FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid al-Atiyah Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
October 21, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. I want to thank Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius for his gracious hospitality here in Paris, and I will be meeting with him tomorrow morning. I look forward to that meeting. And I want to express my deep appreciation to Secretary General Elaraby of the Arab League and to the members of the Arab League Follow-On Committee in the Mideast peace process for their commitment to peace and for their willingness to come to Paris today for yet another meeting and briefing which we have promised them with respect to the Mideast peace process, and we’ve promised to do it on a regular basis or as needed.
I especially want to recognize my friend, the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khalid al-Atiyah. I am very appreciative to him. He’s been a good partner in this effort of keeping the committee moving and of keeping it engaged. And this is the fourth time now in six months that the United States and the Arab League have gathered as part of our regular consultations in order to make sure that the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are very much accountable to those who have a great stake in it. And as everybody knows, the Arab Peace Initiative, which I have many times mentioned, was a very significant step forward, is still a very important ingredient of the possibilities of peace.
Excuse me. The breadth and the depth of the participation that we had here today and in all of our meetings is really a clear demonstration of the continued support that President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority continue to receive from the Arab community as a whole, and I think it is significant. The Arab League understands precisely what is at stake here. I might comment that in the middle of our meeting today, His Highness Prince Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia very eloquently stated, “You know, if you’re thinking about what the vision for peace of the Arab world, all you really have to do is look at the Arab Peace Initiative, which offers immediate peace to Israel when settling the Palestinian issue, a peace that will bring normal commerce, embassies, normal relations, connections between people and between countries, not with one or two nations, but with 57 nations all at one time – 35 Muslim nations, 22 Arab nations. That’s a vision, and it’s a vision worth fighting for.
From the very first visit with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee in Washington earlier this year, to the key meeting that we had in Amman in July, the Arab League Follow-on Committee has shown a remarkable commitment to this effort, and we’re very grateful to them for that.
Their support for a final status agreement is essential to the agreement of a negotiated, two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis, and it is critical to creating the momentum and the seriousness of purpose that is essential in order to be able to be successful in these talks.
It’s no secret to anybody that this is and remains a difficult process, there is no shortage of passionate skeptics. But I want to underscore that the goal is clear and it is achievable, and those who are closest to it – the neighbors as well as the parties themselves – understand what is at stake: a just and a lasting peace that’s based on a two-state solution which is the only solution. Two states for a simple reason, because two proud peoples deserve the opportunity to realize their legitimate aspirations, their security, and their freedom, and their future.
The Israeli and the Palestinian people both have leaders who absolutely understand what is at stake, and they have taken risks in order to bring both parties to the table. They showed courage to begin the process and they have shown courage to continue it even in the face of criticism. The two parties have been engaged now in 13 meetings, serious meetings. They had three meetings in the last four days. The pace has intensified. All the core issues are on the table, and they have been meeting with increased intensity.
But for everybody to live up to the challenges of making peace, we have to support them, including living up to our obligations on the economic front. I want to stress that no economic track, no economic package or financial assistance will ever be a substitute for the political track. But with our partnership and with our support and our economic investment, we can all help in order to provide a difference to the lives of people living in the neighborhood. That is why I am especially pleased to announce tonight – and I’m very grateful to the Amir of Qatar, to the Qatari people, and to the Foreign Minister who has really helped bring this about – they have agreed to provide $150 million in urgently needed debt relief to the Palestinian Authority. And I am very grateful to Khalid al-Atiyah for helping to make that happen. I’m confident that other Arab governments are currently evaluating and making their decisions, and there will be others who will join in this initiative as we go forward.
So the support of donors has been critical to helping us get where we are today, and it is important ultimately for the parties themselves to make the key decisions and reasonable compromises necessary for a final status agreement. That includes taking all of the steps that are necessary to create a positive atmosphere for the negotiations, which incidentally was one of the key things agreed upon by both parties as they entered into these negotiations.
So my friends, I might comment that in his – in that vein, I was very pleased to see that Prime Minister Netanyahu made an Eid al-Adha statement, a message earlier this week, and he made it clear that Israel is committed to maintaining the status quo in the holy places, and he made it clear that the hand of Israel is extended to the Palestinian people in the hope of peace.
So my friends, there is an opportunity for peace over the horizon. But to seize that opportunity, we need the continued support of the Arab League, we need the engagement of the Arab League, and we need the rest of the international community also to continue to be supportive. I believe that with our work together, we can provide for the peaceful, prosperous, hopeful outcome that people in the region, and particularly Israelis and Palestinians, have hoped for for a long, long time.
Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: Thank you very much, and I’ll do it in Arabic if you’d like to put your headset, please.
(Via interpreter) In the beginning, as my friend John Kerry did, I would like to extend my thanks also to our common friend Laurent for allowing for this meeting to take place in France. Yes, indeed, we did meet today for a fourth time about the peace process. We discussed and confirmed some (inaudible) issues, which is the solution – a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. We also addressed some very important issues.
I would like to be very brief because my friend John here covered most of the issues. But there are some issues that we addressed in this meeting. For example, we talked about the issue of Gaza and the futility of isolating Gaza because that wouldn’t help the peace process, and the closure of crossing points. There are millions of people living in Gaza, and they are in need of supply – food supplies and medicine. Therefore, there must be a way to open crossing points by all parties so that we could enable the people of Gaza to live, because they are an inseparable part of the Palestinian people.
As for the negotiations, we confirmed the need – affirmed the need for American participation, actual participation, in the negotiations. And I would like to thank my friend John for the serious effort that is expended, but we would like him to be fully engaged in this process. We are concerned concerning the environment surrounding the negotiations, and we did address this concern. For example, the most recent measures, we are seeing settlement expansion, not just destruction of homes but destruction of entire communities similar to what’s happening in the Jordan Valley. Also, raising the Israeli flag, we consider this to be a transgression that we cannot possibly accept, not in the Arab world or the Islamic world. Therefore, we urge that the conducive environment for the negotiations be created. Also, some statements made by Israeli officials harm the peace process.
We addressed – we talked about most – several issues – economics and economic openness, and we asserted that the initiative of the sovereignty of the holy places in 2002 was very clear, and it also included all the possibilities that could take place in the event of a comprehensive peace. I would like also to – I wanted to shed light on these issues because my friend John has gone into the specifics of the meeting, and thank you very much.
MODERATOR: The first question will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.
QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Kerry, when you took office as Secretary of State, you repeatedly said that it was necessary to change President Assad’s calculation. When you and Foreign Minister Lavrov announced your hopes to hold Geneva 2 in May, the circumstances seemed somewhat better for the possibility of a peace conference. The government seemed – the Syrian Government seemed to be losing ground at the time. Now, many months later, the Syrian Government seems to be in a stronger position. President Assad says – is talking about the possibility of running for re-election. And the opposition, as you well know, is fighting on two fronts, something that your – even your own aides say makes it harder to extract concessions from the Syrian Government. What makes you think that the Assad government has any reason, given the way events have moved in the last six months, to actually make concessions and give up power? And what makes you think that the opposition, which seems to grow more fractured and has seen defections even in the last few weeks, is in any position or shape to assume a transitional governing role?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Arshad, obviously a central question to all of this, and I’ll give you as complete and direct an answer as I can. You are correct to say that when Sergey Lavrov and I announced this in Moscow, I think back in May, that the situation on the ground was different than the way it is today. But the situation on the ground is irrelevant to the question of the implementation of Geneva 1. And maybe President Assad needs to go back and read Geneva 1 again, or for the first time, but Geneva 1 says you will have a transition government by mutual consent. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re up or whether you’re down on the battlefield; the objective of Geneva 2 remains the same, which is the implementation of Geneva 1, which means a transition government arrived at by mutual consent of the parties.
Now, I don’t know anybody who believes that the opposition will ever consent to Bashar al-Assad being part of that government. And if he thinks he’s going to solve problems by running for re-election, I can say to him, I think with certainty, this war will not end as long as that’s the case or he is there.
Now, the Geneva 2 process is a negotiated resolution of a war that is taking place because Bashar al-Assad decided to meet the demands of young people in his country for a participatory role in the future of Syria – he decided to meet them with bullets and bombs and artillery shells. And he has shelled universities and killed innocent students sitting at their desks. He shelled schools with napalm and burned innocent children who were there trying to learn. He has bombed and gassed people in his country so that more than 115,000 or so are dead. How can that man claim to rule under any legitimacy in the future?
So I believe that it’s very clear what the purpose of this negotiated settlement is. And those who support the implementation of Geneva 1 should come to Geneva and be part of the process of building a new future for the people of Syria. But I do not believe that it is dependent on whether you’re up or down.
Now secondly, there are plenty of qualified people within the opposition in Syria – not necessarily fighters, but people who are opposed to Assad who run a business or a hospital or who have a great distinguished career and have been part of building the fabric of a secular society of Syria. And there are people who are qualified to be able to help manage the future affairs of Syria. There is nothing ordained, nothing is written that suggests that it belongs to one family and one man, particularly after what has happened over the course of these past two and a half years.
Now, there’s a human catastrophe awaiting the world if you can’t have a negotiated solution, because there are more and more refugees, more and more displaced people, more and more destruction, and the potential of the absolute implosion of the state of Syria is what lies in front of everybody if there cannot be a negotiated solution. I would hope that ultimately, Assad himself, certainly his supporters like the Russians, the Iranians, would understand that if you want peace in the region, it’s not going to come by prolonging the war with the presence of Bashar al-Assad.
Now, finally, why has the situation on the ground changed? Not because of the Syrian military, but because of Iran and Hezbollah, and Hezbollah and Iran represent the two only outside organized forces in Syria fighting on behalf of a party, the only two. And they are the ones who have made that difference. So I think it’s time for the United Nations and for others to consider the appropriateness of their activity and the need to try to press towards the negotiated solution that is critical to the people of Syria and to its future.
MODERATOR: The next question will be from Randa Takieddine from Al-Hayat.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I have a question for you and a question for Minister Khalid al-Atiyah. In Arabic, if possible, to Mr. al-Atiyah, and English for you.
Mr. Secretary, the concerns of people came about the American policy change on Syria – they came out of the fact that you are insisting so much on the chemical disarmament of Syria, and that people thought that you want really to do with this regime – with Assad’s regime. So do you need, in fact, this coordination with this regime for the chemical disarmament? And when is Geneva 2, actually? Because we don’t – we still don’t have a date. Some people say 23rd, some others say no. And then, is Iran going to be part of this conference?
(Via interpreter.) Is Qatar – has Qatar changed its policy regarding Syria? Is there a rapprochement or letters with President – being exchanged with President Bashar al-Assad?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, just very quickly, on the date, I can’t tell you precisely when the date is. That’s up to the United Nations and up to the Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to announce. But I have heard people talking about sometime in later part of November. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I both urged that it be as soon as possible, and we both certainly would be in agreement, along with a lot of other ministers who believe that it ought to happen sooner, not later. So I hope it would be somewhere in that period of time. But it’s up to them to announce it.
With respect to the question of the weapons, is Assad necessary, the answer is no. Assad doesn’t go out into the field and control a particular depot where you have chemical weapons. Assad isn’t driving the trucks that back up to the depot and pick up the weapons and take them somewhere. There are lots of people in Syria within the military structure who have knowledge of where the weapons are and how they can be moved who actually have responsibilities for safeguarding them. So Assad himself is not critical to the containment and the identification and ultimate removal of those weapons, number one.
Number two, those weapons could be gathered and located and brought to a location over the course of these next few months, barring something surprising. I’m not sure this will be settled in that period of time, but he is not absolutely essential to the effort to remove the chemical weapons. They can be removed once identified and secured by the normal process of chemical weapons destruction.
With respect to the first part of your question, which was the policy change, no, there has been no policy change. President Obama made a decision with respect to military force, and I am absolutely 100 percent convinced that had he not made that decision, those weapons would not be being removed now under an agreement that we reached at the United Nations. It happened because of that decision. And you have to ask yourself: Is it better that all of the weapons are being secured and removed, rather than that you had a military strike that tried to deter him from using them again but left them in his possession? That’s the choice. I think it’s clear there’s a benefit.
Now, some were disappointed the strike didn’t take place because they thought it was a sign of other things. But the fact is that the same airplanes that were killing people before the chemical weapons and the same artillery that was killing people before the chemical weapons and the same bombs and Scud missiles are still doing it. And we remain as concerned about that today, if not more so, than we were before the chemical weapons agreement.
And that is why we are focused on assisting the moderate opposition. We are helping them. It’s a known fact. And we will continue, as are others of our friends continuing, to help them, because we believe you need to get to the negotiation because there is no ultimate military solution. But we’re not going to sit by while Assad slaughters his people with impunity and not help those who are struggling against him to have their ability to do so with some of the support from the international community.
QUESTION: On Iran?
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, Iran. Fourth question, okay.
On Iran, the answer is if Iran accepts – Iran has not accepted the implementation of Geneva 1, so it’s very hard to see how Iran can be constructive in the absence of their willingness to come for the purpose of the negotiation. So if they accept Geneva 1 and want to be constructive in helping to set up a transition government, that’s a different issue. But until that happens, it would be very difficult to see how it could be constructive.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) The question is: Did the Syrian regime stop its massacres against its people? Did the Syrian people attain its freedom that it deserves? And did it get the justice and freedom? If the answer is no, then the position of Qatar is the same. We are standing by the Syrians until they attain their freedom, and even though we’re pushing for a political solution that would help the Syrian people, but the Qatari decision has not changed. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Is that it?
MS. PSAKI: One more. The final question is from Patricia Allemoniere – I don’t know if I said it the right way – TF-1.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, I have one question, first question. The French this evening are deeply shocked by the revelations that were made by the newspaper Le Monde regarding the extent of the wiretaps conducted by an allied and friendly country to France. What answer can you give? Can the United States stop and does it want an end to these listenings?
And another question for Qatar. Qatar is oftentimes accused in the West of being at the origin of the rise of radical Islamic groups because Qatar helped them to obtain weapons. What do you have to say with respect to that comment or analysis?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much for the question. Look, France is one of our oldest allies in the world, and I have a very close working relationship with Laurent Fabius since the day I started this job on many issues, ranging from Syria to protecting the security of our citizens. And protecting the security of our citizens in today’s world is a very complicated, very challenging task, and it is an everyday, 24/7, 365 task, unfortunately, because there are lots of people out there seeking to do harm to other people. We see much more suicide bombs taking place in various parts of the world right now.
So Ambassador Rivkin met today with Alexandre Ziegler, the cabinet director to Foreign Minister Fabius, at the request of the Government of France. And our ongoing – we will have ongoing bilateral consultations, including with our French partners, that address this question of any reports by the United States Government gathering information from some of the agencies, and those consultations are going to continue.
Now, I’m not going to comment on the specifics. As a matter of policy, we don’t discuss intelligence matters. And lots of countries are engaged in the activity of trying to protect their citizens and the world. As the President – as President Obama said very clearly in a recent speech that he gave at the United Nations General Assembly just a few weeks ago, he said we in the United States are currently reviewing the way that we gather intelligence. And I think that’s appropriate. And our goal is always to try to find the right balance between protecting the security and the privacy of our citizens. And this work is going to continue, as well as our very consultations with our friends here in France.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) In the beginning, I would like to say that anyone who doesn’t know what’s happening in Syria would say that Qatar is supporting radical groups. But the truth is when someone is Christian or Jewish or even Muslim and is subjected to a catastrophe similar to what the Syrian people have experienced, then it will be very closer to God. So this is the situation in Syria.
We are working in Syria through the Friends of Syria group, and there’s also a group that all people have agreed to support the Syrian people, whether in terms of helping it defend itself or in terms of humanitarian aid. We are working through this group and the allies to support very known parties. Therefore, talking about us supporting radical groups or extremist groups, this cannot be true in any way when we’re working with allies closely.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much.
Showing posts with label ARAB LEAGUE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ARAB LEAGUE. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Monday, September 9, 2013
SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY'S REMARKS WITH QATARI FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al-Atiyah
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
September 8, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I want to start by thanking the Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby. And I particularly want to thank my friend, the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khalid al-Atiyah. And I want to thank all of the other Arab ministers who came to Paris and joined us today for the first follow-on discussions since the negotiations began of the formal follow-on committee for the peace initiative for the Arab League.
This is now our third meeting, actually, with respect to the peace process. And we had a meeting previously in the Middle East, we had a meeting not so long ago in Washington at which a very important statement was made by the Arab League with respect to the 1967 lines with swaps. And today, we had an opportunity to be able to dig further into the Middle East peace process.
I particularly want to thank the Government of France for hosting us here today and for making it possible for us to meet here in Paris. This, as I said, is the first meeting that we’ve been able to have since the peace negotiations began. I think there have been – I think, without getting into specific numbers, there have been a sequence of meetings that have taken place between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And this is my first opportunity today to update the Arab League committee on those negotiations.
As one member, one of the foreign ministers, said today, this meeting is almost as important as the negotiations themselves, because the Arab League and the Arab community’s support for a final status agreement is essential to the achievement of that agreement, and it is a critical component in creating momentum and energy and seriousness of purpose in these talks. Despite tough decisions that have to be made, and despite pressure that exists on both sides, where people act against the interests of the talks – because there are, obviously, those who are opposed – both the Palestinians and the Israelis have nevertheless remained steadfast and determined in their commitment to continue to talk. And they have remained steadfast in their commitment to the ultimate goal of two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. And throughout the process, both parties have continued to show that they believe that the formidable challenges that exist that everybody is familiar with are actually worth tackling.
I want to emphasize today – and I emphasized this to our friends – that both leaders, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, showed a seriousness of purpose in coming to these talks. Both of them took political risks, personal political risks. Both of them stood up to forces in their own countries that were willing to say no, not enough has been given here, or not enough has been given there. They found a reason to come, despite those who were arguing that there were reasons not to.
And so this meeting today was convened to emphasize to both leaders – President Abbas, whom I will meet later today, and Prime Minister Netanyahu I will meet shortly, as our schedules permit it – that both of them decided that this was worth taking risks for. The Prime Minister of Israel wrote an open letter to all the people of Israel and took a decision regarding prisoners that was obviously unpopular with many parts of his country. Likewise, President Abbas, despite many people opposing the idea, stood up and said even though some of the things they wanted as preconditions had not been satisfied, that he was going to move forward because he thought it was important to do so.
This meeting today here in Paris was convened, as I have promised to the Arab League, that we will meet regularly in order to keep them abreast of these negotiations. One of the reasons that people attribute to a past failure of talks was the fact that many of the countries that are supportive of the Palestinians were not sufficiently kept abreast or sufficiently invested in what was being done. And I think it is critical, obviously, to try to make certain that they are part of it.
In addition, we also talked today about the economic track and the security tracks which are a very essential component of changing life for the Palestinians and beginning to build the institutional capacity and the trust necessary to be able to reach final status agreements. We all of us agree that a final status agreement is important in enhancing regional security and stability throughout the Middle East. And I think it is a very significant statement that even though there is unrest and volatility in parts of the Middle East, obviously, with transition taking place in Egypt, with the civil strife taking place in Syria, with the challenges of Iran’s nuclear program, notwithstanding all of these things and more, all of the parties, all of the support group and the principals themselves are deeply committed to proceeding in order to try to change the dynamics of the Middle East and, despite the turmoil, make peace, the concept of peace, the most important goal of all.
The United States and the Arab League have long agreed that with respect to Syria, which we did discuss today, the end of this civil war is going to require a political solution. We have repeated – and I repeat every time I stand up and talk about it – there is no military solution. And what the United States is seeking, together with others – not alone, but with others, an increasing number – what we are seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. We are not seeking to become engaged in or party to or take over Syria’s civil war. But as we discussed today, all of us agreed – not one dissenter – that Assad’s deplorable use of chemical weapons, which we know killed hundreds of innocent people, including at least 426 children on this occasion, this one occasion, this crosses an international global redline. And we agreed that the regime’s blatant disregard for the institutional norms that the global community has abided by for nearly a century, it is critical that those be upheld.
So today we discussed the possible and necessary measures that the international community can take to deter Assad from ever crossing that line again. And a number of countries immediately signed on to the G-20 agreement that was reached by now 12 countries on the side of the G-20 meeting, and they will make their own announcements in the next 24 hours about that.
So let me again thank the Arab League Secretary General Elaraby. I want to thank Dr. Attiya and the ministers and the representatives who came here today from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. And I thank them for their continued and critical engagement on the Middle East peace process and other issues, and I look forward to meeting regularly. We will have our next meeting at some point in October, probably after the middle of October, the latter part. And we’ve agreed upon that date for a follow-on meeting.
After His Excellency speaks, we’d be happy to take a couple of questions.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: Thank you, John. I’ll do this in Arabic, if we may.
(Via interpreter) In the beginning, I would like to thank my friend, His Excellency John Kerry, and the American Government, and President Obama and the American Administration for the efforts it expends with regards to peace, or the peace process in the Middle East.
On a fair basis, we have discussed today in our meeting several issues, and we heard the different views of the parties to the negotiations, with the exception of the Israeli side. Of course we listened to the Palestinian side. And we – it’s no secret that we are concerned about some issues that we believe could be an obstacle to this process. However, they can be solved, and we are working with Mr. John Kerry and the Palestinian negotiator to make sure that we overcome these obstacles. But there are several obstacles to this process, including the continuous announcement by – and also – by Israel, and also the continued killings and the attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque. So we urge the Israeli side not to take unilateral actions if it truly has the intention to have peace.
Absence of this direction, we believe that there would be very serious obstacles. And even so, we support the efforts of our friend, Mr. John Kerry, who has moved the stagnant waters in the Middle East and – peace process, and he’s doing so in order to achieve results on a fair basis, as I mentioned, to resolve this problem.
This is what was reviewed today in the meeting. And of course, there is a statement that would be issued by the joint committee and the American side after the meeting.
With respect to Syria, we discussed the situation in Syria. Several parties believe that foreign intervention would take place today or tomorrow or anytime. The truth is war in Syria has started two and a half years ago. And foreign intervention in Syria is already present by several parties that support the Syrian regime. Therefore, we cannot really argue whether there’ll be foreign intervention or not. The Syrian people over more than three years has been demanding or asking the international community to intervene.
The killing has started more than two and a half years ago; it didn’t start on August 21st. But however, on August 21st, it developed into the use of weapons of mass destruction and the use of chemical weapons. Therefore, I don’t believe that the international community, if it really wanted to protect peace, international peace and security, can afford to stand still while an unarmed people is being attacked with these weapons. We in Qatar support the statement of the G-12 out of the G-20, and at the same time we call on all other countries to intervene to protect the Syrian people from what it’s being subjected to. This is our clear position concerning Syria. And once again, I reiterate that foreign intervention is already taking place in Egypt, and has been – in Syria, and has been for more than two and a half years. And if some friendly countries were to intervene, this would not be the beginning of such intervention.
MODERATOR: The Secretary and the Foreign Minister will take four questions. The first will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, yesterday you – we understand that you urged the European Union foreign ministers to delay the implementation of their guidelines on Israel, particularly on aid to groups in the West Bank. Why is this such a big deal? My understanding is it’s not a lot of money. Why is this so important to the process? Do you think that it could actually derail the negotiations? Have the Israelis threatened to leave if this isn’t addressed?
And French President Hollande yesterday raised the possibility of going back to the Security Council to try to get authorization for action on or a strike on Syria. Do you have any openness to that possibility? In recent weeks you’ve been very clear about saying that you didn’t think anything was possible there.
And Mr. Foreign Minister, you talked about continued Israeli announcements. Did you mean announcements of additional Jewish settlements? Or perhaps I misunderstood. And what specifically is Qatar willing to do to support any U.S. or other strike on Syria? Qatar obviously took part in the Libya intervention with its own aircraft. Would you consider providing aircraft assets, bases, fuel, anything tangible and concrete to a U.S. or other action?
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Yes. In truth, yes. We are talking about settlements. What we noticed, that each time a round of negotiations is supposed to start, it’s preceded by a declaration of continued settlements or the announcement of the establishment of new settlements. And this is a source of concern for us, and directly affects the negotiations.
As for Syria and what Qatar is willing to provide, Qatar is currently studying with its friends and the United Nations what it could provide in order to protect the Syrian people.
SECRETARY KERRY: Arshad, yes, I did ask the European community if they would consider the suspension. And the reason is not at all that, no, the Israelis won’t depart from or view that as a breach of any condition of the talks. But I think it’s important that the Israeli people and the government see that coming to the talks, taking the risk of moving towards peace, is worthwhile, and that if – that there – and that even more benefit awaits a final resolution of the issues. But also, it sort of underscores that if there’s a failure to achieve a peace, bigger problems await at the same time, because there is discussion now of boycott of Israeli goods and other kinds of measures being taken because of the position held in the European community of the illegality of the settlements.
Now, because Prime Minister Netanyahu took the risk of coming to the talks, because he has paid some political price for making his decision that this was worth doing and that he would release prisoners and take steps to advance the peace process, because of that, I think it’s important for Europe to say in return, “See what this gets? This gets a change in our relationship, a change for the better. And good things await the outcome of peace.”
It’s not asking them to change the policy; it’s asking them to suspend or delay its implementation while these talks are taking place to prove that there is value to being engaged in this initiative. And I think – and this is not a one-way street. We have also taken very significant steps to say to the Palestinians, “If you engage in these talks, there are benefits that are there.” And that’s why, right now, as a result of being engaged in the talks, a major set of economic proposals are being implemented for the Palestinians unilaterally by the Israelis.
Specifically in Gaza, communications equipment for the Wataniya project are being released and moved in. Cement and building materials are now going to be moving into Gaza. The Allenby Bridge is now going to be open 24 hours a day, five days a week, and will greatly facilitate movement back and forth. Water, 8,000 cubic meters of water, are moving per day into the West Bank. Fifty-four wells, additional new wells, are going to be proceeded and authorized in the West Bank. So these are just some of the things that are being done.
So both sides – we want to have both sides see the benefit of engaging in this, because we believe that if you can arrive at a final status agreement, there’s a massive amount of benefit to both that will flow from that. The failure to arrive at it obviously carries its consequences, too.
One of the foreign ministers mentioned today that he thought that Israel should be aware that if, in fact, the Arab peace initiative is implemented so that peace is made with these 19 Arab countries, that Israel and the Arab world would benefit economically as never before, and would become far more economically powerful and wealthy as a consequence of those actions.
So I would like to even ask – I think it would be important to have His Excellency, the Foreign Minister, say a word about this economic potential and the upside of peace, because I think it’s an important part of this. But let me just answer quickly on the Hollande – President Hollande’s comments with respect to the UN.
The President and all of us are listening carefully to all of our friends. No decision has been made by the President. We will obviously take this under advisement, and I’m sure – and the President will make his decision at the appropriate period of time. But I would like His Excellency to maybe say a word about the upside of peace and the way the Arab world views that potential of the economic benefit.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Thank you, John. All Arab countries in reality, support the idea of developing the economy in Palestine, whether in the West Bank or Gaza. We in Qatar, for example, are currently supporting several development projects in Gaza, and we also have projects in the West Bank. And in spite of that, we are studying how to support economic packages in Palestine, to support the Palestinian brothers so that they can achieve sustainable development for their future projects. And I believe that if we manage to achieve fair solution to this problem, the sooner we will be able to move the economic conditions in Palestine.
MODERATOR: The next question will come from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you. This question is for the both of you. Do you – Secretary Kerry, you said that despite the turmoil in the region, the parties are committed, but do you think that the crisis in Egypt, the crisis in Syria can hurt efforts to make peace, distract the parties, or can it actually help? On that note, you met with the Egyptian Foreign Minister this morning. Did he give you any assurances that democracy would be restored, or is it inevitable there would be a cut in aid to Egypt?
And lastly, on Syria, you’ve been showing members of Congress these very disturbing videos about the situation on the ground after the chemical weapons attack. Now that’s on the Senate Intel Committee website. It doesn’t seem, though, that the issue is that people doubt that this took place, or even that the regime is responsible. There does seem to be a growing acceptance of that. It just seems that there’s a lack of will in the U.S. Congress. Certainly the American people are against it. It just seems that they don’t want to do anything, even though they know this happened. So what do you hope to achieve by these videos? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy, and of course we discussed the road ahead for Egypt. He assured me and demonstrated a specific schedule by which Egypt is moving towards its democracy. They have succeeded in the first step with respect to the constitutional process, and they are now moving on a schedule with a larger committee with a deadline somewhere towards the end of the fall – I think it’s around November, December – where that committee will fully embrace and report its democratic – its constitutional process. And then an election will be called and announced – the date is pretty firm – and within a month of the parliament being chosen, there will be a presidential election. That is the roadmap that he laid out to me. And they assure us that they are on track and are determined to live up to that roadmap.
In addition, the Foreign Minister indicated they remain totally and wholly committed to the Middle East peace process. They are committed to the Sinai security issues and the ceasefire with respect to Gaza, and want to be a constructive force in helping provide for that peace process. So we had a very – we discussed, obviously, all of the issues with respect to the Brotherhood, the politics, the inclusivity, the need to reach out and have a political process. They are discussing that now, and he assured me that he is making the argument for moving forward in that direction, and obviously, the next days will be measured and will be important to that.
With respect to the videos and the Congress, as a veteran of the congressional process, I’d just say to you that all of these early prognostications about how tough it is, or defeat here or whatever, I think are just that. They’re early and they’re not completely accurate. The vast majority of members of Congress, House and Senate, are undecided. And that’s why the videos are being shown and why the briefings are taking place. That’s why I will go back tomorrow and join in a briefing of the entire branch on one side, and then on the next day, we will brief the other side, and I assume the President will also be communicating with the Congress and with the American people.
And the reason for this is to make sure everybody understands what is at stake. Those videos make it clear that this is not something abstract. This is not something just reported in the news which you can discard and say it doesn’t matter what’s happening over there. Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody anywhere by any standards, and that it is the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this; this is not our values, this is not who we are. And that is why this is important for people to see the connect to this.
Those weapons were outlawed in 1925 after Europe learned firsthand, in the horrors of World War I, how horrendous and completely against all sense of decency – and I know it’s hard to draw lines. People say, well, what about artillery and isn’t somebody dying from an artillery blast the same as dying from this? Well, the answer is the world decided no, because an artillery blast is aimed, and while it may have collateral damage, it is supposed to be aimed at enemy combatants. Gas is indiscriminate. It goes wherever the wind takes it, and the death that comes with it is a death that many people decided was too horrendous to describe.
Those videos are for people to measure for themselves, whether we want to unleash these weapons to be used by a dictator with impunity against his own people, but even worse, to potentially fall into the hands of terrible actors to potentially become used weapons on a daily basis by anybody anywhere because we didn’t stand up and stand for what we arrived at nearly a hundred years ago. And that’s what’s at stake here.
So I don’t think this case has yet been made enough to enough people, and that’s exactly why the videos are posted, and I’m glad that they are.
MODERATOR: The next question will come from Hussein – I think you can hear me – Hussein Fayad from Al Arabiya.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), what are the other countries which are ready today to back a military action, the potential military action, of the U.S. in Syria? And what kind of support they can provide you with?
A last question about your meeting with Prince Saud al-Faisal today: What was the result of this meeting regarding the Saudi Arabia position regarding the strike in Syria? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Saud al-Faisal and Saudi Arabia have signed on to the G-20 side agreement – the now G-12, actually more than – well, G-12 – and they have supported the strike and they support taking action. They believe that it’s very important to do that. We had a very good meeting. We discussed, obviously, the Middle East peace initiative, their role in that, and we also discussed other issues in the region.
I am not going to name the other countries simply because we agreed in the meeting that they would go back and make their own announcements, which they will do within the next 24 hours. So we need to leave people the freedom to consult, and also, some of the other countries that weren’t certain whether they could but might have wanted to, wanted to go home and consult with their leaders in order to get decisions. But everybody understood that the decisions need to be made within the next 24 hours.
MODERATOR: The final question will be from Harold Hyman of BFM-TV.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, a question in French. Yesterday, you talked about Munich. You wouldn’t feel like Chamberlain (inaudible) did, because somebody could say, well, there would be no Munich.
This is one thing, one question. Now, concern, action on strikes against Syria – is there a difference between symbolic strikes and strategic strikes against Syria?
SECRETARY KERRY: What Munich represented was a moment of misinterpretation, at best, about what happens if you take people’s word for something and there isn’t an enforceability or a true prevention of actions that people believe will happen under certain circumstances. It is clear that if we don’t take action, the message to Hezbollah, Iran, Assad will be that nobody cares that you broke this hundred-year-old – nearly hundred-year-old standard, and you’re using weapons that have been banned by 189 nations. If the world turns its back on a threat that is clear, which is the linkage to a Munich or other examples, then the action that comes afterwards will hold everybody culpable for having walked away from that.
President Bill Clinton, in great candor, has written and said many times that his greatest regret of his eight years of presidency was that he didn’t go into Rwanda and stop what happened in Rwanda. And I think we all know that there are these moments where if people don’t make the right decision, terrible things can happen. I have cited on several occasions a ship filled with Jewish refugees who were trying to escape what was happening in Europe in World War II came to the shores of the United States and that ship was turned away and it went back because it had nowhere else to go. And the people who were on that ship lost their lives in the war.
That’s what we’re talking about here. This is not fantasyland. This is not some sort of conjecture. Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons at least 11 times or so, according to our best judgments, with clarity now in this evidence we have presented to the world on August 21st. He has one of the largest stocks of chemical weapons in the world. And at the moment, he has no intention of really negotiating. So it is certain that if he’s threatened, he will use them again. I, as a leader, President Obama as the President of the United States, and Senator – not Senator – Secretary Chuck Hagel and all of us involved in this, my friend the Foreign Minister from Qatar and others, are unwilling to live with the conscious decision of saying we’re going to turn our backs on that, we’re not going to stop that from happening, we’re not going to do what’s necessary to make it clear to this dictator that he will be held accountable and cannot use those weapons with impunity. And the risks of not acting are, in our judgment, much greater than the risks of acting. And that’s why I say this moment is important.
Remarks With Qatari Foreign Minister Khalid bin Muhammad al-Atiyah
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
U.S. Chief of Mission Residence
Paris, France
September 8, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I want to start by thanking the Secretary General of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby. And I particularly want to thank my friend, the Foreign Minister of Qatar, Khalid al-Atiyah. And I want to thank all of the other Arab ministers who came to Paris and joined us today for the first follow-on discussions since the negotiations began of the formal follow-on committee for the peace initiative for the Arab League.
This is now our third meeting, actually, with respect to the peace process. And we had a meeting previously in the Middle East, we had a meeting not so long ago in Washington at which a very important statement was made by the Arab League with respect to the 1967 lines with swaps. And today, we had an opportunity to be able to dig further into the Middle East peace process.
I particularly want to thank the Government of France for hosting us here today and for making it possible for us to meet here in Paris. This, as I said, is the first meeting that we’ve been able to have since the peace negotiations began. I think there have been – I think, without getting into specific numbers, there have been a sequence of meetings that have taken place between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And this is my first opportunity today to update the Arab League committee on those negotiations.
As one member, one of the foreign ministers, said today, this meeting is almost as important as the negotiations themselves, because the Arab League and the Arab community’s support for a final status agreement is essential to the achievement of that agreement, and it is a critical component in creating momentum and energy and seriousness of purpose in these talks. Despite tough decisions that have to be made, and despite pressure that exists on both sides, where people act against the interests of the talks – because there are, obviously, those who are opposed – both the Palestinians and the Israelis have nevertheless remained steadfast and determined in their commitment to continue to talk. And they have remained steadfast in their commitment to the ultimate goal of two states for two peoples living side by side in peace and security. And throughout the process, both parties have continued to show that they believe that the formidable challenges that exist that everybody is familiar with are actually worth tackling.
I want to emphasize today – and I emphasized this to our friends – that both leaders, President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu, showed a seriousness of purpose in coming to these talks. Both of them took political risks, personal political risks. Both of them stood up to forces in their own countries that were willing to say no, not enough has been given here, or not enough has been given there. They found a reason to come, despite those who were arguing that there were reasons not to.
And so this meeting today was convened to emphasize to both leaders – President Abbas, whom I will meet later today, and Prime Minister Netanyahu I will meet shortly, as our schedules permit it – that both of them decided that this was worth taking risks for. The Prime Minister of Israel wrote an open letter to all the people of Israel and took a decision regarding prisoners that was obviously unpopular with many parts of his country. Likewise, President Abbas, despite many people opposing the idea, stood up and said even though some of the things they wanted as preconditions had not been satisfied, that he was going to move forward because he thought it was important to do so.
This meeting today here in Paris was convened, as I have promised to the Arab League, that we will meet regularly in order to keep them abreast of these negotiations. One of the reasons that people attribute to a past failure of talks was the fact that many of the countries that are supportive of the Palestinians were not sufficiently kept abreast or sufficiently invested in what was being done. And I think it is critical, obviously, to try to make certain that they are part of it.
In addition, we also talked today about the economic track and the security tracks which are a very essential component of changing life for the Palestinians and beginning to build the institutional capacity and the trust necessary to be able to reach final status agreements. We all of us agree that a final status agreement is important in enhancing regional security and stability throughout the Middle East. And I think it is a very significant statement that even though there is unrest and volatility in parts of the Middle East, obviously, with transition taking place in Egypt, with the civil strife taking place in Syria, with the challenges of Iran’s nuclear program, notwithstanding all of these things and more, all of the parties, all of the support group and the principals themselves are deeply committed to proceeding in order to try to change the dynamics of the Middle East and, despite the turmoil, make peace, the concept of peace, the most important goal of all.
The United States and the Arab League have long agreed that with respect to Syria, which we did discuss today, the end of this civil war is going to require a political solution. We have repeated – and I repeat every time I stand up and talk about it – there is no military solution. And what the United States is seeking, together with others – not alone, but with others, an increasing number – what we are seeking is to enforce the standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. We are not seeking to become engaged in or party to or take over Syria’s civil war. But as we discussed today, all of us agreed – not one dissenter – that Assad’s deplorable use of chemical weapons, which we know killed hundreds of innocent people, including at least 426 children on this occasion, this one occasion, this crosses an international global redline. And we agreed that the regime’s blatant disregard for the institutional norms that the global community has abided by for nearly a century, it is critical that those be upheld.
So today we discussed the possible and necessary measures that the international community can take to deter Assad from ever crossing that line again. And a number of countries immediately signed on to the G-20 agreement that was reached by now 12 countries on the side of the G-20 meeting, and they will make their own announcements in the next 24 hours about that.
So let me again thank the Arab League Secretary General Elaraby. I want to thank Dr. Attiya and the ministers and the representatives who came here today from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. And I thank them for their continued and critical engagement on the Middle East peace process and other issues, and I look forward to meeting regularly. We will have our next meeting at some point in October, probably after the middle of October, the latter part. And we’ve agreed upon that date for a follow-on meeting.
After His Excellency speaks, we’d be happy to take a couple of questions.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: Thank you, John. I’ll do this in Arabic, if we may.
(Via interpreter) In the beginning, I would like to thank my friend, His Excellency John Kerry, and the American Government, and President Obama and the American Administration for the efforts it expends with regards to peace, or the peace process in the Middle East.
On a fair basis, we have discussed today in our meeting several issues, and we heard the different views of the parties to the negotiations, with the exception of the Israeli side. Of course we listened to the Palestinian side. And we – it’s no secret that we are concerned about some issues that we believe could be an obstacle to this process. However, they can be solved, and we are working with Mr. John Kerry and the Palestinian negotiator to make sure that we overcome these obstacles. But there are several obstacles to this process, including the continuous announcement by – and also – by Israel, and also the continued killings and the attacks on Al-Aqsa Mosque. So we urge the Israeli side not to take unilateral actions if it truly has the intention to have peace.
Absence of this direction, we believe that there would be very serious obstacles. And even so, we support the efforts of our friend, Mr. John Kerry, who has moved the stagnant waters in the Middle East and – peace process, and he’s doing so in order to achieve results on a fair basis, as I mentioned, to resolve this problem.
This is what was reviewed today in the meeting. And of course, there is a statement that would be issued by the joint committee and the American side after the meeting.
With respect to Syria, we discussed the situation in Syria. Several parties believe that foreign intervention would take place today or tomorrow or anytime. The truth is war in Syria has started two and a half years ago. And foreign intervention in Syria is already present by several parties that support the Syrian regime. Therefore, we cannot really argue whether there’ll be foreign intervention or not. The Syrian people over more than three years has been demanding or asking the international community to intervene.
The killing has started more than two and a half years ago; it didn’t start on August 21st. But however, on August 21st, it developed into the use of weapons of mass destruction and the use of chemical weapons. Therefore, I don’t believe that the international community, if it really wanted to protect peace, international peace and security, can afford to stand still while an unarmed people is being attacked with these weapons. We in Qatar support the statement of the G-12 out of the G-20, and at the same time we call on all other countries to intervene to protect the Syrian people from what it’s being subjected to. This is our clear position concerning Syria. And once again, I reiterate that foreign intervention is already taking place in Egypt, and has been – in Syria, and has been for more than two and a half years. And if some friendly countries were to intervene, this would not be the beginning of such intervention.
MODERATOR: The Secretary and the Foreign Minister will take four questions. The first will be from Arshad Mohammed of Reuters.
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry, yesterday you – we understand that you urged the European Union foreign ministers to delay the implementation of their guidelines on Israel, particularly on aid to groups in the West Bank. Why is this such a big deal? My understanding is it’s not a lot of money. Why is this so important to the process? Do you think that it could actually derail the negotiations? Have the Israelis threatened to leave if this isn’t addressed?
And French President Hollande yesterday raised the possibility of going back to the Security Council to try to get authorization for action on or a strike on Syria. Do you have any openness to that possibility? In recent weeks you’ve been very clear about saying that you didn’t think anything was possible there.
And Mr. Foreign Minister, you talked about continued Israeli announcements. Did you mean announcements of additional Jewish settlements? Or perhaps I misunderstood. And what specifically is Qatar willing to do to support any U.S. or other strike on Syria? Qatar obviously took part in the Libya intervention with its own aircraft. Would you consider providing aircraft assets, bases, fuel, anything tangible and concrete to a U.S. or other action?
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Yes. In truth, yes. We are talking about settlements. What we noticed, that each time a round of negotiations is supposed to start, it’s preceded by a declaration of continued settlements or the announcement of the establishment of new settlements. And this is a source of concern for us, and directly affects the negotiations.
As for Syria and what Qatar is willing to provide, Qatar is currently studying with its friends and the United Nations what it could provide in order to protect the Syrian people.
SECRETARY KERRY: Arshad, yes, I did ask the European community if they would consider the suspension. And the reason is not at all that, no, the Israelis won’t depart from or view that as a breach of any condition of the talks. But I think it’s important that the Israeli people and the government see that coming to the talks, taking the risk of moving towards peace, is worthwhile, and that if – that there – and that even more benefit awaits a final resolution of the issues. But also, it sort of underscores that if there’s a failure to achieve a peace, bigger problems await at the same time, because there is discussion now of boycott of Israeli goods and other kinds of measures being taken because of the position held in the European community of the illegality of the settlements.
Now, because Prime Minister Netanyahu took the risk of coming to the talks, because he has paid some political price for making his decision that this was worth doing and that he would release prisoners and take steps to advance the peace process, because of that, I think it’s important for Europe to say in return, “See what this gets? This gets a change in our relationship, a change for the better. And good things await the outcome of peace.”
It’s not asking them to change the policy; it’s asking them to suspend or delay its implementation while these talks are taking place to prove that there is value to being engaged in this initiative. And I think – and this is not a one-way street. We have also taken very significant steps to say to the Palestinians, “If you engage in these talks, there are benefits that are there.” And that’s why, right now, as a result of being engaged in the talks, a major set of economic proposals are being implemented for the Palestinians unilaterally by the Israelis.
Specifically in Gaza, communications equipment for the Wataniya project are being released and moved in. Cement and building materials are now going to be moving into Gaza. The Allenby Bridge is now going to be open 24 hours a day, five days a week, and will greatly facilitate movement back and forth. Water, 8,000 cubic meters of water, are moving per day into the West Bank. Fifty-four wells, additional new wells, are going to be proceeded and authorized in the West Bank. So these are just some of the things that are being done.
So both sides – we want to have both sides see the benefit of engaging in this, because we believe that if you can arrive at a final status agreement, there’s a massive amount of benefit to both that will flow from that. The failure to arrive at it obviously carries its consequences, too.
One of the foreign ministers mentioned today that he thought that Israel should be aware that if, in fact, the Arab peace initiative is implemented so that peace is made with these 19 Arab countries, that Israel and the Arab world would benefit economically as never before, and would become far more economically powerful and wealthy as a consequence of those actions.
So I would like to even ask – I think it would be important to have His Excellency, the Foreign Minister, say a word about this economic potential and the upside of peace, because I think it’s an important part of this. But let me just answer quickly on the Hollande – President Hollande’s comments with respect to the UN.
The President and all of us are listening carefully to all of our friends. No decision has been made by the President. We will obviously take this under advisement, and I’m sure – and the President will make his decision at the appropriate period of time. But I would like His Excellency to maybe say a word about the upside of peace and the way the Arab world views that potential of the economic benefit.
FOREIGN MINISTER AL-ATIYAH: (Via interpreter) Thank you, John. All Arab countries in reality, support the idea of developing the economy in Palestine, whether in the West Bank or Gaza. We in Qatar, for example, are currently supporting several development projects in Gaza, and we also have projects in the West Bank. And in spite of that, we are studying how to support economic packages in Palestine, to support the Palestinian brothers so that they can achieve sustainable development for their future projects. And I believe that if we manage to achieve fair solution to this problem, the sooner we will be able to move the economic conditions in Palestine.
MODERATOR: The next question will come from Elise Labott of CNN.
QUESTION: Thank you. This question is for the both of you. Do you – Secretary Kerry, you said that despite the turmoil in the region, the parties are committed, but do you think that the crisis in Egypt, the crisis in Syria can hurt efforts to make peace, distract the parties, or can it actually help? On that note, you met with the Egyptian Foreign Minister this morning. Did he give you any assurances that democracy would be restored, or is it inevitable there would be a cut in aid to Egypt?
And lastly, on Syria, you’ve been showing members of Congress these very disturbing videos about the situation on the ground after the chemical weapons attack. Now that’s on the Senate Intel Committee website. It doesn’t seem, though, that the issue is that people doubt that this took place, or even that the regime is responsible. There does seem to be a growing acceptance of that. It just seems that there’s a lack of will in the U.S. Congress. Certainly the American people are against it. It just seems that they don’t want to do anything, even though they know this happened. So what do you hope to achieve by these videos? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I had a very good meeting with Foreign Minister Nabil Fahmy, and of course we discussed the road ahead for Egypt. He assured me and demonstrated a specific schedule by which Egypt is moving towards its democracy. They have succeeded in the first step with respect to the constitutional process, and they are now moving on a schedule with a larger committee with a deadline somewhere towards the end of the fall – I think it’s around November, December – where that committee will fully embrace and report its democratic – its constitutional process. And then an election will be called and announced – the date is pretty firm – and within a month of the parliament being chosen, there will be a presidential election. That is the roadmap that he laid out to me. And they assure us that they are on track and are determined to live up to that roadmap.
In addition, the Foreign Minister indicated they remain totally and wholly committed to the Middle East peace process. They are committed to the Sinai security issues and the ceasefire with respect to Gaza, and want to be a constructive force in helping provide for that peace process. So we had a very – we discussed, obviously, all of the issues with respect to the Brotherhood, the politics, the inclusivity, the need to reach out and have a political process. They are discussing that now, and he assured me that he is making the argument for moving forward in that direction, and obviously, the next days will be measured and will be important to that.
With respect to the videos and the Congress, as a veteran of the congressional process, I’d just say to you that all of these early prognostications about how tough it is, or defeat here or whatever, I think are just that. They’re early and they’re not completely accurate. The vast majority of members of Congress, House and Senate, are undecided. And that’s why the videos are being shown and why the briefings are taking place. That’s why I will go back tomorrow and join in a briefing of the entire branch on one side, and then on the next day, we will brief the other side, and I assume the President will also be communicating with the Congress and with the American people.
And the reason for this is to make sure everybody understands what is at stake. Those videos make it clear that this is not something abstract. This is not something just reported in the news which you can discard and say it doesn’t matter what’s happening over there. Those videos make it clear to people that these are real human beings, real children, parents being affected in ways that are unacceptable to anybody anywhere by any standards, and that it is the United States of America that has always stood with others to say we will not allow this; this is not our values, this is not who we are. And that is why this is important for people to see the connect to this.
Those weapons were outlawed in 1925 after Europe learned firsthand, in the horrors of World War I, how horrendous and completely against all sense of decency – and I know it’s hard to draw lines. People say, well, what about artillery and isn’t somebody dying from an artillery blast the same as dying from this? Well, the answer is the world decided no, because an artillery blast is aimed, and while it may have collateral damage, it is supposed to be aimed at enemy combatants. Gas is indiscriminate. It goes wherever the wind takes it, and the death that comes with it is a death that many people decided was too horrendous to describe.
Those videos are for people to measure for themselves, whether we want to unleash these weapons to be used by a dictator with impunity against his own people, but even worse, to potentially fall into the hands of terrible actors to potentially become used weapons on a daily basis by anybody anywhere because we didn’t stand up and stand for what we arrived at nearly a hundred years ago. And that’s what’s at stake here.
So I don’t think this case has yet been made enough to enough people, and that’s exactly why the videos are posted, and I’m glad that they are.
MODERATOR: The next question will come from Hussein – I think you can hear me – Hussein Fayad from Al Arabiya.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), what are the other countries which are ready today to back a military action, the potential military action, of the U.S. in Syria? And what kind of support they can provide you with?
A last question about your meeting with Prince Saud al-Faisal today: What was the result of this meeting regarding the Saudi Arabia position regarding the strike in Syria? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Saud al-Faisal and Saudi Arabia have signed on to the G-20 side agreement – the now G-12, actually more than – well, G-12 – and they have supported the strike and they support taking action. They believe that it’s very important to do that. We had a very good meeting. We discussed, obviously, the Middle East peace initiative, their role in that, and we also discussed other issues in the region.
I am not going to name the other countries simply because we agreed in the meeting that they would go back and make their own announcements, which they will do within the next 24 hours. So we need to leave people the freedom to consult, and also, some of the other countries that weren’t certain whether they could but might have wanted to, wanted to go home and consult with their leaders in order to get decisions. But everybody understood that the decisions need to be made within the next 24 hours.
MODERATOR: The final question will be from Harold Hyman of BFM-TV.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Mr. Secretary, a question in French. Yesterday, you talked about Munich. You wouldn’t feel like Chamberlain (inaudible) did, because somebody could say, well, there would be no Munich.
This is one thing, one question. Now, concern, action on strikes against Syria – is there a difference between symbolic strikes and strategic strikes against Syria?
SECRETARY KERRY: What Munich represented was a moment of misinterpretation, at best, about what happens if you take people’s word for something and there isn’t an enforceability or a true prevention of actions that people believe will happen under certain circumstances. It is clear that if we don’t take action, the message to Hezbollah, Iran, Assad will be that nobody cares that you broke this hundred-year-old – nearly hundred-year-old standard, and you’re using weapons that have been banned by 189 nations. If the world turns its back on a threat that is clear, which is the linkage to a Munich or other examples, then the action that comes afterwards will hold everybody culpable for having walked away from that.
President Bill Clinton, in great candor, has written and said many times that his greatest regret of his eight years of presidency was that he didn’t go into Rwanda and stop what happened in Rwanda. And I think we all know that there are these moments where if people don’t make the right decision, terrible things can happen. I have cited on several occasions a ship filled with Jewish refugees who were trying to escape what was happening in Europe in World War II came to the shores of the United States and that ship was turned away and it went back because it had nowhere else to go. And the people who were on that ship lost their lives in the war.
That’s what we’re talking about here. This is not fantasyland. This is not some sort of conjecture. Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons at least 11 times or so, according to our best judgments, with clarity now in this evidence we have presented to the world on August 21st. He has one of the largest stocks of chemical weapons in the world. And at the moment, he has no intention of really negotiating. So it is certain that if he’s threatened, he will use them again. I, as a leader, President Obama as the President of the United States, and Senator – not Senator – Secretary Chuck Hagel and all of us involved in this, my friend the Foreign Minister from Qatar and others, are unwilling to live with the conscious decision of saying we’re going to turn our backs on that, we’re not going to stop that from happening, we’re not going to do what’s necessary to make it clear to this dictator that he will be held accountable and cannot use those weapons with impunity. And the risks of not acting are, in our judgment, much greater than the risks of acting. And that’s why I say this moment is important.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
REMARKS BY SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY AND ISRAELI JUSTICE MINISTER LIVNI
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Remarks With Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Villa Taverna
Rome, Italy
May 8, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, all, for being patient. We appreciate it. I am really very pleased to welcome Minister Tzipi Livni to the American Ambassador’s residence, Villa Taverna, here in Rome, together with the Special Envoy from Israel on these talks, Yitzhak Molcho. And this is a continuation of a number of conversations that we’ve been having. Most recently, we had a conversation in Washington; we did not have time to complete the task. And so she is on her way back to Israel, and I am on my way back to the United States, and this was a convenient way to complete the conversation, which is important right now because we are really working with very serious purpose on the behalf of everybody who’s been part of this – Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, the folks working around them. I met last week in Washington with Saeb Erekat, the envoy for President Abbas.
And I think it’s fair to say that we are working through a threshold of questions, that we’re doing it with a seriousness and purpose that I think Minister Livni would agree with me has not been present in a while. And we all believe that we’re working with a short time span. We understand an imperative to try to have some sense of direction as rapidly as we can.
So I’m grateful for their ability to be here. I think the announcement by the Arab League last week was an important step forward. And I spoke again this morning with Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim of Qatar, who represented – who was the chairman of that committee. They want to keep the progress moving. They have asked for ongoing meetings, and we will have those ongoing meetings, but with a purpose. We don’t want to have a meeting for the sake of a meeting.
So over the course of the next weeks, we’re going to continue our work. I will be traveling back to Israel to meet with both Prime Minister Netanyahu as well as President Abbas around the 21st or 22nd of this month. So I’m grateful for the Minister for coming here, and we look forward to a productive session this afternoon.
JUSTICE MINISTER LIVNI: Thank you. I would like to express our appreciation to your efforts. We feel that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is in Israel interest, and I believe it is also in Palestinian interest. But yet we are, after some years of stalemate, and your determination and enthusiasm and efforts can change the realities. And I believe that what you are doing here will create hope in the region, because some of us lost hope. And this is something that we need, not just as a vague idea, but something which is concrete and thank you for (inaudible).
And I do believe that having the meeting with the Arab League and having the statement come from Hamad bin Jasim after the meeting was very good news, because there’s the need for the support of the Arab states. I hope that they would also support Abu Mazen in entering the negotiations room, giving the support of negotiations, and an understanding, which is very important for us that peace with the Palestinians means also peace with the Arab world. So I wish to congratulate you on this successful meeting with the Arab League.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Thanks so much, guys. Thanks so much. Okay.
QUESTION: Minister Livni, is Israel thinking about reciprocating the Arab League gesture in any way?
SECRETARY KERRY: Folks, we’ll have more to say as we go forward here, I promise you.
Remarks With Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni Before Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Villa Taverna
Rome, Italy
May 8, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks, all, for being patient. We appreciate it. I am really very pleased to welcome Minister Tzipi Livni to the American Ambassador’s residence, Villa Taverna, here in Rome, together with the Special Envoy from Israel on these talks, Yitzhak Molcho. And this is a continuation of a number of conversations that we’ve been having. Most recently, we had a conversation in Washington; we did not have time to complete the task. And so she is on her way back to Israel, and I am on my way back to the United States, and this was a convenient way to complete the conversation, which is important right now because we are really working with very serious purpose on the behalf of everybody who’s been part of this – Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Abbas, the folks working around them. I met last week in Washington with Saeb Erekat, the envoy for President Abbas.
And I think it’s fair to say that we are working through a threshold of questions, that we’re doing it with a seriousness and purpose that I think Minister Livni would agree with me has not been present in a while. And we all believe that we’re working with a short time span. We understand an imperative to try to have some sense of direction as rapidly as we can.
So I’m grateful for their ability to be here. I think the announcement by the Arab League last week was an important step forward. And I spoke again this morning with Prime Minister Hamad bin Jasim of Qatar, who represented – who was the chairman of that committee. They want to keep the progress moving. They have asked for ongoing meetings, and we will have those ongoing meetings, but with a purpose. We don’t want to have a meeting for the sake of a meeting.
So over the course of the next weeks, we’re going to continue our work. I will be traveling back to Israel to meet with both Prime Minister Netanyahu as well as President Abbas around the 21st or 22nd of this month. So I’m grateful for the Minister for coming here, and we look forward to a productive session this afternoon.
JUSTICE MINISTER LIVNI: Thank you. I would like to express our appreciation to your efforts. We feel that peace between Israel and the Palestinians is in Israel interest, and I believe it is also in Palestinian interest. But yet we are, after some years of stalemate, and your determination and enthusiasm and efforts can change the realities. And I believe that what you are doing here will create hope in the region, because some of us lost hope. And this is something that we need, not just as a vague idea, but something which is concrete and thank you for (inaudible).
And I do believe that having the meeting with the Arab League and having the statement come from Hamad bin Jasim after the meeting was very good news, because there’s the need for the support of the Arab states. I hope that they would also support Abu Mazen in entering the negotiations room, giving the support of negotiations, and an understanding, which is very important for us that peace with the Palestinians means also peace with the Arab world. So I wish to congratulate you on this successful meeting with the Arab League.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Thanks so much, guys. Thanks so much. Okay.
QUESTION: Minister Livni, is Israel thinking about reciprocating the Arab League gesture in any way?
SECRETARY KERRY: Folks, we’ll have more to say as we go forward here, I promise you.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN HOLDS MEETING RELATED TO SYRIA
 |
| Credit: The White House |
Biden, in Munich, Holds Syria-related Meetings
From a White House News Release
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2013 - Vice President Joe Biden, attending the Munich Security conference, today met with United Nations and Arab League Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi on the conference's margins.
Biden thanked Brahimi for his steadfast work to resolve the ongoing crisis in Syria and pledged that the United States would continue to support his efforts, officials said. The vice president and Brahimi discussed the dire humanitarian situation inside Syria and the regional implications of the crisis, officials said.
Biden also met separately on the margins of the conference with Syrian Opposition Coalition President Moaz al-Khatib. The vice president praised al-Khatib's personal courage and leadership of the coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people, officials said.
Biden urged al-Khatib to continue his efforts to maintain unity among the coalition's leadership, officials said, and to isolate extremist elements within the broader opposition. The vice president also encouraged the coalition president to reach out to, and be inclusive of, a broad range of communities inside Syria, including Alawites, Christians and Kurds.
Officials said during the meeting, Biden reaffirmed the U.S. call for an end to the Assad regime and a transition that leads to a peaceful, inclusive and democratic Syria, where the rights of all Syrians are protected. The vice president also commended al-Khatib's recent statements, including in Munich, expressing openness, under certain circumstances, to the possibility of negotiations to bring the Syrian people the leadership they deserve, officials said.
Friday, April 20, 2012
STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING
Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:14 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. It’s a beautiful spring day. Hint, hint. I don’t have anything for you at the top, so I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I’m presuming that since your two minutes turned into, what, ten minutes, that you were on the phone taking an urgent call from the Secretary’s traveling party. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: That’s not correct.
QUESTION: Then you don’t have an answer for me for the – (laughter) – you don’t have an answer for me.
MR. TONER: On the --
QUESTION: Yes. On --
MR. TONER: Your question has been relayed and I have no answer.
QUESTION: But do you – but you have no answer?
MR. TONER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: Is there anything --
MR. TONER: As we speak in code.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Got anything else?
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Flyers’ game last night. (Laughter.)
Do you know if – or do you have anything to say about the Argentina Repsol situation?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t have a great deal beyond what I said yesterday, no – that we’ve expressed our concerns to the Argentineans, the Argentine Government at the highest levels on numerous occasions, that these types of actions can adversely affect the investment climate for U.S. businesses, for other businesses, for other nations’ companies. So just along the lines of what I said yesterday, nothing new.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t – do you know if this subject was raised when the Secretary spoke with the Spanish foreign minister?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t. I can’t confirm it was raised. I’ll try to get the information, some more information about that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have something on that --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because the foreign minister, after the meeting, spoke to press in Brussels, and he said that the Secretary had expressed a compromise to work with Spain on ways to pressure Argentina to change its decision, and that she also said that this was a violation of international law. Can you confirm any of that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm. I haven’t gotten the readout from that bilateral, and we’re not particularly forthcoming when we talk about the substance of our private diplomatic meetings.
QUESTION: Will there be a readout?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Will there be a readout today or --
MR. TONER: Again, I’ll see what I can get. That’s in line with what Matt was asking about, whether it came up in the meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: But, yeah, publicly, again, we were very clear yesterday that we find these kinds of actions to be non-constructive in creating the kind of investment climate that we want to see countries like Argentina promote.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: In you statement yesterday, you said that the United States has raised concerns like this with Argentina. Has this case specifically been raised with Argentina, or are you just talking more broadly about the investment climate?
MR. TONER: I think speaking more broadly, but I also think we’ve raised this particular case as well.
QUESTION: Since the decision was announced?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know how it was raised?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Most likely through our bilateral Embassy contacts, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – well, since you haven’t --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- been in touch with them, do you know if the Secretary has given her intervention yet in Paris at the meeting?
MR. TONER: She has, I believe.
QUESTION: She has? Okay. So I haven’t seen – I presume that that’s out? Can you talk about it?
MR. TONER: I can’t, really. I don’t have any details. I mean, obviously, on Syria today, the center of gravity is in – both in New York as well as in Paris. But haven’t – I think she just concluded.
QUESTION: Well, more broadly –
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you talk about what kind of options you’re looking at as it becomes increasingly clear that the ceasefire isn’t working?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think Ambassador Rice spoke a little bit about where we’re at, and of course, the Secretary as well. But where we’re at, when she walked – she just gave a presser, I believe, in New York a short while ago – concerns that, obviously that the ceasefire is eroding, as I mentioned yesterday, that we want to see a UN monitoring mission move forward, but as she said, many members expressed their concern that all the conditions had not met. We clearly want to see this monitoring mission move forward in an environment that is conducive to its success.
QUESTION: Right, but as – but as it is not, or as it doesn’t look like that’s happening, are you or are you not preparing options in terms of if and when it becomes clear that this mission has – or that this initiative has failed?
MR. TONER: And again, I think those are conversations that are ongoing in New York as well as in Paris, so I don’t want to get out ahead of that.
QUESTION: Right, but – well, are you or are you not?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we’re always looking – as I discussed more broadly yesterday, we’re working within the UN on Syria, but we’re also with the Friends of Syria, with other likeminded nations, on ways we can continue to apply pressure.
QUESTION: But – no, I mean in the specific event that the – that Kofi Annan’s plan doesn’t work.
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re – we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the plan. We want to see it implemented. The onus is obviously on Assad and – to live up to the commitments that his regime has made, but I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: But would the – I mean, the next step on that on that would be a new resolution which would allow for an expanded monitoring operation, as is called for under the plan. Would the U.S. support that, given that Assad’s only partially complied with the ceasefire element?
MR. TONER: Again, I think Ambassador Rice addressed this to – in some fashion in New York, where she talked about the fact that we want to see a monitoring mission move forward, but one – but we also are concerned that not all the conditions have been met yet. So we need appropriate conditions on the ground for that mission to move forward. But again, let’s let them continue to talk about this in New York and in Paris.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yes, Mark. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the blame did not only fall on the regime itself, but also on those who support the regime. Is that – does that usher in, like, another period of tension with Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we talked about this, and it was one of the outcomes of the previous Friends of Syria meeting that we are committed to holding those accountable --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- who are responsible for these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR. TONER: I’m not sure. I think she was speaking more directly to those around Assad, his cronies, his colleagues who are carrying out or helping him commit these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Okay. So when she was saying that she was not pointing to any sort of outside group or --
MR. TONER: That was my interpretation. We’ve been clear that --
QUESTION: Like, it doesn’t mean, like, Russia or Iran or China?
MR. TONER: That’s what – again, that was – it was my interpretation, Said. I think she was speaking about those – those around Assad need to look long and hard in the mirror and decide what side they’re on.
QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect the kind of harmony that was shown in the last session to be shown again if the point comes up before the Security Council once more?
MR. TONER: Again, I think that with the Annan plan, we do have this kind of unity, that this is a way forward that can lead to the democratic transition, the end of violence that ultimately we all want to see happen in Syria.
QUESTION: And lastly, just to follow up --
MR. TONER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: -- on Matt’s points, you are not – at this point, at least, you’re not prepared to say that this mission is about to collapse or it’s really headed towards a brick wall, so to speak?
MR. TONER: I’m really going to defer to folks in New York and in Paris because this is fast-moving, that there’s – as I said, these centers of gravity are there rather than here this – today. But I don’t want to get out in front of the diplomacy.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are you focusing more now on the idea of having buffer zones in Syria with Turkey?
MR. TONER: We’ve – our position on buffer zones hasn’t really changed from what I said the other day. Our focus, frankly, is on ways to increase humanitarian assistance to those in need. We think the Annan plan, if it were actually fulfilled, would provide that opportunity, but it hasn’t been. But there’s clear logistical challenges to any kind of buffer zone.
QUESTION: There’s a report today that the Administration is putting more focus now on taking this idea more seriously.
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think that our focus is on humanitarian assistance. We’ve obviously focused funding for those kinds of efforts. But I can’t speak any more about any buffer zone.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: If U.S. allies in the GCC, in the Gulf Cooperation Council, decide to sort of increase their involvement or their support of the opposition groups by arming them, does that in any way – are you concerned that this may actually lead to sort of a Sunni-Shia schism with polarization of Iran and its allies on the one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other?
MR. TONER: Well, without even addressing the crux of your question, I can say that we have been very concerned that Syria can slide into civil war. The Secretary said this. Others have said it. We still believe there’s time – a little time, but time – for a diplomatic solution to this, and that’s where we’re focusing our efforts.
QUESTION: So do you take pause when you are consulting with your allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to back off a little bit from supporting these groups, especially by arms, once this happens?
MR. TONER: Well, the GCC has played a clear leadership role in trying to address the terrible violence that’s happening in Syria. We consult with them frequently through the Friends of Syria meetings and also bilaterally on the way forward in Syria. Obviously, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions moving forward. We’ve said, for our part, that we don’t believe in a further militarization of what’s going – of Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Congressman Mike Turner sent a letter to Secretary Clinton about new mobile missile shown at the military parade in Pyongyang, and he says that the photos of this new missile suggest cooperation and support from China. And he’s asking if such any cooperation would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and if so, what the Administration is going to do. So what’s your response to that?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I’ve seen – I think there’s been some press reports out about this. China has provided repeated assurances that it is complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well as 1874. We’re not presently aware of any UN probe into this matter, so I’d refer you to the UN.
Yes.
QUESTION: Has China specifically given assurances on this since the rocket launch?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware, no. But they have said – they’ve said in the past that they’ve been compliant with 1874 and 1718. I’m not aware that they’ve given any direct response to these reports.
QUESTION: Sure. And the U.S. is confident of that? The U.S. can take China at its word that there isn’t that type of cooperation?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we take them at their word. There is a UN mechanism. There’s a UN sanctions committee that exists to look into these allegations.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to make sure, you do believe them?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Palestinian issue.
QUESTION: Did you clarify whether Mr. Hale received a copy of the letter?
MR. TONER: I did clarify. I don’t believe he has a copy. This is an internal document between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But you – being the sort of the sponsor of these talks historically --
MR. TONER: I can’t imagine --
QUESTION: -- would either side have shared with you --
MR. TONER: I think the answer to your question, Said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know the contents of such a letter. He’s obviously – and I can add here that he’s obviously engaged with the parties as they follow up from their meeting on April 17th. And in fact, I can note that he’s traveling to the region today to engage with the parties. He’s going to meet with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, frankly, to discuss next steps out of this meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, where is he going specifically?
MR. TONER: I don’t have a detailed itinerary yet. He’s going to go to the region, and then he’s going to travel to the Gulf to brief senior officials there. I’ll try to get you a – I mean, do you want – kind of where he’s going to be, what day?
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: Granularity?
QUESTION: Not necessarily that level of granularity, but, I mean, the region – when you say the region, doesn’t – usually that includes the Gulf. But the region you’re talking about – the very small region – meaning Israel and the Palestinian territories?
MR. TONER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: But then he’s going to go to the Gulf as well?
MR. TONER: Correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: But he’s not going to go to, say, other countries in the region, like Syria?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Lebanon?
MR. TONER: I don’t know where he’s going in the Gulf.
QUESTION: Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’ll try to get better – I’ll try to get more clarity on that.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: I realize that it’s --
QUESTION: Why is he going to go to the Gulf?
MR. TONER: I think just a part of regular consultations.
QUESTION: He didn’t do this before.
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t read anything into it, Samir. But I’ll try to find out what countries – specific countries he’s visiting. It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: Will he also visit Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’m being sloppy in my geography. What?
QUESTION: Will Jordan be part of that region?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I can assume, but I don’t know what precise countries. I think that he’s going to the region, he’s going to go to the – then he’s going to consult with other Gulf countries. Sometimes these things are quite fluid. These meetings are set up on the fly, if you will. It’s the nature of the negotiations so I just don’t know specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have an inclination of what the focus of the discussion will be?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the focus is, as I said, next steps out of the April 17th meeting and with the ultimate aim of trying to get direct negotiations up and running again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On another subject. On – India has now launched that ICBM, and I’m just wondering if you have anything more to say on that. Yesterday, it seemed as – though you essentially thought it was no worries.
MR. TONER: Well, I think, as I noted yesterday, I think, we urged all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding their nuclear and missile capabilities. But you’re right. They did launch the Agni-V ballistic missile earlier today. So I don’t have any further comment to what I said.
QUESTION: Does that mean – I mean, would you – when you urge restraint, does that include testing new long-range ballistic missiles? Do you think that that generally falls under the rubric of restraint?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And it would have been better --
MR. TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead finish your --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: Do you think that they heeded your admonition for restraint by launching this missile?
MR. TONER: Again, I just – India’s been very much engaged in the international community and nonproliferation issues. They’ve attended both the nuclear security summits, the one in D.C. and the one in Seoul. So we believe they’re – they have a solid nonproliferation record and that they’re playing a significant role internationally on the issue. I would just refer you to them. I think I’ll let my comments stand on --
QUESTION: Okay. One more --
QUESTION: Right. But the thing is that it’s not question of proliferation here. I mean, no one’s saying – no one’s suggesting that they’re going to give this missile away or sell it to anybody.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: The question is whether you – whether or not you think that they heeded your call for restraint in the nuclear and ballistic missile technologies by going ahead with the launch, and whether you have any concerns that it could affect the security and stability in a very volatile region of the world.
MR. TONER: Well, again – and I think that’s why I’d refer you to the --
QUESTION: Well, can you ask – get SCA to --
MR. TONER: -- very strong record on nonproliferation issues, but --
QUESTION: Well, that’s great.
MR. TONER: -- with regards to the --
QUESTION: This isn’t a question of proliferation.
MR. TONER: -- to the missile launch, I’ve said that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So --
MR. TONER: I think my statement’s been clear.
QUESTION: I know it’s been cleared.
MR. TONER: Clear.
QUESTION: That’s probably why it says nothing, because – are you talking about when they say that they have a great record of nonproliferation, are you talking about in terms of giving or selling the technology away?
MR. TONER: Yes, I am. I am.
QUESTION: Because they seem to be doing a great job of self-proliferation. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be testing a new long-range missile.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So they are proliferating internally.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: That doesn’t suggest a great record on nonproliferation.
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I think I’m – I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take – can you ask to see if there is – well, it’s significant. If you guys don’t think that it’s worthy of a comment – that the fact they launched this thing --
MR. TONER: I don’t. I think I --
QUESTION: -- it suggests that --
MR. TONER: -- answered the question with my comment, which is that we always urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: But does – the question is whether or not this launch is – fits in with your definition of exercising restraint. So – I mean, if, in fact, you choose to say nothing about the fact that they actually went ahead with the launch, that would suggest that you don’t think it’s that big of a deal, like what Andy said. But I just want to make sure that you’ve been given – this building or the Administration has been given the opportunity --
MR. TONER: We’ve been given the opportunity. We recognize that.
QUESTION: And you’re saying nothing.
MR. TONER: We recognize that we’ve been given the opportunity.
QUESTION: So it is not a big deal to you?
MR. TONER: I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma. Yesterday, Kurt Campbell mentioned that the Burmese foreign minister will be coming to the U.S. next month. And it’s a little ways ahead still, but I’m wondering if you have any details on that yet.
MR. TONER: I really don’t beyond, obviously, the confirming the visit. But, obviously, as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide more detail.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the U.S-Azerbaijani meeting yesterday, specifically on Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if I have any specific information on Afghanistan. I can say that we’re going to put out a Media Note later today on these meetings that have been taking place. I think they’re in the rubric of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission. So this is a strategic dialogue that explores opportunities for economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. I can say, looking at this, that we – they did discuss Afghanistan, but I don’t have any details.
QUESTION: Do you have any more to say on the question yesterday about the Yomiuri Shimbun report about North Korean refugees saying that China has suspended repatriation to North Korea? I’m sorry, that China has suspended --
MR. TONER: Right, right, right. Well, I think yesterday I expressed our concern about the repatriation of these refugees. We’ve been, obviously, clear on that in the past. The report itself – I’m sorry --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that China has suspended repatriation of refugees to North Korea. The article was saying that this was in response to concerns over the rocket launch, the lack of consultation. But obviously, there are longstanding concerns about what actually happens to these refugees if they’re turned back.
MR. TONER: Right. Well, I mean, we obviously hope that the media reports are true. I don’t have much new information to add, though. But we’ve obviously raised in the past, as I just said, our concerns about alleged reports of North Koreans detained in China. So we consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the UN Convention on Refugees.
Please.
QUESTION: Anything more or new to say on Guinea-Bissau? I mean, the World Bank and African Development Bank today suspended their aid. I looked at the website, and it looks like most of your aid, if not all of it, is humanitarian. So I’m wondering if that’s sort of in play or --
MR. TONER: There is. There was some – there was some IMET money, military training funds that have already been suspended, frankly, before the events of the last couple weeks. So we’re obviously looking at the broader aid package and, a la Mali, we’re going to look at what actually went to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. But that’s – that’ll take some more time. But --
QUESTION: Weeks, probably?
MR. TONER: Not necessarily weeks, but – anyway, but it’s about – there’s various programs and pots of money, but I just – there’s $10,000 that went to civil-military relations that was already suspended.
QUESTION: $10,000? Okay.
MR. TONER: Sorry. Just giving you the facts there.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: It’s a small country. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. With all the explosions and violence today, do you still think that this meeting proposed for the 23rd of May to follow on the Istanbul meeting can still be held in Baghdad?
MR. TONER: Oh, absolutely. We are – first of all, I want to strongly condemn today’s attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it’s cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are – they just hosted a very successful Arab League summit, and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
Yes, Scott.
QUESTION: Venezuela – you took a question on that yesterday and deferred it to DOJ. Could you tell us if the United States Government provided the transport for Judge Aponte to leave Venezuela for Costa Rica?
MR. TONER: I can’t. At this point, I’m not – I don’t have that answer. I think Department of Justice would be better able to answer that question.
Anything else? Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on Sudan? President Bashir is threatening to topple the SPLM Government in the South.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll let – I mean, you may or may not be aware, but we’re going to do a call with Princeton Lyman at 2 p.m.
QUESTION: In 20 minutes.
MR. TONER: In 20 minutes. So I don’t want to steal his thunder.
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: Well, I think we sent it out to the broader press corps.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That’s it? Thanks.
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 19, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
1:14 p.m. EDT
MR. TONER: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the State Department. It’s a beautiful spring day. Hint, hint. I don’t have anything for you at the top, so I’ll take your questions.
QUESTION: Well, I’m presuming that since your two minutes turned into, what, ten minutes, that you were on the phone taking an urgent call from the Secretary’s traveling party. Is that correct?
MR. TONER: That’s not correct.
QUESTION: Then you don’t have an answer for me for the – (laughter) – you don’t have an answer for me.
MR. TONER: On the --
QUESTION: Yes. On --
MR. TONER: Your question has been relayed and I have no answer.
QUESTION: But do you – but you have no answer?
MR. TONER: No, not yet.
QUESTION: Is there anything --
MR. TONER: As we speak in code.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. TONER: Got anything else?
QUESTION: We’re talking about the Flyers’ game last night. (Laughter.)
Do you know if – or do you have anything to say about the Argentina Repsol situation?
MR. TONER: Well, I mean, I don’t have a great deal beyond what I said yesterday, no – that we’ve expressed our concerns to the Argentineans, the Argentine Government at the highest levels on numerous occasions, that these types of actions can adversely affect the investment climate for U.S. businesses, for other businesses, for other nations’ companies. So just along the lines of what I said yesterday, nothing new.
QUESTION: Okay. And you don’t – do you know if this subject was raised when the Secretary spoke with the Spanish foreign minister?
MR. TONER: Well, I don’t. I can’t confirm it was raised. I’ll try to get the information, some more information about that.
QUESTION: Yeah, I have something on that --
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- because the foreign minister, after the meeting, spoke to press in Brussels, and he said that the Secretary had expressed a compromise to work with Spain on ways to pressure Argentina to change its decision, and that she also said that this was a violation of international law. Can you confirm any of that?
MR. TONER: I can’t confirm. I haven’t gotten the readout from that bilateral, and we’re not particularly forthcoming when we talk about the substance of our private diplomatic meetings.
QUESTION: Will there be a readout?
MR. TONER: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Will there be a readout today or --
MR. TONER: Again, I’ll see what I can get. That’s in line with what Matt was asking about, whether it came up in the meeting.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: But, yeah, publicly, again, we were very clear yesterday that we find these kinds of actions to be non-constructive in creating the kind of investment climate that we want to see countries like Argentina promote.
QUESTION: Just a follow-up: In you statement yesterday, you said that the United States has raised concerns like this with Argentina. Has this case specifically been raised with Argentina, or are you just talking more broadly about the investment climate?
MR. TONER: I think speaking more broadly, but I also think we’ve raised this particular case as well.
QUESTION: Since the decision was announced?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you know how it was raised?
MR. TONER: I do not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. TONER: Most likely through our bilateral Embassy contacts, but I don’t know.
QUESTION: I see.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – well, since you haven’t --
MR. TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- been in touch with them, do you know if the Secretary has given her intervention yet in Paris at the meeting?
MR. TONER: She has, I believe.
QUESTION: She has? Okay. So I haven’t seen – I presume that that’s out? Can you talk about it?
MR. TONER: I can’t, really. I don’t have any details. I mean, obviously, on Syria today, the center of gravity is in – both in New York as well as in Paris. But haven’t – I think she just concluded.
QUESTION: Well, more broadly –
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- can you talk about what kind of options you’re looking at as it becomes increasingly clear that the ceasefire isn’t working?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think Ambassador Rice spoke a little bit about where we’re at, and of course, the Secretary as well. But where we’re at, when she walked – she just gave a presser, I believe, in New York a short while ago – concerns that, obviously that the ceasefire is eroding, as I mentioned yesterday, that we want to see a UN monitoring mission move forward, but as she said, many members expressed their concern that all the conditions had not met. We clearly want to see this monitoring mission move forward in an environment that is conducive to its success.
QUESTION: Right, but as – but as it is not, or as it doesn’t look like that’s happening, are you or are you not preparing options in terms of if and when it becomes clear that this mission has – or that this initiative has failed?
MR. TONER: And again, I think those are conversations that are ongoing in New York as well as in Paris, so I don’t want to get out ahead of that.
QUESTION: Right, but – well, are you or are you not?
MR. TONER: Well, I think we’re always looking – as I discussed more broadly yesterday, we’re working within the UN on Syria, but we’re also with the Friends of Syria, with other likeminded nations, on ways we can continue to apply pressure.
QUESTION: But – no, I mean in the specific event that the – that Kofi Annan’s plan doesn’t work.
MR. TONER: Again, I think we’re – we don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the plan. We want to see it implemented. The onus is obviously on Assad and – to live up to the commitments that his regime has made, but I don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: But would the – I mean, the next step on that on that would be a new resolution which would allow for an expanded monitoring operation, as is called for under the plan. Would the U.S. support that, given that Assad’s only partially complied with the ceasefire element?
MR. TONER: Again, I think Ambassador Rice addressed this to – in some fashion in New York, where she talked about the fact that we want to see a monitoring mission move forward, but one – but we also are concerned that not all the conditions have been met yet. So we need appropriate conditions on the ground for that mission to move forward. But again, let’s let them continue to talk about this in New York and in Paris.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yes, Mark. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said that the blame did not only fall on the regime itself, but also on those who support the regime. Is that – does that usher in, like, another period of tension with Russia?
MR. TONER: Well, again, we talked about this, and it was one of the outcomes of the previous Friends of Syria meeting that we are committed to holding those accountable --
QUESTION: Right.
MR. TONER: -- who are responsible for these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MR. TONER: I’m not sure. I think she was speaking more directly to those around Assad, his cronies, his colleagues who are carrying out or helping him commit these crimes against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: Okay. So when she was saying that she was not pointing to any sort of outside group or --
MR. TONER: That was my interpretation. We’ve been clear that --
QUESTION: Like, it doesn’t mean, like, Russia or Iran or China?
MR. TONER: That’s what – again, that was – it was my interpretation, Said. I think she was speaking about those – those around Assad need to look long and hard in the mirror and decide what side they’re on.
QUESTION: Okay. So do you expect the kind of harmony that was shown in the last session to be shown again if the point comes up before the Security Council once more?
MR. TONER: Again, I think that with the Annan plan, we do have this kind of unity, that this is a way forward that can lead to the democratic transition, the end of violence that ultimately we all want to see happen in Syria.
QUESTION: And lastly, just to follow up --
MR. TONER: Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: -- on Matt’s points, you are not – at this point, at least, you’re not prepared to say that this mission is about to collapse or it’s really headed towards a brick wall, so to speak?
MR. TONER: I’m really going to defer to folks in New York and in Paris because this is fast-moving, that there’s – as I said, these centers of gravity are there rather than here this – today. But I don’t want to get out in front of the diplomacy.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Are you focusing more now on the idea of having buffer zones in Syria with Turkey?
MR. TONER: We’ve – our position on buffer zones hasn’t really changed from what I said the other day. Our focus, frankly, is on ways to increase humanitarian assistance to those in need. We think the Annan plan, if it were actually fulfilled, would provide that opportunity, but it hasn’t been. But there’s clear logistical challenges to any kind of buffer zone.
QUESTION: There’s a report today that the Administration is putting more focus now on taking this idea more seriously.
MR. TONER: Well, again, I mean, I think that our focus is on humanitarian assistance. We’ve obviously focused funding for those kinds of efforts. But I can’t speak any more about any buffer zone.
QUESTION: Sorry, Mark.
MR. TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: If U.S. allies in the GCC, in the Gulf Cooperation Council, decide to sort of increase their involvement or their support of the opposition groups by arming them, does that in any way – are you concerned that this may actually lead to sort of a Sunni-Shia schism with polarization of Iran and its allies on the one side, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other?
MR. TONER: Well, without even addressing the crux of your question, I can say that we have been very concerned that Syria can slide into civil war. The Secretary said this. Others have said it. We still believe there’s time – a little time, but time – for a diplomatic solution to this, and that’s where we’re focusing our efforts.
QUESTION: So do you take pause when you are consulting with your allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to back off a little bit from supporting these groups, especially by arms, once this happens?
MR. TONER: Well, the GCC has played a clear leadership role in trying to address the terrible violence that’s happening in Syria. We consult with them frequently through the Friends of Syria meetings and also bilaterally on the way forward in Syria. Obviously, they’re going to make their own sovereign decisions moving forward. We’ve said, for our part, that we don’t believe in a further militarization of what’s going – of Syria.
Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: North Korea. Congressman Mike Turner sent a letter to Secretary Clinton about new mobile missile shown at the military parade in Pyongyang, and he says that the photos of this new missile suggest cooperation and support from China. And he’s asking if such any cooperation would be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution, and if so, what the Administration is going to do. So what’s your response to that?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I’ve seen – I think there’s been some press reports out about this. China has provided repeated assurances that it is complying fully with both Resolution 1718 as well as 1874. We’re not presently aware of any UN probe into this matter, so I’d refer you to the UN.
Yes.
QUESTION: Has China specifically given assurances on this since the rocket launch?
MR. TONER: Not that I’m aware, no. But they have said – they’ve said in the past that they’ve been compliant with 1874 and 1718. I’m not aware that they’ve given any direct response to these reports.
QUESTION: Sure. And the U.S. is confident of that? The U.S. can take China at its word that there isn’t that type of cooperation?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I think we take them at their word. There is a UN mechanism. There’s a UN sanctions committee that exists to look into these allegations.
QUESTION: Sorry, just to make sure, you do believe them?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Palestinian issue?
MR. TONER: Palestinian issue.
QUESTION: Did you clarify whether Mr. Hale received a copy of the letter?
MR. TONER: I did clarify. I don’t believe he has a copy. This is an internal document between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
QUESTION: But you – being the sort of the sponsor of these talks historically --
MR. TONER: I can’t imagine --
QUESTION: -- would either side have shared with you --
MR. TONER: I think the answer to your question, Said, I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t know the contents of such a letter. He’s obviously – and I can add here that he’s obviously engaged with the parties as they follow up from their meeting on April 17th. And in fact, I can note that he’s traveling to the region today to engage with the parties. He’s going to meet with senior Israeli and Palestinian officials, frankly, to discuss next steps out of this meeting.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, where is he going specifically?
MR. TONER: I don’t have a detailed itinerary yet. He’s going to go to the region, and then he’s going to travel to the Gulf to brief senior officials there. I’ll try to get you a – I mean, do you want – kind of where he’s going to be, what day?
QUESTION: Well --
MR. TONER: Granularity?
QUESTION: Not necessarily that level of granularity, but, I mean, the region – when you say the region, doesn’t – usually that includes the Gulf. But the region you’re talking about – the very small region – meaning Israel and the Palestinian territories?
MR. TONER: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: But then he’s going to go to the Gulf as well?
MR. TONER: Correct. That is correct.
QUESTION: But he’s not going to go to, say, other countries in the region, like Syria?
MR. TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Lebanon?
MR. TONER: I don’t know where he’s going in the Gulf.
QUESTION: Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’ll try to get better – I’ll try to get more clarity on that.
QUESTION: Egypt?
MR. TONER: I realize that it’s --
QUESTION: Why is he going to go to the Gulf?
MR. TONER: I think just a part of regular consultations.
QUESTION: He didn’t do this before.
MR. TONER: I wouldn’t read anything into it, Samir. But I’ll try to find out what countries – specific countries he’s visiting. It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: Will he also visit Jordan?
MR. TONER: I’m being sloppy in my geography. What?
QUESTION: Will Jordan be part of that region?
MR. TONER: I don’t know. I can assume, but I don’t know what precise countries. I think that he’s going to the region, he’s going to go to the – then he’s going to consult with other Gulf countries. Sometimes these things are quite fluid. These meetings are set up on the fly, if you will. It’s the nature of the negotiations so I just don’t know specifics.
QUESTION: Do you have an inclination of what the focus of the discussion will be?
MR. TONER: Well, I think the focus is, as I said, next steps out of the April 17th meeting and with the ultimate aim of trying to get direct negotiations up and running again.
Yeah.
QUESTION: On another subject. On – India has now launched that ICBM, and I’m just wondering if you have anything more to say on that. Yesterday, it seemed as – though you essentially thought it was no worries.
MR. TONER: Well, I think, as I noted yesterday, I think, we urged all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint regarding their nuclear and missile capabilities. But you’re right. They did launch the Agni-V ballistic missile earlier today. So I don’t have any further comment to what I said.
QUESTION: Does that mean – I mean, would you – when you urge restraint, does that include testing new long-range ballistic missiles? Do you think that that generally falls under the rubric of restraint?
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: And it would have been better --
MR. TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead finish your --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: Do you think that they heeded your admonition for restraint by launching this missile?
MR. TONER: Again, I just – India’s been very much engaged in the international community and nonproliferation issues. They’ve attended both the nuclear security summits, the one in D.C. and the one in Seoul. So we believe they’re – they have a solid nonproliferation record and that they’re playing a significant role internationally on the issue. I would just refer you to them. I think I’ll let my comments stand on --
QUESTION: Okay. One more --
QUESTION: Right. But the thing is that it’s not question of proliferation here. I mean, no one’s saying – no one’s suggesting that they’re going to give this missile away or sell it to anybody.
MR. TONER: Right.
QUESTION: The question is whether you – whether or not you think that they heeded your call for restraint in the nuclear and ballistic missile technologies by going ahead with the launch, and whether you have any concerns that it could affect the security and stability in a very volatile region of the world.
MR. TONER: Well, again – and I think that’s why I’d refer you to the --
QUESTION: Well, can you ask – get SCA to --
MR. TONER: -- very strong record on nonproliferation issues, but --
QUESTION: Well, that’s great.
MR. TONER: -- with regards to the --
QUESTION: This isn’t a question of proliferation.
MR. TONER: -- to the missile launch, I’ve said that we urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: Well, okay. So --
MR. TONER: I think my statement’s been clear.
QUESTION: I know it’s been cleared.
MR. TONER: Clear.
QUESTION: That’s probably why it says nothing, because – are you talking about when they say that they have a great record of nonproliferation, are you talking about in terms of giving or selling the technology away?
MR. TONER: Yes, I am. I am.
QUESTION: Because they seem to be doing a great job of self-proliferation. Right? Otherwise they wouldn’t be testing a new long-range missile.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: So they are proliferating internally.
MR. TONER: Again --
QUESTION: That doesn’t suggest a great record on nonproliferation.
MR. TONER: Again, Matt, I think I’m – I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you take – can you ask to see if there is – well, it’s significant. If you guys don’t think that it’s worthy of a comment – that the fact they launched this thing --
MR. TONER: I don’t. I think I --
QUESTION: -- it suggests that --
MR. TONER: -- answered the question with my comment, which is that we always urge all nuclear-capable states to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: But does – the question is whether or not this launch is – fits in with your definition of exercising restraint. So – I mean, if, in fact, you choose to say nothing about the fact that they actually went ahead with the launch, that would suggest that you don’t think it’s that big of a deal, like what Andy said. But I just want to make sure that you’ve been given – this building or the Administration has been given the opportunity --
MR. TONER: We’ve been given the opportunity. We recognize that.
QUESTION: And you’re saying nothing.
MR. TONER: We recognize that we’ve been given the opportunity.
QUESTION: So it is not a big deal to you?
MR. TONER: I’ve said what I want to say.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Burma. Yesterday, Kurt Campbell mentioned that the Burmese foreign minister will be coming to the U.S. next month. And it’s a little ways ahead still, but I’m wondering if you have any details on that yet.
MR. TONER: I really don’t beyond, obviously, the confirming the visit. But, obviously, as we get closer, we’ll be able to provide more detail.
Yeah, Scott.
QUESTION: Can you give us a readout on the U.S-Azerbaijani meeting yesterday, specifically on Afghanistan?
MR. TONER: I don’t know if I have any specific information on Afghanistan. I can say that we’re going to put out a Media Note later today on these meetings that have been taking place. I think they’re in the rubric of the U.S.-Azerbaijan Economic Partnership Commission. So this is a strategic dialogue that explores opportunities for economic and commercial cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan. I can say, looking at this, that we – they did discuss Afghanistan, but I don’t have any details.
QUESTION: Do you have any more to say on the question yesterday about the Yomiuri Shimbun report about North Korean refugees saying that China has suspended repatriation to North Korea? I’m sorry, that China has suspended --
MR. TONER: Right, right, right. Well, I think yesterday I expressed our concern about the repatriation of these refugees. We’ve been, obviously, clear on that in the past. The report itself – I’m sorry --
QUESTION: Sure. Saying that China has suspended repatriation of refugees to North Korea. The article was saying that this was in response to concerns over the rocket launch, the lack of consultation. But obviously, there are longstanding concerns about what actually happens to these refugees if they’re turned back.
MR. TONER: Right. Well, I mean, we obviously hope that the media reports are true. I don’t have much new information to add, though. But we’ve obviously raised in the past, as I just said, our concerns about alleged reports of North Koreans detained in China. So we consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations as part of the UN Convention on Refugees.
Please.
QUESTION: Anything more or new to say on Guinea-Bissau? I mean, the World Bank and African Development Bank today suspended their aid. I looked at the website, and it looks like most of your aid, if not all of it, is humanitarian. So I’m wondering if that’s sort of in play or --
MR. TONER: There is. There was some – there was some IMET money, military training funds that have already been suspended, frankly, before the events of the last couple weeks. So we’re obviously looking at the broader aid package and, a la Mali, we’re going to look at what actually went to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. But that’s – that’ll take some more time. But --
QUESTION: Weeks, probably?
MR. TONER: Not necessarily weeks, but – anyway, but it’s about – there’s various programs and pots of money, but I just – there’s $10,000 that went to civil-military relations that was already suspended.
QUESTION: $10,000? Okay.
MR. TONER: Sorry. Just giving you the facts there.
QUESTION: Sure.
QUESTION: It’s a small country. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR. TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: Iraq. With all the explosions and violence today, do you still think that this meeting proposed for the 23rd of May to follow on the Istanbul meeting can still be held in Baghdad?
MR. TONER: Oh, absolutely. We are – first of all, I want to strongly condemn today’s attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it’s cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are – they just hosted a very successful Arab League summit, and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
Yes, Scott.
QUESTION: Venezuela – you took a question on that yesterday and deferred it to DOJ. Could you tell us if the United States Government provided the transport for Judge Aponte to leave Venezuela for Costa Rica?
MR. TONER: I can’t. At this point, I’m not – I don’t have that answer. I think Department of Justice would be better able to answer that question.
Anything else? Yeah, in the back.
QUESTION: Do you have anything for us on Sudan? President Bashir is threatening to topple the SPLM Government in the South.
MR. TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll let – I mean, you may or may not be aware, but we’re going to do a call with Princeton Lyman at 2 p.m.
QUESTION: In 20 minutes.
MR. TONER: In 20 minutes. So I don’t want to steal his thunder.
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: What’s that?
QUESTION: By invitation.
MR. TONER: Well, I think we sent it out to the broader press corps.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR. TONER: That’s it? Thanks.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT DAILY BRIEFING
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
04/10/2012 03:57 PM EDT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 10, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:55 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have nothing at the top. Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: I guess we could start with Syria. You have seen the report of Kofi Annan or the letter that he has sent to the Security Council and the report of his aide. So I’m wondering what you make of it, and are you okay with him sticking to this timeline, with the regime not withdrawing its forces as best you can tell, but staying with the timeline? In other words, another 48 hours until there’s a ceasefire? Is that okay with you guys?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen the letter that Joint Envoy Kofi Annan has submitted to the council. I think you know that the council is still in session as we speak asking questions of his deputy, talking about the letter and thinking about next steps. My understanding is that, in her capacity as president of the council this month, Ambassador Rice will have some comments to the press after that session breaks. So I don’t think I will comment from here ahead of the council finishing its consultations.
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re basically deferring to Susan Rice.
MS. NULAND: I am.
QUESTION: Victoria –
QUESTION: There was – sorry. There was talks that this deadline is extended till April 12th. Are you – what is this all about?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m not going to speak to the contents of the report by the special envoy. The – as you remember, the initial – the proposal in the six-point plan was that the Syrian regime would begin or complete, depending upon how you interpret their pull-back, by April 10th, and then the opposition would complete its ceasefire by April 12th. That’s why you have a little bit of confusion here about this delta. So –
QUESTION: So you are comfortable with the 48 hours? Apparently the Syrians had asked for 48 hours to complete the pullout. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to comment on the substance of any of this until the council finishes deliberating and Susan has a chance to – Ambassador Rice has a chance to speak for the council and us.
QUESTION: Just to quickly follow up, the Syrians are asking for some sort of guarantees or – that the opposition will cease its attacks and so on. And they’re also saying that there is an increased flow of arms into the opposition, apparently by countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which at the time of the conference, apparently the Secretary of State said it’s okay for others to go ahead and give aid. Now, are the Syrians principally correct in demanding that arms stop flowing to the opposition and they cease whatever attacks they’re conducting against government sources?
MS. NULAND: Well, starting with where I started before, which is, I’m not going to wade into any of this while the council is deliberating. I’m going to let Ambassador Rice come out and speak for the council as a whole and then speak for the United States in her national capacity. We know who bears the brunt of the responsibility for the violence in Syria. We also know, as we discussed yesterday, that there has been no evidence at all that the Assad regime is complying with the six-point plan, and in fact, the violence has gotten worse as we discussed at some length yesterday.
QUESTION: Yeah. But forgive me; principally, does the Syrian regime have the right or is it within its right to request that the flow of arms stop going to the opposition?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to any of these issues until we have a chance to hear from Ambassador Rice.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Toria, you just pointed out that there has been no action by the regime so far. So isn’t it time, if you stand back and look at this, to say that the whole UN approach, Kofi Annan’s plan, really isn’t working? Nothing has indicated that that regime is going to anything.
MS. NULAND: Again, Jill, I don’t think it’s appropriate in the middle of a council deliberation for me to be opining on what’s going on in the council.
QUESTION: Would you respond to a statement from Senators McCain and Lieberman who were in the region today that said, “Diplomacy with Assad has failed”?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we have two senators in the region. Our understanding is that they are touring the refugee camps in Turkey today, and they are obviously speaking to what they are seeing. But I don’t think I’m going to comment on any of this while the council is deliberating.
Please.
QUESTION: Will you intensify your efforts to find a solution for Syria in UN Security Council? I mean, is there any –
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m going to speak to next steps after the council has finished hearing the report.
QUESTION: Do you believe that Annan carries the last chance for President Assad?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put time tables on any of this at the moment.
QUESTION: But you keep asking him to step down. I mean, we’ve been hearing this for so long. I mean, are you asking him to step down now? Is this – the time has come? Or is it you’re talking about giving him more chances? Or when he’s going to step down?
MS. NULAND: Well, our view is that he has lost his legitimacy. The Syrian people appear to be saying the same thing.
Please.
QUESTION: Victoria, do you think that the Russians are sending conflicting signals regarding Syria? On the one hand receiving Muallem and on the other saying that the Syrians should have acted quicker?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians joined us in supporting the Annan plan, in making clear that it was time for the violence to stop, that the Assad regime had to lead the way in that, and our expectation and understanding is that they used the opportunity of Foreign Minister Muallem’s visit to make those same points.
Please. In the back.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: No. One –
MS. NULAND: You can keep trying, but I think we’re not going to do a lot of Syria today.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the Russian part.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So would you – do you perceive any type of movement perhaps then on the part of the Russians?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians are represented in the Security Council. They’re receiving the report. We’re having a chance to talk to them there today. As you know, we have the G-8 foreign ministers in town starting tomorrow. So the Secretary will have a chance to consult with Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow and Thursday. So we’ll have a chance to compare notes then.
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Still Syria.
QUESTION: It seems that the safe-zone option along the Turkish border is (inaudible). So – and according to news report, Turkey has hinted that it will go along if it get the support of U.S. If Kofi Annan plan fail, are you ready to consider that kind of support?
MS. NULAND: You’re taking me into all kinds of hypotheticals. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. We talked about the several Turkish statements to the effect that they were studying this. We obviously haven’t had the results of their study.
Please.
QUESTION: The Indian Embassy this morning received a bomb threat call. Do you have any information on that and who were behind this?
MS. NULAND: I can confirm that there was a bomb threat at the Indian Embassy in Washington earlier today. Appropriate law enforcement personnel responded immediately. All three of the Indian official locations in Washington have now been cleared – the chancery, the ambassador’s residence, and the visa office, and no device was located.
QUESTION: When you say “cleared,” you mean evacuated? Or “cleared,” you mean checked?
MS. NULAND: Both evacuated and checked for bombs.
QUESTION: And now people have come back to them?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know if they’ve gone back to work, but security officials have declared them clear.
QUESTION: So do you think at this point that it’s probably a hoax, then?
MS. NULAND: I think there’ll be an investigation, obviously, and we’ll see what that leads to.
QUESTION: And where was this call from? Have you been able to trace the call back?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information as to who called. I would guess that that’ll be part of the investigative steps that go on.
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security or --
MS. NULAND: Say again?
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security presence outside the Indian embassies or the ambassador’s residence?
MS. NULAND: I would guess that part of our evaluation going forward in terms of what happened will be to determine whether the security posture is adequate.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. Can I just clarify one thing? You guys – someone called here to tell you that there was a bomb at the Indian Embassy?
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I don’t know whether the Indian Embassy was notified that there might be a threat and then they notified law enforcement and us, or whether we were notified and --
QUESTION: Can we move --
MS. NULAND: I don’t know. Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Move on?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I realize that you said probably as much as you’re going to say yesterday, but I’m going to try again.
MS. NULAND: It’s one of those kind of days. Yeah.
QUESTION: Weeks, maybe.
MS. NULAND: Weeks. I’m sorry, sir. Although we were up here for an hour and 10 minutes yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, let me try and go to it at a different angle. The White House yesterday seemed to take alert when you mentioned something about reporting from North Korea yesterday. And I asked you about it, and you seemed to suggest that there wasn’t any problem. But then, now there are White House officials coming out on the record telling news organizations not to be sucked in by this North Korea propaganda campaign. Is this the – does the State Department share those concerns?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t actually seen what White House colleagues have said. Was that something that --
QUESTION: Tommy Vietor.
MS. NULAND: -- that Tommy said? Well, look, I mean, obviously freedom of the press – you all will cover this as you see fit. Our concern obviously would be that the North Koreans would use this for propaganda purposes and that news organizations that cover it extensively might be playing into that. But it’s obviously your call how to cover this story.
QUESTION: You don’t think that North Korea would be using it for propaganda purposes without any – I mean, in the absence of inviting people in to cover it?
MS. NULAND: Well, it obviously has propaganda value. But the more that it is covered and spread and the more stories about it, it just keeps them on the front page in a way that does not enhance peace and security. But you’ll obviously all make your own decisions.
QUESTION: Understood. But I’m just curious about that, because I mean, it’s going to be on the front page whether there are news – Western news organizations there or not. Right? It’s a matter of concern. It’s a newsworthy event if they launch a missile, is it not?
MS. NULAND: It’s obviously a newsworthy event. I think that --
QUESTION: So what’s the concern?
MS. NULAND: If – again, having not seen what Tommy had to say, I would guess that the sentiment expressed was simply that if you have lots of nightly news coverage and long pieces climbing up and down the rocket and all that stuff, it just is free publicity for this --
QUESTION: But doesn’t that illustrate the problem?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: And shouldn’t that make people – I mean, increase the concern? I mean, it seems to me that this is a problem for – the idea of the launch is a problem, correct? Yes.
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about that.
QUESTION: So the more attention that’s paid to that, the greater understanding there is of this problem, no?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that it is a matter of the issue going unreported. It’s simply, I would guess, the sense that the more coverage of this, the more long pieces about North Korea, all this kind of stuff, they get exactly what they want. They get lots of attention from all of you about their situation.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: And frankly, this is publicity that --
QUESTION: But here’s the thing. They’re going to get all this attention from you regardless, right? So I don’t get – what difference does it make?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll refer you to the White House on what they were thinking. Thanks.
QUESTION: A follow-up on a question about the U.S. team that was sent to Pakistan to help in the avalanche. Are they still in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: That is my understanding, Cami, that they are still in Islamabad.
QUESTION: Any word on when they might move? Are they going to move? Are they just going to sit in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we responded to the request for help. They went to Islamabad to coordinate with Pakistani officials. I really can’t speak to either what the conditions on the mountain are, whether there are issues having to do with getting in, or whether, several days having gone by, there is sort of rethinking about whether the international teams can and should be deployed. I’m just going to send you to the Pakistanis on that. But we are making them available so that they can help in whatever way the Pakistanis might find helpful.
Please.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, the White House at its press gaggle in Palm Beach and the comments just said that it would be, quote, “hard to imagine” that the food aid would still be delivered if this launch goes ahead. Is that a statement of policy now that if this launch goes ahead, the food aid will be retracted?
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about where we are on this for weeks and weeks, and I think the White House statement reflected that, obviously.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria just for a minute?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Nadia’s question on the issue of stepping down, Bashar al-Assad to step down, would that be a requirement that he must do immediately, or are you willing to consider – not you but the international community – giving him like maybe a two-year period until the next election? I mean, what is the deal here? What is the demand?
MS. NULAND: You’re getting me into negotiations with Assad now?
QUESTION: I mean, what is your principle position? That he must immediately step down?
MS. NULAND: Our view is that Syria cannot move forward with Assad in power. The President has been clear about that for months and months and months. We had supported the Arab League plan, which gives a detailed roadmap for how this could proceed, looks similar to some of the other situations we’ve seen in the region. Again, this is an issue for the Syrian people to settle. We want to see the fighting stop so we can get to that conversation about how a transition should go forward.
QUESTION: Okay. So your support for the Arab League plan has not changed at all?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: Speaking of roadmaps, I understand the Quartet envoys are meeting today to try and come up with some kind of statement that suggests that there is progress being made when, in fact, there isn’t. Is that correct? And what can you do to – tell us to preview tomorrow’s Quartet meeting, principals meeting?
MS. NULAND: The Quartet envoys are meeting later this afternoon to prepare the meeting at the level of ministers and principals tomorrow. They – so tomorrow the Quartet will meet at the level of principals, which is Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, EU High Representative Ashton, UN Secretary General Ban, and obviously Secretary Clinton. Quartet Representative Tony Blair will also join that meeting.
We do anticipate that there will be a Quartet statement at the conclusion of that meeting tomorrow about midday. The envoys are working on it today, and it’ll be concluded by principals tomorrow.
The focus of the Quartet meetings tomorrow won’t surprise you, will continue to be trying to support the parties and move them closer to dialogue and creating the context for dialogue between them. They will also be looking at how they can build on the work that was done by the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee when it met in Brussels last week, emphasizing the need for robust international support for the Palestinian Authority and institution building. But obviously, we have to see to what the results of the meeting are tomorrow.
QUESTION: Are you still pushing for the Jordan – the Jordanian-sponsored talks to resume? Or is that now a dead duck?
MS. NULAND: Well, we obviously think that the talks that were conducted in Jordan were very useful in January, that they began a process that we would be prepared to see built on. But there are other ways for the parties to reengage with each other, and we would be supportive of any means of reengagement that would be helpful.
QUESTION: So you moved beyond the Jordan --
MS. NULAND: Again, if the parties are ready to go back to Jordan, we continue to support that process. But we also would support other ways that reengagement can happen.
QUESTION: There’s no participation --
QUESTION: They are meeting in the Blair House?
MS. NULAND: Blair House tomorrow. Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And just a quick follow-up. There’s also a meeting tomorrow between Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding a letter that the Palestinian Authority has submitted. Will that statement in any way reflect what is in the letter or what is being discussed or what comes out of that meeting between Fayyad and Netanyahu?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to Fayyad, Netanyahu meeting tomorrow. We’ll have to see if, in fact, the meeting is tomorrow, and if, in fact, there is a letter. I think our goals are obviously all the same, which is how we can get these parties to continue to work together and work on stability and security in the Palestinian territories.
QUESTION: And finally, you keep insisting that the proper venue is the resumption of the talks. Now, on the other hand, the Palestinian Authority is planning some sort of a campaign to reach out to the Israeli public, like YouTube and messages and advertisements and all these things. Is that a good thing or is that in contradiction with what you want them to do?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think all of the parties engaged in this, whether they’re Quartet parties or whether they’re the Israelis and Palestinians, engage in public diplomacy in any way that they deem appropriate. What’s most important is that we all be seeking a negotiated solution.
QUESTION: There is no representation of either the Palestinians or the Israelis in tomorrow’s meeting. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: Is that normal for them not to be represented?
MS. NULAND: Actually, usually when the Quartet meets, they meet on their own, and then the envoys go off and see the parties. That’s generally the way it happens, yeah.
QUESTION: Just to stay on this --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- with Israel just for one second. And that is – and I realize this is a White House thing, so you’re probably going to send me there, but the Pollard case. Do you – did you at all – are you aware of a letter that was sent by the Israeli president to President Obama asking for Pollard’s release?
MS. NULAND: I understand that the White House has now received the Pollard letter. I will refer you to them.
QUESTION: Okay. Because that’s more than Jay Carney said earlier this morning. They have gotten it?
MS. NULAND: I understand. They have now received it, yep. And that the President obviously appreciates hearing the views, but I’m going to send you to the White House for more on that.
QUESTION: Does the State Department take any position in this?
MS. NULAND: I think the entire Administration’s position on the Pollard case has not changed.
Please.
QUESTION: Can we switch to China?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: There are reports that – there’s a report, excuse me, singular, on Xinhua that Bo Xilai’s wife is under suspicion of having murdered the British businessman, Neil Heywood. I realize this is a Chinese investigation regarding the murder or death of a British citizen, but does it strike you as a step forward that the Chinese at least appear to be investigating the circumstances of his death, which I think were originally attributed to excessive alcohol consumption?
MS. NULAND: We’re aware of these reports. I think we are going to decline to comment on them one way or the other.
Jill.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the investigators in Russia dropping the charges against a nurse who was implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky?
MS. NULAND: We were waiting for you yesterday, Jill.
QUESTION: I know. I wasn’t here. But I saved it up.
MS. NULAND: Look, you know our view, that the investigation into the circumstances of Magnitsky’s death has been inadequate and has failed to produce justice. We continue to call on Russian authorities to conduct a genuine investigation, to prosecute and punish those responsible for Magnitsky’s death. So obviously we’re not moving in that direction.
Please, Cami.
QUESTION: On Libya, the apparent attack today on the head of the UN mission there. Someone apparently threw an explosive device at the convoy. Just wondering how concerned you are about the continuing violence there and the prospects for Libya making some sort of economic recovery if these sorts of attacks are going to go on against Western or international targets.
MS. NULAND: Well, we strongly condemn today’s attack on the UN convoy travelling through Benghazi. We call for a full investigation, the Libyans cooperating with UN authorities on that. We are, again, taking this opportunity to call on all armed groups in Libya to exercise restraint, to refrain from violence, to work through their issues through dialogue. But I have to tell you, Cami, we don’t have a lot of information as to who was responsible, or what the circumstances of this were. But it’s absolutely unacceptable. We are just thankful that nobody was hurt.
All right?
QUESTION: Yeah. I have one more.
MS. NULAND: Please, Matt?
QUESTION: Two more, actually.
MS. NULAND: Yep.
QUESTION: Bahrain. Yesterday, you said that there were going to be more calls made about this hunger striker? Were those calls made?
MS. NULAND: Our ambassador in Bahrain, Ambassador Krajeski had a number of calls yesterday and today with Bahraini officials making clear our concern about this case.
QUESTION: No one else?
MS. NULAND: No.
QUESTION: And you’re aware of the latest today on this case? I mean, there was – again, the other day, there was the Bahrainis refusing to release them and now that – is it the Danish or the Norwegian, I can’t --
MS. NULAND: Danish.
QUESTION: Danish. The Danish have reupped their – resubmitted their appeal for his release, and apparently it’s been rejected again. So we can be clear: Your – the Administration’s position on this is that he should be allowed to go to Denmark, or what is it that these calls are being made to --
MS. NULAND: We are not – yeah. We are not dictating any particular solution. We are just asking for a humanitarian resolution of this case.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, have you raised concern about the deteriorating health of Al-Khawaja in prison?
MS. NULAND: This is the case – this is the – yeah. This is case that we talked about it yesterday, and I’ve just responded.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about his daughter? Yesterday, all you said was that you were aware of her arrest.
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on his daughter. I understood that she was arrested – she was detained temporarily and that she’s been released. But if that’s not accurate, we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please, Nadia. Nadia, and then --
QUESTION: Do you have any position on whether former regime – former Mubarak regime’s official should stand in election – presidential election or not? Because there is a committee in the parliament now approved the banning of Omar Suleiman from nominating himself for the presidential election.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think we’re not going to comment on these individual issues inside of Egypt other than to say we want to see the election procedures followed. We want to see a transparent, open process with clear rules of the road.
Please.
QUESTION: Afghanistan? Afghanistan interior ministers are here in town. Are they having any meetings in this building?
MS. NULAND: I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so. Okay? Thanks, everybody.
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
04/10/2012 03:57 PM EDT
Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 10, 2012
TRANSCRIPT:
12:55 p.m. EDT
MS. NULAND: Happy Tuesday, everyone. I have nothing at the top. Let’s go to what’s on your minds.
QUESTION: I guess we could start with Syria. You have seen the report of Kofi Annan or the letter that he has sent to the Security Council and the report of his aide. So I’m wondering what you make of it, and are you okay with him sticking to this timeline, with the regime not withdrawing its forces as best you can tell, but staying with the timeline? In other words, another 48 hours until there’s a ceasefire? Is that okay with you guys?
MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve seen the letter that Joint Envoy Kofi Annan has submitted to the council. I think you know that the council is still in session as we speak asking questions of his deputy, talking about the letter and thinking about next steps. My understanding is that, in her capacity as president of the council this month, Ambassador Rice will have some comments to the press after that session breaks. So I don’t think I will comment from here ahead of the council finishing its consultations.
QUESTION: Okay. So you’re basically deferring to Susan Rice.
MS. NULAND: I am.
QUESTION: Victoria –
QUESTION: There was – sorry. There was talks that this deadline is extended till April 12th. Are you – what is this all about?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m not going to speak to the contents of the report by the special envoy. The – as you remember, the initial – the proposal in the six-point plan was that the Syrian regime would begin or complete, depending upon how you interpret their pull-back, by April 10th, and then the opposition would complete its ceasefire by April 12th. That’s why you have a little bit of confusion here about this delta. So –
QUESTION: So you are comfortable with the 48 hours? Apparently the Syrians had asked for 48 hours to complete the pullout. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Again, I’m not going to comment on the substance of any of this until the council finishes deliberating and Susan has a chance to – Ambassador Rice has a chance to speak for the council and us.
QUESTION: Just to quickly follow up, the Syrians are asking for some sort of guarantees or – that the opposition will cease its attacks and so on. And they’re also saying that there is an increased flow of arms into the opposition, apparently by countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which at the time of the conference, apparently the Secretary of State said it’s okay for others to go ahead and give aid. Now, are the Syrians principally correct in demanding that arms stop flowing to the opposition and they cease whatever attacks they’re conducting against government sources?
MS. NULAND: Well, starting with where I started before, which is, I’m not going to wade into any of this while the council is deliberating. I’m going to let Ambassador Rice come out and speak for the council as a whole and then speak for the United States in her national capacity. We know who bears the brunt of the responsibility for the violence in Syria. We also know, as we discussed yesterday, that there has been no evidence at all that the Assad regime is complying with the six-point plan, and in fact, the violence has gotten worse as we discussed at some length yesterday.
QUESTION: Yeah. But forgive me; principally, does the Syrian regime have the right or is it within its right to request that the flow of arms stop going to the opposition?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to speak to any of these issues until we have a chance to hear from Ambassador Rice.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Toria, you just pointed out that there has been no action by the regime so far. So isn’t it time, if you stand back and look at this, to say that the whole UN approach, Kofi Annan’s plan, really isn’t working? Nothing has indicated that that regime is going to anything.
MS. NULAND: Again, Jill, I don’t think it’s appropriate in the middle of a council deliberation for me to be opining on what’s going on in the council.
QUESTION: Would you respond to a statement from Senators McCain and Lieberman who were in the region today that said, “Diplomacy with Assad has failed”?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we have two senators in the region. Our understanding is that they are touring the refugee camps in Turkey today, and they are obviously speaking to what they are seeing. But I don’t think I’m going to comment on any of this while the council is deliberating.
Please.
QUESTION: Will you intensify your efforts to find a solution for Syria in UN Security Council? I mean, is there any –
MS. NULAND: Again, I think I’m going to speak to next steps after the council has finished hearing the report.
QUESTION: Do you believe that Annan carries the last chance for President Assad?
MS. NULAND: I’m not going to put time tables on any of this at the moment.
QUESTION: But you keep asking him to step down. I mean, we’ve been hearing this for so long. I mean, are you asking him to step down now? Is this – the time has come? Or is it you’re talking about giving him more chances? Or when he’s going to step down?
MS. NULAND: Well, our view is that he has lost his legitimacy. The Syrian people appear to be saying the same thing.
Please.
QUESTION: Victoria, do you think that the Russians are sending conflicting signals regarding Syria? On the one hand receiving Muallem and on the other saying that the Syrians should have acted quicker?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians joined us in supporting the Annan plan, in making clear that it was time for the violence to stop, that the Assad regime had to lead the way in that, and our expectation and understanding is that they used the opportunity of Foreign Minister Muallem’s visit to make those same points.
Please. In the back.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: No. One –
MS. NULAND: You can keep trying, but I think we’re not going to do a lot of Syria today.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the Russian part.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: So would you – do you perceive any type of movement perhaps then on the part of the Russians?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, the Russians are represented in the Security Council. They’re receiving the report. We’re having a chance to talk to them there today. As you know, we have the G-8 foreign ministers in town starting tomorrow. So the Secretary will have a chance to consult with Foreign Minister Lavrov tomorrow and Thursday. So we’ll have a chance to compare notes then.
Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Syria?
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Still Syria.
QUESTION: It seems that the safe-zone option along the Turkish border is (inaudible). So – and according to news report, Turkey has hinted that it will go along if it get the support of U.S. If Kofi Annan plan fail, are you ready to consider that kind of support?
MS. NULAND: You’re taking me into all kinds of hypotheticals. We talked about this a little bit yesterday. We talked about the several Turkish statements to the effect that they were studying this. We obviously haven’t had the results of their study.
Please.
QUESTION: The Indian Embassy this morning received a bomb threat call. Do you have any information on that and who were behind this?
MS. NULAND: I can confirm that there was a bomb threat at the Indian Embassy in Washington earlier today. Appropriate law enforcement personnel responded immediately. All three of the Indian official locations in Washington have now been cleared – the chancery, the ambassador’s residence, and the visa office, and no device was located.
QUESTION: When you say “cleared,” you mean evacuated? Or “cleared,” you mean checked?
MS. NULAND: Both evacuated and checked for bombs.
QUESTION: And now people have come back to them?
MS. NULAND: I don’t know if they’ve gone back to work, but security officials have declared them clear.
QUESTION: So do you think at this point that it’s probably a hoax, then?
MS. NULAND: I think there’ll be an investigation, obviously, and we’ll see what that leads to.
QUESTION: And where was this call from? Have you been able to trace the call back?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information as to who called. I would guess that that’ll be part of the investigative steps that go on.
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security or --
MS. NULAND: Say again?
QUESTION: Does this lead to any kind of increase in security presence outside the Indian embassies or the ambassador’s residence?
MS. NULAND: I would guess that part of our evaluation going forward in terms of what happened will be to determine whether the security posture is adequate.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry. Can I just clarify one thing? You guys – someone called here to tell you that there was a bomb at the Indian Embassy?
MS. NULAND: Frankly, I don’t know whether the Indian Embassy was notified that there might be a threat and then they notified law enforcement and us, or whether we were notified and --
QUESTION: Can we move --
MS. NULAND: I don’t know. Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Move on?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: North Korea.
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: I realize that you said probably as much as you’re going to say yesterday, but I’m going to try again.
MS. NULAND: It’s one of those kind of days. Yeah.
QUESTION: Weeks, maybe.
MS. NULAND: Weeks. I’m sorry, sir. Although we were up here for an hour and 10 minutes yesterday.
QUESTION: Well, let me try and go to it at a different angle. The White House yesterday seemed to take alert when you mentioned something about reporting from North Korea yesterday. And I asked you about it, and you seemed to suggest that there wasn’t any problem. But then, now there are White House officials coming out on the record telling news organizations not to be sucked in by this North Korea propaganda campaign. Is this the – does the State Department share those concerns?
MS. NULAND: I haven’t actually seen what White House colleagues have said. Was that something that --
QUESTION: Tommy Vietor.
MS. NULAND: -- that Tommy said? Well, look, I mean, obviously freedom of the press – you all will cover this as you see fit. Our concern obviously would be that the North Koreans would use this for propaganda purposes and that news organizations that cover it extensively might be playing into that. But it’s obviously your call how to cover this story.
QUESTION: You don’t think that North Korea would be using it for propaganda purposes without any – I mean, in the absence of inviting people in to cover it?
MS. NULAND: Well, it obviously has propaganda value. But the more that it is covered and spread and the more stories about it, it just keeps them on the front page in a way that does not enhance peace and security. But you’ll obviously all make your own decisions.
QUESTION: Understood. But I’m just curious about that, because I mean, it’s going to be on the front page whether there are news – Western news organizations there or not. Right? It’s a matter of concern. It’s a newsworthy event if they launch a missile, is it not?
MS. NULAND: It’s obviously a newsworthy event. I think that --
QUESTION: So what’s the concern?
MS. NULAND: If – again, having not seen what Tommy had to say, I would guess that the sentiment expressed was simply that if you have lots of nightly news coverage and long pieces climbing up and down the rocket and all that stuff, it just is free publicity for this --
QUESTION: But doesn’t that illustrate the problem?
MS. NULAND: Well --
QUESTION: And shouldn’t that make people – I mean, increase the concern? I mean, it seems to me that this is a problem for – the idea of the launch is a problem, correct? Yes.
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about that.
QUESTION: So the more attention that’s paid to that, the greater understanding there is of this problem, no?
MS. NULAND: I don’t think that it is a matter of the issue going unreported. It’s simply, I would guess, the sense that the more coverage of this, the more long pieces about North Korea, all this kind of stuff, they get exactly what they want. They get lots of attention from all of you about their situation.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: And frankly, this is publicity that --
QUESTION: But here’s the thing. They’re going to get all this attention from you regardless, right? So I don’t get – what difference does it make?
MS. NULAND: Well, I’ll refer you to the White House on what they were thinking. Thanks.
QUESTION: A follow-up on a question about the U.S. team that was sent to Pakistan to help in the avalanche. Are they still in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: That is my understanding, Cami, that they are still in Islamabad.
QUESTION: Any word on when they might move? Are they going to move? Are they just going to sit in Islamabad?
MS. NULAND: Well, obviously we responded to the request for help. They went to Islamabad to coordinate with Pakistani officials. I really can’t speak to either what the conditions on the mountain are, whether there are issues having to do with getting in, or whether, several days having gone by, there is sort of rethinking about whether the international teams can and should be deployed. I’m just going to send you to the Pakistanis on that. But we are making them available so that they can help in whatever way the Pakistanis might find helpful.
Please.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to North Korea?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, the White House at its press gaggle in Palm Beach and the comments just said that it would be, quote, “hard to imagine” that the food aid would still be delivered if this launch goes ahead. Is that a statement of policy now that if this launch goes ahead, the food aid will be retracted?
MS. NULAND: We’ve been clear about where we are on this for weeks and weeks, and I think the White House statement reflected that, obviously.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go back to Syria just for a minute?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on Nadia’s question on the issue of stepping down, Bashar al-Assad to step down, would that be a requirement that he must do immediately, or are you willing to consider – not you but the international community – giving him like maybe a two-year period until the next election? I mean, what is the deal here? What is the demand?
MS. NULAND: You’re getting me into negotiations with Assad now?
QUESTION: I mean, what is your principle position? That he must immediately step down?
MS. NULAND: Our view is that Syria cannot move forward with Assad in power. The President has been clear about that for months and months and months. We had supported the Arab League plan, which gives a detailed roadmap for how this could proceed, looks similar to some of the other situations we’ve seen in the region. Again, this is an issue for the Syrian people to settle. We want to see the fighting stop so we can get to that conversation about how a transition should go forward.
QUESTION: Okay. So your support for the Arab League plan has not changed at all?
MS. NULAND: Correct.
QUESTION: Speaking of roadmaps, I understand the Quartet envoys are meeting today to try and come up with some kind of statement that suggests that there is progress being made when, in fact, there isn’t. Is that correct? And what can you do to – tell us to preview tomorrow’s Quartet meeting, principals meeting?
MS. NULAND: The Quartet envoys are meeting later this afternoon to prepare the meeting at the level of ministers and principals tomorrow. They – so tomorrow the Quartet will meet at the level of principals, which is Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, EU High Representative Ashton, UN Secretary General Ban, and obviously Secretary Clinton. Quartet Representative Tony Blair will also join that meeting.
We do anticipate that there will be a Quartet statement at the conclusion of that meeting tomorrow about midday. The envoys are working on it today, and it’ll be concluded by principals tomorrow.
The focus of the Quartet meetings tomorrow won’t surprise you, will continue to be trying to support the parties and move them closer to dialogue and creating the context for dialogue between them. They will also be looking at how they can build on the work that was done by the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee when it met in Brussels last week, emphasizing the need for robust international support for the Palestinian Authority and institution building. But obviously, we have to see to what the results of the meeting are tomorrow.
QUESTION: Are you still pushing for the Jordan – the Jordanian-sponsored talks to resume? Or is that now a dead duck?
MS. NULAND: Well, we obviously think that the talks that were conducted in Jordan were very useful in January, that they began a process that we would be prepared to see built on. But there are other ways for the parties to reengage with each other, and we would be supportive of any means of reengagement that would be helpful.
QUESTION: So you moved beyond the Jordan --
MS. NULAND: Again, if the parties are ready to go back to Jordan, we continue to support that process. But we also would support other ways that reengagement can happen.
QUESTION: There’s no participation --
QUESTION: They are meeting in the Blair House?
MS. NULAND: Blair House tomorrow. Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. And just a quick follow-up. There’s also a meeting tomorrow between Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding a letter that the Palestinian Authority has submitted. Will that statement in any way reflect what is in the letter or what is being discussed or what comes out of that meeting between Fayyad and Netanyahu?
MS. NULAND: I can’t speak to Fayyad, Netanyahu meeting tomorrow. We’ll have to see if, in fact, the meeting is tomorrow, and if, in fact, there is a letter. I think our goals are obviously all the same, which is how we can get these parties to continue to work together and work on stability and security in the Palestinian territories.
QUESTION: And finally, you keep insisting that the proper venue is the resumption of the talks. Now, on the other hand, the Palestinian Authority is planning some sort of a campaign to reach out to the Israeli public, like YouTube and messages and advertisements and all these things. Is that a good thing or is that in contradiction with what you want them to do?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think all of the parties engaged in this, whether they’re Quartet parties or whether they’re the Israelis and Palestinians, engage in public diplomacy in any way that they deem appropriate. What’s most important is that we all be seeking a negotiated solution.
QUESTION: There is no representation of either the Palestinians or the Israelis in tomorrow’s meeting. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Correct.
QUESTION: Is that normal for them not to be represented?
MS. NULAND: Actually, usually when the Quartet meets, they meet on their own, and then the envoys go off and see the parties. That’s generally the way it happens, yeah.
QUESTION: Just to stay on this --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- with Israel just for one second. And that is – and I realize this is a White House thing, so you’re probably going to send me there, but the Pollard case. Do you – did you at all – are you aware of a letter that was sent by the Israeli president to President Obama asking for Pollard’s release?
MS. NULAND: I understand that the White House has now received the Pollard letter. I will refer you to them.
QUESTION: Okay. Because that’s more than Jay Carney said earlier this morning. They have gotten it?
MS. NULAND: I understand. They have now received it, yep. And that the President obviously appreciates hearing the views, but I’m going to send you to the White House for more on that.
QUESTION: Does the State Department take any position in this?
MS. NULAND: I think the entire Administration’s position on the Pollard case has not changed.
Please.
QUESTION: Can we switch to China?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: There are reports that – there’s a report, excuse me, singular, on Xinhua that Bo Xilai’s wife is under suspicion of having murdered the British businessman, Neil Heywood. I realize this is a Chinese investigation regarding the murder or death of a British citizen, but does it strike you as a step forward that the Chinese at least appear to be investigating the circumstances of his death, which I think were originally attributed to excessive alcohol consumption?
MS. NULAND: We’re aware of these reports. I think we are going to decline to comment on them one way or the other.
Jill.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the investigators in Russia dropping the charges against a nurse who was implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky?
MS. NULAND: We were waiting for you yesterday, Jill.
QUESTION: I know. I wasn’t here. But I saved it up.
MS. NULAND: Look, you know our view, that the investigation into the circumstances of Magnitsky’s death has been inadequate and has failed to produce justice. We continue to call on Russian authorities to conduct a genuine investigation, to prosecute and punish those responsible for Magnitsky’s death. So obviously we’re not moving in that direction.
Please, Cami.
QUESTION: On Libya, the apparent attack today on the head of the UN mission there. Someone apparently threw an explosive device at the convoy. Just wondering how concerned you are about the continuing violence there and the prospects for Libya making some sort of economic recovery if these sorts of attacks are going to go on against Western or international targets.
MS. NULAND: Well, we strongly condemn today’s attack on the UN convoy travelling through Benghazi. We call for a full investigation, the Libyans cooperating with UN authorities on that. We are, again, taking this opportunity to call on all armed groups in Libya to exercise restraint, to refrain from violence, to work through their issues through dialogue. But I have to tell you, Cami, we don’t have a lot of information as to who was responsible, or what the circumstances of this were. But it’s absolutely unacceptable. We are just thankful that nobody was hurt.
All right?
QUESTION: Yeah. I have one more.
MS. NULAND: Please, Matt?
QUESTION: Two more, actually.
MS. NULAND: Yep.
QUESTION: Bahrain. Yesterday, you said that there were going to be more calls made about this hunger striker? Were those calls made?
MS. NULAND: Our ambassador in Bahrain, Ambassador Krajeski had a number of calls yesterday and today with Bahraini officials making clear our concern about this case.
QUESTION: No one else?
MS. NULAND: No.
QUESTION: And you’re aware of the latest today on this case? I mean, there was – again, the other day, there was the Bahrainis refusing to release them and now that – is it the Danish or the Norwegian, I can’t --
MS. NULAND: Danish.
QUESTION: Danish. The Danish have reupped their – resubmitted their appeal for his release, and apparently it’s been rejected again. So we can be clear: Your – the Administration’s position on this is that he should be allowed to go to Denmark, or what is it that these calls are being made to --
MS. NULAND: We are not – yeah. We are not dictating any particular solution. We are just asking for a humanitarian resolution of this case.
Please.
QUESTION: Toria, have you raised concern about the deteriorating health of Al-Khawaja in prison?
MS. NULAND: This is the case – this is the – yeah. This is case that we talked about it yesterday, and I’ve just responded.
QUESTION: Do you have anything about his daughter? Yesterday, all you said was that you were aware of her arrest.
MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything new on his daughter. I understood that she was arrested – she was detained temporarily and that she’s been released. But if that’s not accurate, we’ll get back to you.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. Please, Nadia. Nadia, and then --
QUESTION: Do you have any position on whether former regime – former Mubarak regime’s official should stand in election – presidential election or not? Because there is a committee in the parliament now approved the banning of Omar Suleiman from nominating himself for the presidential election.
MS. NULAND: Yeah. I think we’re not going to comment on these individual issues inside of Egypt other than to say we want to see the election procedures followed. We want to see a transparent, open process with clear rules of the road.
Please.
QUESTION: Afghanistan? Afghanistan interior ministers are here in town. Are they having any meetings in this building?
MS. NULAND: I don’t believe so. I don’t believe so. Okay? Thanks, everybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)