AIRSTRIKES AGAINST ISIL CONTINUE IN JUNE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Airstrikes Hit ISIL Terrorists in Syria, Iraq
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

SOUTHWEST ASIA, June 1, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Airstrikes in Syria

Attack, bomber and fighter aircraft conducted 13 airstrikes in Syria:

-- Near Hasakah, nine airstrikes struck eight ISIL tactical units, destroying seven ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL weapons cache.

-- Near Raqqah, one airstrike struck an ISIL airfield.

-- Near Kobani, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying 13 ISIL fighting positions.

Airstrikes in Iraq

Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 10 airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:

-- Near Beiji, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and land features denying ISIL a tactical advantage, destroying an ISIL resupply vehicle.

-- Near Fallujah, two airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units, destroying two ISIL staging areas, an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL heavy machine gun.

-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL vehicle-borne, improvised explosive device facility, destroying two ISIL buildings, an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL mortar system and an ISIL rocket launcher.

-- Near Ramadi, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL crane.

-- Near Sinjar, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL buildings and an ISIL heavy machine gun.

-- Near Tal Afar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and two ISIL mortar positions, destroying two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL building.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations.

Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE NEWS RELEASE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Military Airstrikes Hit ISIL in Syria, Iraq

From a Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve News Release
SOUTHWEST ASIA, April 20, 2015 – U.S. and coalition military forces have continued to attack Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists in Syria and Iraq, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of the latest strikes, which took place between 8 a.m. yesterday and 8 a.m. today, local time, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Airstrikes in Syria

Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 10 airstrikes in Syria:
-- Near Hasakah, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL mortar position, destroying an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Kobani, seven airstrikes struck seven ISIL tactical units, destroying two ISIL vehicles, an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL mortar tube and an ISIL anti-aircraft artillery weapon.
Airstrikes in Iraq

Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 26 airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:

-- Near Asad, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Rutbah, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Beiji, eight airstrikes struck four ISIL tactical units, destroying two ISIL vehicle bombs, an ISIL machine gun, an ISIL artillery piece, an ISIL ammo storage facility and an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Fallujah, five airstrikes struck two ISIL tactical units and an ISIL staging area, destroying an ISIL anti-aircraft artillery weapon and an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Mosul, four airstrikes struck an ISIL staging area, destroying four ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL armored vehicle and an ISIL excavator.

-- Near Ramadi, five airstrikes struck an ISIL large and two ISIL small tactical units, destroying an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL armored vehicle.

-- Near Sinjar, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL buildings and an ISIL heavy machine gun.

Part of Operation Inherent Resolve

The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.

Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. CONDEMNS ISIL ATTACKS IN BAGHDAD

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT

U.S. Condemns ISIL Attacks in Iraq

Press Statement

Jen Psaki

Department Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 14, 2014

The United States strongly condemns the vicious string of suicide, vehicle borne, and other attacks that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has perpetrated in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in recent days, taking scores of innocent lives. Those lost in these attacks include courageous citizens from all walks of life and represent the full diversity of Iraqi society, including Ahmed al-Khafaji, an elected Member of Parliament from Basrah Province, and Major General Ahmed Saddak al-Dulaimi, the Police Chief of Anbar Province. We extend our condolences to the families of the victims and hope for a rapid recovery for those who were injured.

The United States is committed to working with the Government of Iraq and our coalition partners to end this terrorist scourge. We will continue to target ISIL leaders, fighters, supplies and weapons, facilities, and safe havens, working in support of our Iraqi partners, as we also work in parallel to restore the capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces to effectively counter ISIL on their own.

ISIL, through these attacks, looks to tear apart the diverse fabric of Iraqi society, something it has sought to do over the past decade in its earlier incarnation, al-Qaida in Iraq. The Iraqi people have shown resilience in the face of this terror before, and with the world now united behind a global campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL, they will prevail once again.

The United States will continue to stand with all Iraqi citizens, from all parts of the country, as they work to root out violent extremists, and promote the unified, federal, pluralistic, and democratic state, as envisioned in the Iraqi Constitution.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REMARKS ON IRAQ SITUATION

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Iraq

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:32 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq.  We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq.  As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests.  So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.

First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq.  As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas.  So I’ve taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.

Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq.  And this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat. 

Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces.  We’re prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL.  Through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment.  We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.

American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.

Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region.  Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL.  And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.  If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region.

I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead. 

Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.  At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners.  And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.

Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future.  Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.  National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities.  Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible.  The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.

Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders.  It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.  Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.  There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.  But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.

In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq.  Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives.  Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates resurface. 

But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action.  The most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center -- the issue that I keep front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of the United States of America.  As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay focused on.  As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on. 

And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with Congress.  We will keep the American people informed.  We will remain vigilant.  And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. 

So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions.  I’ll start with Colleen McCain Nelson of the Wall Street Journal.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Do you have any confidence in Prime Minister Maliki at this point?  And can Maliki bring political stability to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT:  As I said, it’s not our job to choose Iraq’s leaders.  Part of what our patriots fought for during many years in Iraq was the right and the opportunity for Iraqis to determine their own destiny and choose their own leaders.  But I don’t think there’s any secret that right now at least there is deep divisions between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders.  And as long as those deep divisions continue or worsen, it’s going to be very hard for an Iraqi central government to direct an Iraqi military to deal with these threats.

And so we’ve consulted with Prime Minister Maliki, and we’ve said that to him privately.  We’ve said it publicly that whether he is prime minister, or any other leader aspires to lead the country, that it has to be an agenda in which Sunni, Shia and Kurd all feel that they have the opportunity to advance their interests through the political process.  And we’ve seen over the last two years, actually dating back to 2008, 2009 -- but I think worse over the last two years -- the sense among Sunnis that their interests were not being served, that legislation that had been promised around, for example, De-Ba’athification had been stalled. 

I think that you hear similar complaints that the government in Baghdad has not sufficiently reached out to some of the tribes and been able to bring them in to a process that gives them a sense of being part of a unity government or a single nation-state.  And that has to be worked through.

Part of the reason why we saw better-equipped Iraqi security forces with larger numbers not be able to hold contested territory against ISIL probably reflects that lack of a sense of commitment on the part of Sunni communities to work with Baghdad.  And that has to be fixed if we’re going to get through this crisis.

Jim Acosta.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Americans may look at this decision that you’re making today as a sneak preview of coming attractions; that the number of advisors that you’re planning to send in may just be the beginning of a boots-on-the-ground scenario down the road.  Why is Iraq’s civil war in the national security interests of the United States?  And are you concerned about the potential for mission creep?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past:  American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. 

We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq.  Ultimately, this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.

It is in our national security interests not to see an all-out civil war inside of Iraq, not just for humanitarian reasons, but because that ultimately can be destabilizing throughout the region.  And in addition to having strong allies there that we are committed to protecting, obviously issues like energy and global energy markets continues to be important. 

We also have an interest in making sure that we don’t have a safe haven that continues to grow for ISIL and other extremist jihadist groups who could use that as a base of operations for planning and targeting ourselves, our personnel overseas, and eventually the homeland.  And if they accumulate more money, they accumulate more ammunition, more military capability, larger numbers, that poses great dangers not just to allies of ours like Jordan, which is very close by, but it also poses a great danger potentially to Europe and ultimately the United States.

We have already seen inside of Syria that -- or groups like ISIL that right now are fighting with other extremist groups, or an Assad regime that was non-responsive to a Sunni majority there, that that has attracted more and more jihadists or would-be jihadists, some of them from Europe.  They then start traveling back to Europe, and that, over time, can create a cadre of terrorists that could harm us.

So we have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed.  We have strategic interests in stability in the region.  We have counterterrorism interests.  All those have to be addressed.

The initial effort for us to get situational awareness through the reconnaissance and surveillance that we’ve already done, coupled with some of our best people on the ground doing assessments of exactly what the situation is -- starting, by the way, with the perimeter around Baghdad and making sure that that's not overrun -- that's a good investment for us to make.  But that does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in Iraq.  That would not be effective in meeting the core interests that we have.

Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 

The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.  And so I think it is important though to recognize that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.

Juliet Eilperin. 

Q    Mr. President, you just mentioned Syria a moment ago.  The United States has been slow to provide significant weapons and training directly to the Syrian opposition.  Has the expansion of the Syria war into Iraq changed your mind about the type of weapons and training we’re now willing to give the opposition there?  Is that what prompted Secretary Kerry to say of Syria, “We are augmenting our assistance in significant ways”?  And can you elaborate on what you are you doing now that you weren’t doing before?

THE PRESIDENT:  That assessment about the dangers of what was happening in Syria have existed since the very beginning of the Syrian civil war.  The question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem.  The question has always been, is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as an Assad regime supported by Iran and Russia that outmanned them and was ruthless.

And so we have consistently provided that opposition with support.  Oftentimes, the challenge is if you have former farmers or teachers or pharmacists who now are taking up opposition against a battle-hardened regime, with support from external actors that have a lot at stake, how quickly can you get them trained; how effective are you able to mobilize them.  And that continues to be a challenge.  And even before the situation that we saw with ISIL going into Iraq, we had already tried to maximize what we could do to support a moderate opposition that not only can counteract the brutality of Assad, but also can make sure that in the minds of Sunnis they don't think that their only alternative is either Mr. Assad or extremist groups like ISIL or al Nusra.
 
Q    And can you speak to what you might be doing differently, as the Secretary of State alluded to?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that the key to both Syria and Iraq is going to be a combination of what happens inside the country working with the moderate Syrian opposition, working with an Iraqi government that is inclusive, and us laying down a more effective counterterrorism platform that gets all the countries in the region pulling in the same direction.  And I alluded to this in the West Point speech.  I talked about it today with respect to the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund.

There is going to be a long-term problem in this region in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values.  And at the same time, we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing.  And rather than try to play Whac-a-Mole wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, what we have to do is to be able to build effective partnerships, make sure that they have capacity.  Some of the assets that have been devoted solely to Afghanistan over the last decade we’ve got to shift to make sure that we have coverage in the Middle East and North Africa. 

You look at a country like Yemen -- a very impoverished country and one that has its own sectarian or ethnic divisions -- there, we do have a committed partner in President Hadi and his government.  And we have been able to help to develop their capacities without putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground at the same time as we’ve got enough CT, or counterterrorism capabilities that we’re able to go after folks that might try to hit our embassy or might be trying to export terrorism into Europe or the United States. 

And looking at how we can create more of those models is going to be part of the solution in dealing with both Syria and Iraq.  But in order for us to do that, we still need to have actual governments on the ground that we can partner with and that we’ve got some confidence are going to pursue the political policies of inclusiveness.  In Yemen, for example, a wide-ranging national dialogue that took a long time, but helped to give people a sense that there is a legitimate political outlet for grievances that they may have.

Peter Maer.

Q    Thank you, sir.  Going back to where you see Prime Minister al-Maliki playing a role at this point, you said that it’s a time to rise above differences, that there’s a need for more inclusive government.  Is he a unifier?  And how much clout does the United States ultimately have with any of the leadership in Iraq at this point really?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we still provide them significant assistance.  I think they recognize that, unlike some other players in the region, we don’t have territorial ambitions in their country.  We’re not looking to control their assets or their energy.  We want to make sure that we’re vindicating the enormous effort and sacrifice that was made by our troops in giving them an opportunity to build a stable, inclusive society that can prosper and deliver for the basic needs and aspirations of the Iraqi people.

And at the same time, they are a sovereign country.  They have their own politics.  And what we have tried to do is to give them our best advice about how they can solve their political problems.  Now that they are in crisis, we are indicating to them that there is not going to be a simple military solution to this issue.  If you start seeing the various groups inside of Iraq simply go to their respective corners, then it is almost certain that Baghdad and the central government will not be able to control huge chunks of their own country.  The only way they can do that is if there are credible Sunni leaders, both at the national level and at the local level, who have confidence that a Shia majority, that the Kurds, that all those folks are committed to a fair and just governance of the country.

Right now, that doesn’t exist.  There’s too much suspicion, there’s too much mistrust.  And the good news is that an election took place in which despite all this mistrust, despite all this frustration, despite all this anger, you still had millions of Iraqis turn out -- in some cases, in very dangerous circumstances.  You now have a court that has certified those elections, and you have a constitutional process to advance government formation.

So far, at least, the one bit of encouraging news that we’ve seen inside of Iraq is that all the parties have said they continue to be committed to choosing a leadership and a government through the existing constitutional order.

So what you’re seeing I think is, as the prospects of civil war heighten, many Iraq leaders stepping back and saying, let’s not plunge back into the abyss; let’s see if we can resolve this politically.  But they don’t have a lot of time.  And you have a group like ISIL that is doing everything that it can to descend the country back into chaos. 

And so one of the messages that we had for Prime Minister Maliki but also for the Speaker of the House and the other leadership inside of Iraq is, get going on this government formation.  It’ll make it a lot easier for them to shape a military strategy.  It’ll also make it possible for us to partner much more effectively than we can currently.

Q    Given the Prime Minister’s track record, is he a unifier?  Can he play that role after what we’ve seen play out over the last couple of weeks is brought into play?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think the test is before him and other Iraqi leaders as we speak.  Right now, they can make a series of decisions.  Regardless of what’s happened in the past, right now is a moment where the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance, and the test for all of them is going to be whether they can overcome the mistrust, the deep sectarian divisions, in some cases just political opportunism, and say this is bigger than any one of us and we’ve got to make sure that we do what’s right for the Iraqi people.  And that’s a challenge.

That’s not something that the United States can do for them.  That’s not something, by the way, that the United States Armed Forces can do for them.  We can provide them the space, we can provide them the tools.  But ultimately, they’re going to have to make those decisions.

In the meantime, my job is to make sure that American personnel there are safe; that we are consulting with the Iraqi security forces; that we’re getting a better assessment of what’s on the ground; and that we’re recognizing the dangers of ISIL over the long term, and developing the kinds of comprehensive counterterrorism strategies that we’re going to need to deal with this issue.  And that’s going to involve some short-term responses to make sure that ISIL is not obtaining capacity to endanger us directly or our allies and partners.  But it also is going to require some long-term strategies, as well. 

Because part of what we’ve with respect to ISIL is a broader trend that I talked about at West Point -- rather than a single network, a discreet network of terrorists, this fluid combination of hardened terrorists, disaffected local leadership.  And where there’s vacuums, they’re filling it and creating the potential for serious danger for all concerned.

Thank you very much.

Q    On Iran, Mr. President, any words on what you’re willing to do, and are you also willing to work with them?

THE PRESIDENT:  Our view is that Iran can play a constructive role if it is helping to send the same message to the Iraqi government that we’re sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it’s inclusive and that if the interests of Sunni, Shia and Kurd are all respected.  If Iran is coming in solely as an armed force on behalf of the Shia, and if it is framed in that fashion, then that probably worsens the situation and the prospect for government formation that would actually be constructive over the long term.

Q    What’s your sense of that right now?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think that just as Iraq’s leaders have to make decisions, I think Iran has heard from us.  We’ve indicated to them that it is important for them to avoid steps that might encourage the kind of sectarian splits that might lead to civil war. 

And the one thing that I think has to be emphasized -- we have deep differences with Iran across the board on a whole host of issues.  Obviously, what’s happened in Syria in part is the result of Iran coming in hot and heavy on one side.  And Iran obviously should consider the fact that if its view of the region is solely through sectarian frames, they could find themselves fighting in a whole lot of places.  And that’s probably not good for the Iranian economy or the Iranian people over the long term either.  I suspect there are folks in Iran who recognize that.  A Iraq in chaos on their borders is probably not in their interests.  But old habits die hard, and we’ll have to see whether they can take what I think would be a more promising path over the next several days. 

Thank you very much, everybody. 

END
2:01 P.M. EDT

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.