think part of it is that that would be a part of probably a trip to the region.
QUESTION: And is there any prospect of that in a near horizon frame – timeframe?
MS. PSAKI: I think there could be. It’s not yet scheduled.
QUESTION: All right. And my last one.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There was a move – or there is a move on the Hill by some members of Congress, particularly in the House, to get the U.S. to suspend the Visa Waiver Program for countries – European countries or for members of the Visa Waiver Program who have large numbers of passport holders who are fighting or believed to be fighting in Iraq and Syria. The three countries most often named are Britain, France, and Germany. Do you – I presume that the Administration would be opposed to this kind of legislation, but I’m just wondering if you have a formal response to it. Do you think this is a good idea? Is it a bad idea?
MS. PSAKI: I cannot imagine we support that, but let me check and see if there’s any --
QUESTION: Okay. You don’t have any – you don’t – no.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything updated on it, no.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.
QUESTION: One more small one.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: There is a report that I have seen from a Sri Lankan newspaper suggesting that when Secretary Kerry met with the Sri Lankan president, I think it was during UNGA, that he had – that Secretary Kerry had indicated or suggested a softening in the U.S. position on Sri Lanka. The piece I saw didn’t specify what, but I think the inference was that it was a softening on human rights concerns in Sri Lanka. Is there any truth to that? Did he signal that he would take human rights less seriously there?
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely not. I saw the same story. The only thing that was right was that the Secretary did speak with the Sri Lankan president on the margins of the UN General Assembly. He did so with the express purpose of conveying that U.S. policy with regard to Sri Lanka has not changed and it certainly has not softened. We would, of course, like our relationship with Sri Lanka to achieve its full potential, but that will only happen if Sri Lanka builds enduring peace and prosperity for all of its diverse ethnic and religious communities. And that’s why the Secretary, in no uncertain terms, made clear to the president that Sri Lanka needed to take meaningful steps to act like a country that is no longer at war and instead is now building a future that includes all of its citizens. So certainly it had the opposite purpose.
QUESTION: Sorry, I had one more.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: And that was about a week or so ago, I think it was Marie, maybe it was you, was asked about a report about the State Department buying 160,000 protective suits, Ebola-resistant or preventative suits. And the company that makes these things has now put out some kind of a statement saying that yes, indeed, you did buy them. I’m wondering if you – I’m assuming it’s true. So why, and why 160,000?
MS. PSAKI: Let me check on that, Matt. As you know, we, of course, have been undertaking with – through the interagency a number of steps to help prevent the spread of the – of Ebola. But we’ll check and see what those suits will be used for.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. I can just do a few more here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry, this is backtracking a little bit. But I was wondering if you had any response to Leon Panetta’s recently published comments saying that he argued for a residual force to be left behind to train and secure Iraq’s military and that we had the leverage to make it happen.
MS. PSAKI: I think Secretary Panetta had a long, long career of public service and certainly has played many prominent roles. I think factually or historically, what happened with Iraq was that we weren’t – we didn’t have the requirements needed to leave our troops there. And that simply is what happened at the time. We were certainly open to having a residual force. And so I don’t – I’m not going to get into who fought for what, which I know is part of what it – was described in the article.
QUESTION: Well, but that addresses the most interesting part of the question, which was his assertion that the United States had the leverage to make it happen. Do you not believe that was the case, that the United States did not have the leverage to persuade Iraq to give U.S. troops the protections you felt you needed?
MS. PSAKI: I think all I’m going to say here is that the United States and leadership at the time was certainly committed to doing everything we could to secure the requirements needed to have forces there. Obviously, we were unable to do that.
QUESTION: The way you phrased it just a little while ago, “We were open to it,” that’s kind of the same thing that you’re telling Congress right now about whether you need an authorization for use of force: We’re open to it but we’re not really going to push very hard for it because we don’t think we need it.
MS. PSAKI: I think that --
QUESTION: Is that not the – I realize it’s two completely different circumstances here, but the phrasing seems to be the same. Is it – would you take issue with this – someone saying that you were open to leaving a residual force in Iraq but you really weren’t going to push on it because you didn’t think it was particularly necessary or because the President really wanted to, quote/unquote, “end the war”?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I’m sure that my colleagues over at the White House are answering this question, and I will leave the majority of the answer to them, Matt. But we certainly supported having a residual force. I did not mean to be less enthusiastic about it. So --
QUESTION: Right. But you also support a new authorization for military force, but you don’t really need it so you’re not – or you say you don’t think you really need it, so you’re not pushing very hard to get it.
MS. PSAKI: I think they’re two different things.
QUESTION: Well, I know they’re two different things, but this is broader than that. I suppose it goes to the whole kind of – when the Administration decides it wants to go down one track or another, you’re open to it but you’re not going to really push very hard for something that might enhance that track, no?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, now we have the legal authority in order to take action. We certainly would welcome the support of Congress. You’re talking about whether we had the requirements needed for our troops to be safe from harm if we left a residual force there. I think it’s two different categories. We didn’t. I think I’m going to leave it at that.
Go ahead. Ethiopia.
QUESTION: Do you have any new information about the Ethiopian Embassy incident investigation?
MS. PSAKI: I do have a little bit of new information. Let’s see here. So obviously, the Secret Service and other divisions of government remain the point, but in general, where diplomats are involved in alleged criminal acts and the prosecutor’s office informs the State Department that it would prosecute but for immunity, the Department requests that the government of the diplomat waive his or her diplomatic immunity to permit prosecution in U.S. courts. If the government declines to waive immunity, the State Department requires the diplomat to depart the United States.
In this case, we requested a waiver of immunity to permit prosecution of the individual involved in that incident. The request was declined, and the individual involved has now left the country.
QUESTION: And can you just – because I don’t think you had the details the day that the incident actually happened. Although it’s been widely reported, it would be nice if you could actually confirm that the incident for which you requested the waiver of immunity so as to enable prosecution involved an Ethiopian national with diplomatic immunity discharging his firearm. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: It did involve an Ethiopian diplomat. I don’t have any other details on the specifics of the case.
QUESTION: You can’t even say it involved firing a gun?
MS. PSAKI: It’s been widely reported, and I think law enforcement agencies are confirming some of the details.
QUESTION: Technically, does that mean that this person has been PNG’d, or is it just that they – you asked them to leave and they will leave and they are leaving --
MS. PSAKI: They have left. They’re gone.
QUESTION: Have they been PNG’d? Are they allowed back into the country for any reason, other than to face the charge?
MS. PSAKI: Typically not.
QUESTION: Do you know in this case?
MS. PSAKI: I will double-check, but typically not.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Is there also an investigation concerning the protestors who are out near the embassy, trespassing, or anything along that line?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the U.S. Secret Service on that. That would not be the State Department.
All right. Thanks, everyone.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
