State Department Briefing by Jen Psaki, Oct. 6, 2014

MS. PSAKI: Okay. I have a couple of items at the top. Secretary Kerry will travel to his hometown of Boston, Massachusetts with the British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond on October 9th – so this Thursday – for a joint public event on global climate change and to discuss the important role of new technology and clean energy in mitigating climate change and creating economic opportunity.

Today, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are in Brussels. They’ve had – their trip has been ongoing, as all of you know, since last week. They briefed an informal session of the North Atlantic Council on coordination by NATO-allied states across the five lines of coalition efforts. They also briefed EU officials on the five lines of coalition effort, focusing on stemming the flow of foreign fighters and cutting access to terrorist financing. EU member states have already shown strong leadership on both of these issues, and we look forward to further cooperation.

They met with the Government of Belgium – officials from the Government of Belgium to discuss bilateral coordination, also congratulating them on Belgium’s first airstrike in Iraq last night that successfully neutralized ISIL targets.

Over the weekend, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk traveled to Erbil where they met with Kurdistan Regional Prime Minister Barzani, other senior KRG officials, provincial leaders, and tribal sheiks. Noting important recent victories by joint Sunni-Shiite tribal fighters and with Peshmerga forces – excuse me — and Arab tribes joining to retake the vital border crossing at Rabia. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk conveyed our strong support for all Iraqis coming together as a national front to defeat ISIL, including through the formation of integrated national guard units that would work in concert with a restructured Iraqi army.

General Allen and Ambassador McGurk confirmed that the United States and other international partners are prepared to support these security reforms in a manner consistent with Iraq’s constitution, sovereignty, and independence. They also discussed the urgent need for the coalition to support the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, which is a critical line of effort in the comprehensive campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL.

In their meetings with KRG officials, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk affirmed the historic relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq and its people and underscored our full commitment to that relationship.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. Happy Monday.

MS. PSAKI: Happy Monday.

QUESTION: Can you – I realize some of this has been talked about at the White House briefing already, but can you explain from the State Department point of view why the Administration felt it was necessary for the Vice President to apologize to Turkey and semi-apologize to the UAE, and whether he has plans to apologize to anybody else? There’s a long list of countries out there that I think may feel may have – may have felt slighted.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think my White House colleagues have already addressed this, as you noted in your question. And as you also I’m sure have seen, there have been readouts of those calls describing the specifics of the conversations. I think they described it more as clarifying recent remarks. Obviously, we have important relationships with a number of these countries and want to work on how we can work together moving forward on the international coalition, and I think that’s probably why that decision was made.

QUESTION: So follow-up number one is: He doesn’t plan to apologize to the other countries he mentioned?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think his readouts of his calls spoke broadly to his comments. For anything more, I’d point you to the White House.

QUESTION: Would the State Department like to see the Vice President apologize to all of the countries that he mentioned?

MS. PSAKI: I think, Matt, the Vice President and his team made decisions about the calls he made. They put out readouts. Obviously, we’re in close consultation —

QUESTION: So there was —

MS. PSAKI: — with them.

QUESTION: So there was no State Department involvement in this?

MS. PSAKI: We’re in close consultation with them about issues moving forward as it relates to the coalition.

QUESTION: Can you describe what the reaction was, what Secretary Kerry’s reaction was or the reaction of other people in this building, to the comments that the Vice President made?

MS. PSAKI: I think everybody —

QUESTION: Were you aghast? And if you weren’t, can you say what it was – what the reaction was? And can you – is it not the case that the Administration believes that what the Vice President said is, in fact, correct and truthful?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, Secretary Kerry has spoken in the past, recently even a couple of weeks ago, about concerns we’ve had about past actions and past support for some of these organizations. We don’t have any evidence of any country supporting ISIL. We’re obviously focused on moving forward and what we can do from here. There have been a number of steps that have been taken even over the past couple of weeks by a number of these countries to do more to crack down on foreign fighters and crack down on counterfinancing. That’s where our focus is.

QUESTION: Does the Administration believe that in the past, until the last couple weeks, the Turks have not been doing enough to stem the flow of foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq, regardless of whether it was intentional?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, Secretary Kerry spoke to this a couple of weeks ago about past actions, but we’re focused on moving forward so I’m just not going to —

QUESTION: So you do believe that the Turks, until recently, were not doing as much as they could or they should to stop foreign fighters from getting into the – getting into Iraq and Syria?

MS. PSAKI: Well, over the course of time over the last several years, we have expressed the need to do more. When warranted, more has been done, and we’re focused on moving forward.

QUESTION: All right. Well, so why apologize?

MS. PSAKI: I think I addressed that. And if I have anything to add to that–

QUESTION: I mean, if Turkey is a great friend and ally, you’re always going on especially as it relates to Israel – and I realize that that’s a completely different subject – but you’re always talking about how good friends are honest with each other and frank and you can have these good discussions. And so it seems to me that when criticism is truthful or warranted and the facts behind the comment are correct factually that there shouldn’t be any need to apologize. Is —

MS. PSAKI: Well, again —

QUESTION: Are you that concerned about —

MS. PSAKI: Matt, I think the White House referred – addressed this. I don’t think I’m going to add anything else to it.

QUESTION: All right. And then just on the UAE, does the Administration believe that the UAE and the Saudis, who I think the Vice President also mentioned, hadn’t done enough until recently, or maybe still aren’t doing enough, to stem the flow of finance, of money to ISIL?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me give you an update on some of the things that have been happening. Many of you may know some of these, but I’m not sure.

In the coming weeks, Bahrain will host an international conference focusing – focused on identifying counterterror financing best practices and developing an implementation action plan. Many of the Gulf states have taken steps to crack down on terrorist financing. Several have taken steps to enforce their counterterrorism laws more effectively, including Kuwait’s newly created financial intelligence unit and Qatar’s new law regulating charities that includes the establishment of a board to oversee all charity work and contributions in Qatar.

Since July, the Kuwaiti minister of social affairs and labor has closed charity branches, issued new regulations that increased oversight of fundraising for MFA-coordinated projects in Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon, and reinstated an inter-ministerial committee that monitors domestic charity. And the UAE also passed a new CT law in August which tightens AML/CTF restrictions and more clearly defines terror-related crimes and penalties.

If we didn’t think that cracking down on counter – or doing more on counterfinancing was important, if we didn’t think that doing more to crack down on foreign fighters was important, especially for countries in the region but everybody in the world, they wouldn’t be two lines of our five lines of effort. And certainly they’re a prominent part of our discussion.

QUESTION: So prior to July, these countries – none of these countries were doing enough? Is that what you’re saying?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not what I stated. I was giving an update on what’s happened recently.

QUESTION: All right. And then just on the Bahrain conference, do you think that will be before or after Assistant Secretary Malinowski gets his invitation to go back?

MS. PSAKI: Again, Matt, I don’t have anything to announce for you in terms of his travel, but we’re working —

QUESTION: Okay. So —

MS. PSAKI: — actively with the Government of Bahrain on scheduling that.

QUESTION: On scheduling the Malinowski visit?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Could I do one follow-up on —

MS. PSAKI: Turkey? Or – okay.

QUESTION: Biden.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Vice President Biden. Are you currently satisfied with Turkey’s policies regarding financing to – either financing to groups, extreme groups in Syria, and the fighters – with the fighters, and the border policy currently implemented right now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a range of steps that have been taken. Obviously, we’re going to continue to have a conversation about these issues with all of our partners in the region. They’ll be some of the topics that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will discuss during their trip next week.

QUESTION: Can I do – go with General Allen’s visit?

MS. PSAKI: Sure, sure.

QUESTION: Just yesterday or the day before, President Erdogan put forward three conditions openly, and he said if these conditions are not met Turkey won’t be part of this coalition. And one of those is buffer zone, or he calls safe havens.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And second is no-fly zone. Third one is train and equip. But these two – no-fly zone and safe havens – if they are not being implemented, Turkey won’t be part of the coalition. What’s your response?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve certainly seen President Erdogan’s comments. Obviously, part of our focus right now is on having a discussion with our coalition partners, including Turkey, about what the needs are, what roles they can play moving forward. Nothing has changed since I addressed this question last week in terms of a no-fly zone or a buffer zone and what is and isn’t under consideration.

QUESTION: Can I stay with Turkey as well?

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Today, the NATO – the new NATO secretary-general is talking about Turkey, saying that it’s – Turkey’s a NATO ally, which we know, and our main responsibility is to protect the integrity of the borders of Turkey.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has any request – additional requests been made from Turkey for any additional help? And what do you think that could look like? You already have Patriot missiles that have been on the border now for well over a year. I just wondered if you had any updates on what further assistance —

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update from here. I’d certainly refer you to NATO for any further clarification. I know – or further – I should say adds or further comments. I know they were the ones who made the statements originally, and we certainly support our NATO allies.

QUESTION: You don’t envisage sending, I don’t know, U.S. forces or any support to the Turkish borders at the moment when they’re under pressure with the —

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates or predictions to make for you. Obviously, you know where our focus is militarily. Nothing has changed in that regard.

QUESTION: My question is about the advance of ISIS towards Kobani. My – this question might be more for your colleagues at the Pentagon, but it’s related to the broader Obama strategy.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Over the past 24 hours, we’ve seen only one strike, according to the Central Command, around Kobani. I don’t really understand why there hasn’t been more attacks while large numbers of ISIS fighters are closing in on Kobani. And according to CNN and some other American media reports, they have raised the American flag – the – sorry, Islamic flag over some buildings inside Kobani. Why hasn’t been there more strikes?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know we have this exchange kind of every single day, which is absolutely fine, but you’re talking about one strike in the last 24 hours. That was the update, you’re right, that came from CENTCOM. There were – that strike destroyed two ISIL fighting positions south of Kobani. Other recent strikes have hit two modular oil refineries, an ISIL training camp, an ISIL-occupied building. So this is an ongoing effort.

QUESTION: They’re not around Kobani, those refineries.

MS. PSAKI: It’s an ongoing effort around – in the same part of the country. I would refer you to DOD for more about their military strategy, but obviously this is something where we’ve long said from the beginning that this would take some time. We’re working closely to do everything we can to help push back ISIL in this part of the country, but again, I don’t have any other military updates from here.

QUESTION: When I talked to – on a daily basis I talk to Kurdish people, Kurdish rebels even, Kurdish politicians on the ground in Syria. They have a different perspective. They say, well, Turkey is now trying to do America’s bid in the country when it comes to ISIS attacks on Kobani, and Turkey yesterday invited Salih Muslim, who is the leader of the Kurdish party, to reach some sort of deal with Turkish intelligence. So are you waiting for Turkey to reach a deal with the Kurdish rebels? That’s why you’re not —

MS. PSAKI: I think we haven’t – clearly we haven’t held back from our own military airstrikes in this regard. There are a range of other countries who have also participated in the last couple of days in strikes in Syria. I don’t have any other update for you.

QUESTION: Just one more thing, Jen. It’s clearly, like, obvious that – I mean, President Obama on the eve of 9/11 said the strategy was to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS. We’ve seen ISIS been degraded in Iraq, but we’ve seen ISIS advancing in Syria. Can we say there are flaws in President Obama’s strategy?

MS. PSAKI: I would not say that. You’re right that the Iraqi Security Forces have certainly pushed back and they have been able to hold and even regain some areas. The efforts that have been underway in Syria have been not – have not been happening as long. I think DOD has addressed some of our strategy, so let me reiterate some of what they’ve said – that the initial round of strikes in Syria had fixed targets, such as command and control nodes, finance centers, training camps and oil refineries. Those kind of strikes will continue. Targeting in Syria is also evolving beyond fixed facilities and also includes more dynamic targeting of a tactical nature, such as vehicles, armored vehicles, convoys.

So obviously there’s certainly a strategy that’s being implemented by our Defense Department.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So your response to his question, can you – are there flaws in the Obama strategy, and you said, “I would not say that.” You’re saying that the President and the U.S. strategy is flawless as it comes to —

MS. PSAKI: I think I was making a point —

QUESTION: Or is that not what you meant?

MS. PSAKI: — about what our approach and our military approach is.

QUESTION: But if something is without flaws, it is flawless.

MS. PSAKI: I was refuting his question, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. So you think that the strategy that you’re using right now, that the Administration’s using right now, is flawless.

MS. PSAKI: That is not what I said.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Wait, wait, no, no.

MS. PSAKI: Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to – on Kobani in particular. Have you, has the Administration asked the Turks to lift even a finger to defend this city? Or are you okay with seeing it fall? I mean —

MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re certainly —

QUESTION: — my understanding of the strategy that you say is without flaw is that it is intended to first halt ISIS’s advance and then degrade it and destroy it.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But in this case, it seems that they’re gaining ground, so is that not problematic to you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, one, we are closely engaged in a conversation with Turkey. As you know, Ambassador McGurk and General Allen are traveling there this week. We’re in touch closely with them about what role they can play.

The —

QUESTION: But as it relates to Kobani, you’re not aware of any direct request to the Turks to actually do something?

MS. PSAKI: There are no other details I’m going to get into about our discussions with them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the country —

QUESTION: Can I ask whether you are actually talking —

QUESTION: Could we please stick with Kobani?

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m Kobani too.

Are you in touch with the Kurdish people inside Kobani at all? We’re reporting today that there’s some ISIS flags that are now flying in part of the town, two ISIS flags. That would suggest that they’re already in – creeping into the city. So is – if you haven’t got the Turks on the ground as yet, how are you getting information in terms of trying to halt that advance, which would seem that it’s not working at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: We have a range of ways of acquiring information. I just don’t have anything more to detail for you.

QUESTION: Are you coordinating at all with the Kurdish people in the town?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more on that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, if the President’s strategy is fundamentally for the United States to selectively provide air power and for local forces on the ground to do the ground fighting, if in this case the Kurdish fighters are not capable of fending off the ISIL forces, does it not suggest to you that you perhaps should rethink your strategy?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Arshad, I think, one, we’ve been clear that the airstrikes actually can have and do have and have had an impact on helping forces on the ground. And we’ve seen that in Iraq, certainly, which has been ongoing a bit longer. I just don’t have anything more to detail for you or predict in terms of military strategy. Obviously, we are working with a range of partners in the region to do everything we can in this case.

QUESTION: And have you actually – far from encouraging or requesting the Turks to seek to protect Kobani and engage ISIL forces, are you concerned that a – such an effort by the Turks could, in fact, worsen the fighting and the situation by pulling yet another actor into the fray?

MS. PSAKI: There’s just nothing more I’m going to be able to outline from here in terms of our conversations diplomatically on military strategy.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, in light of the question about there only being one operation presently, I think that Pentagon commanders themselves have made clear that the operational tempo might slow after some period of time simply because certain targets are destroyed or rendered useless, and simply because, as they have repeatedly made clear, ISIS has a certain adaptivity in response to prolonged military attack. I wonder if you are seeing the same adaptivity on the part of ISIS in the non-military arenas in which you are pressing the fight and the allies are pressing the fight with the —

MS. PSAKI: In terms of financing and other areas?

QUESTION: Financing, cyber, public diplomacy. Is there an adaptivity in those realms that can be observed as well, or just in the military sphere?

MS. PSAKI: I think there – certainly we’ve seen an adaptivity by ISIL in a range of areas. Obviously, they’ve increased their public diplomacy. I think that’s one example. Rick Stengel just came back from a trip to discuss with our partners how to address this. And we’ve seen them be very adaptable. Obviously, we and our partners need to continue to be more and more adaptable in response. I don’t have any specific examples for you, James. I don’t know if there’s something specific you are seeing or you’re curious about.

QUESTION: Just that it makes sense if we’re going to understand that the fight against ISIS is going to be waged along several lines, of which military is only one, then as an organization we should expect certain adaptivity in the various spheres. Since you mentioned Under Secretary Stengel, can you tell us just a bit about his role broadly, how he sees his mission? Is his mission now utterly consumed by this or is it just one aspect of many in his portfolio, et cetera?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. This is one aspect of his portfolio. I think it’s natural to have the Under Secretary of State run point or help oversee an effort, one of the five lines of effort, to organize and utilize all of the resources we and the Administration has to counter ideology and counter messaging. And part of his role will be not certainly what the United States is doing, but to help coordinate what countries in the region are doing. And we certainly know that the best and most effective voices are in all likelihood – without a doubt, I should say – from the region. And so that’s why he had this trip last week and what he’ll be engaging in moving forward.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Jen, one more question about Prime Minister Davutoglu of Turkey’s interview with —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: He had an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN. He said – he basically demanded the West, the United States to be more empathetic when it comes to the movements of foreign fighters from Turkey to Syria. Do you show – like, do you feel that the United States does not understand Turkey’s situation?

MS. PSAKI: I think we certainly understand, one, Turkey remains a close NATO ally, as you know. We certainly understand the sensitivity that they live under with the fact that their diplomats were just detained for several days, weeks, longer than that. And we’re in close touch with them about all of these issues, but we’ll have those discussions through private diplomatic channels, which is most appropriate.

QUESTION: Jen, those diplomats were released —

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: — more than a week ago. Surely this is —

QUESTION: I thought it was a couple weeks ago.

MS. PSAKI: Couple weeks ago.

QUESTION: Yeah, right. And this is still a sensitive issue for —

MS. PSAKI: I’m saying historically over the last several months. We understand that Turkey, being a neighboring country and one that has felt this perhaps more than many other countries with what happened to them over the course of the last several months —

QUESTION: Well, right, but the particular sensitivity relating to the – its diplomats being held hostage is over, right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, sure, but it’s still relevant to —

QUESTION: Why is it still being – but why is it – why are you still mentioning it as something that might keep Turkey from becoming more active in the coalition?

MS. PSAKI: I think the question was broadly about empathy to what they – their challenges are.

QUESTION: Okay. But let’s talk about now, today, not while – not three weeks —

MS. PSAKI: Well, the question was that. That’s what I was addressing. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, right, okay. Well, so – okay. But let me ask —

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: — re-ask this. Not the empathy question, but why today should the situation with the diplomats be raised as an issue of sensitivity for Turkey when they’ve been released for weeks?

MS. PSAKI: I was answering a question about —

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: — what they have experienced over the course of the last several months. And certainly, as a country that’s a neighboring country in the region, they have different sensitivities.

QUESTION: And as a neighboring country in the region, where you can stand on the Turkish side of the border and actually see the fighting going on, does it not follow that Turkey has a special responsibility to perhaps do more than other members of the coalition?

MS. PSAKI: I think Turkey has said many times that they’re interested in being engaged in this. We’ll have that conversation. When there’s more to say publicly, all of you will know.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So do – first of all, Kobani. Do you have any confirmation that Kobani – in the east and the west part of Kobani, ISIS forces penetrated in the city and the street fights are going on?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any confirmation. I’ve seen the reports, certainly, but I don’t have any independent confirmation from here.

QUESTION: And do you think that Turkey has some special mission or task to do in terms of Kobani fight, comparing to other allies?

MS. PSAKI: We’ll – we are having ongoing discussions. I don’t have anything to read out for you at this point.

QUESTION: Today, Prime Minister Davutoglu talked to a Amanpour interview, and he said that if the U.S. targets Assad regime, goes after it, we can send ground troops into Syria. Do you have Assad regime in your target list?

MS. PSAKI: Our position hasn’t changed. Our focus is on ISIL. We certainly are continuing to support the Syrian opposition, but I don’t have anything new on that regard.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Turkey is reluctant. One reason that it’s been reluctant – another reason, in addition to the hostages – has been that the PYD, the Kurdish party there, has been neutral towards Assad. Does that – is that your own – your concern as well?

MS. PSAKI: Reluctance as it relates to —

QUESTION: Reluctance to help – to join the anti-Assad – anti-ISIS coalition to fight ISIS.

MS. PSAKI: Well, the – let me just say that, obviously, Turkey and their leaders – the leaders of Turkey have indicated over the past several weeks they want to play a more prominent, active role in the coalition. We’re having discussions with them about what that role is, what ideas they have. Beyond that, I’m not going to get ahead of that process.

QUESTION: But to – that was just – like, I know we’ve heard Turkey upping the rhetoric against ISIS, but, like, when it comes to action, like, they —

MS. PSAKI: And they had a vote in parliament, and we’ll see what happens.

Go – let’s finish Turkey before we go on. Turkey? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, Turkey. Prime Minister Davutoglu said Turkey will do whatever possible, and I quote, “to make sure that Kobani will not fall.” Do you think it’s doing whatever possible to prevent Kobani from falling?

MS. PSAKI: I just – I’m not going to have any more on this particular question.

QUESTION: Okay. No, one more question.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Why – did you convey to Turkey – why not saying we will not allow Kobani to fall? Why didn’t he say, though —

MS. PSAKI: I think my colleagues at the Department of Defense have indicated we’re taking a range of steps and – including airstrikes, and we certainly want —

QUESTION: No, Turkey, Turkey. About Turkey. Why Turkey didn’t say we will not allow Kobani to fall? Why did they say —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: No, he said “whatever possible.” He didn’t say —

MS. PSAKI: I would point you to Turkish leaders on that particular question.

QUESTION: Yes, please.

MS. PSAKI: Should we – Turkey, or a new —

QUESTION: In ISIL in general.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah, because first of all, the General Allen trip to Brussels and then to the Middle East, do you have anything to say about it? Because once you are – when we are talking about Brussels you mention a lot of issues that were discussed, but I think the – I assume the priority is to degrade and defeat ISIL, or it’s not just that?

MS. PSAKI: That is the focus of their meetings, and certainly – and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Their entire trip is focused on that. Obviously, there are several components of that. We have five major lines of effort, so doing more to crack down on foreign fighters, counter-financing – those are part of that effort, and certainly there are roles each country and each organization can play.

QUESTION: And few day – recently, he was quoted that this may take – it may – at least one year to – Iraqi force to be able to get – retake Mosul. Do you have anything that it’s – to establish the Iraqi forces to be able to do that? I mean, it’s like – it’s a long-term process?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I – it’s not exactly. I know the headline suggested that. It’s not exactly what he said. I will – I don’t have it in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I can get it to you after the briefing.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: I’d certainly point kind of the goals of a military operation to my Defense colleagues on their comments on that.

QUESTION: Talking about the different fronts of fronting – confronting ISIL, the idea of this – the war of the ideas or the public diplomacy, you are outlining the under secretary mission or at least what he’s trying to do in general terms. What exactly you are trying to do?

MS. PSAKI: What exactly are we trying to do?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: We’re trying to create coordination among countries that are impacted by ISIL, that have concerns about the growing threat of ISIL to de-legitimize their messaging. They’re out there talking about – recruiting. They’re out there talking about how this is an effective or a great alternative for young people. And we want to work with powerful voices in the region to combat that. And so that is what the focus of this effort is. Now, that will take many forms. We’re in the relatively early stages of it, so it’s still coming together.

QUESTION: Do you think that what is going on now in this field, specifically with the experience that was done in the last years – it was like preaching to believers. It’s more than confronting the nonbelievers. Do you think that that’s what is going on? I mean, it’s like the last two weeks, what was heard, it was heard that all the world, or the – that part world of believers of Islam are against it or whatever. Do you think that this is the proper way to do it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – I’m not sure if this is answering your question, so you tell me, but I think part of the effort here is there have been a range of voices out there who are – have not typically spoken out about these sorts of issues. So making clear that ISIL is not Islam, that their recruitment tactics and their public diplomacy efforts are hiding terrorist tactics is something that I think a range of people can play an effective role in.

Obviously, ISIL has been growing in strength and capacity and recruiting, and so this is an important time to do this.

QUESTION: One of the mention – one of the issues that you mentioned regarding Gulf countries, and you mentioned those related to charities —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — are you following what kind of laws are these? Because what was done before, it was full of loopholes, and it was like looking great to uphold monies, but in the same time, the monies were going somewhere, even – and then they said, “We don’t know. We don’t – how did this happen?”

MS. PSAKI: Well, part of the effort, as much as we don’t have information that a government was – has been – has supported or given money to ISIL, there are certainly individuals. And we have put in sanctions in place, but cracking down and doing more to crack down on those individuals is part of our effort, and obviously a range of countries can play a role in that.

QUESTION: Jen, can I just ask, when you’re talking about one of the functions of what you’re doing is trying to undermine the message from ISIL, I’m not sure if you saw over the weekend the Pakistani Taliban released a statement saying that they would support the Islamic State, and that they’d already been sending fighters and they were going to send more fighters. There have been similar moves from other of the groups, like al-Nusrah. Are you worried that on – actually the effect its having is to harden those groups that are already out there and that you could see a banding together, perhaps, more of the more extremist Islamic militant groups?

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say we’ve certainly seen the reports that you referenced related to the TPP, where they – expression of support or praise for ISIL. We’ve also seen conflicting reports refuting this, so we’re looking into it and what it means and what – moving forward. We’ll see if there’s an update on that. I’m not sure if and when there will be.

Otherwise, I think our view is that ISIL has had success in growing and building capacity, recruiting, growing and financing. And so the alternative is not to do nothing. The alternative is to use every capacity we have, whether it’s taking on the ideology, doing more to track – crack down on foreign fighters, counter financing, and that’s what we’re doing. Because over the course of the last six to eight months, they’ve really gained strength, as we all know.

QUESTION: But there is a danger, is there not, that by unleashing American airstrikes, you could actually harden the resolve of some of the other groups? I mean, the Pakistani Taliban, initially on paper, would seem to have very little in common with the ISIL, apart from their extremist form of Islam.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, we don’t have full confirmation of that. There’s conflicting reports and we’ll see what it means. I think our view otherwise is that it was necessary to take the military action and also take the other steps that we’ve taken in order to protect not only our interests, but interests in the region, and we did that with a range of factors in mind.

QUESTION: Can I ask the —

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: — broader question, though?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And perhaps you feel like you’ve already gotten to this, but one of the problems with the United States getting involved militarily in Muslim countries is indeed exactly the possibility that it creates even more fighters, even more opposition, even more animus of a sort that neither this nor any other administration that I’m aware of has been particularly successful at countering or undermining. So did you anticipate that military action might generate this kind of a response of galvanizing additional opposition to the United States of America simply because it was starting to bomb in two Muslim-majority countries?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I mean, aside from the TP – TTP, sorry, which isn’t confirmed – I’m not sure exactly what you’re referring to – but I would say one of the reasons why the President did not want to go it alone, the Secretary did not want to go it alone, we needed the support of Arab countries and Arab partners, is because this is a fight for the region to lead and be prominent – play prominent roles in. And certainly, the United States has interests here. We have – if left unchecked, as you’ve heard us say before, we have concerns about the threat ISIL could pose to the United States, about the Khorasan Group, about other terrorists we’ve addressed before.

But the reason we are building this coalition and we want to hear – and we think Arab voices should be in the lead and countries in the region should be in the lead is because it’s not the United States’s fight to fight.

QUESTION: But surely, you would not say that any – I mean, can you point to a country in the Arab world that is actually leading this? I mean, the impression that I’ve had is that the United States is leading it; that you had to cajole, persuade, convince, entreat your regional allies to do this.

QUESTION: One more.

QUESTION: I was trying. I couldn’t think of a fifth one. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Beg. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Nudge.

MS. PSAKI: A group of reporters, a word game. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Implore, implore. I mean, can you point to a single country in the region where you say, “Well, they’re leading it?” I mean, you’re leading it, aren’t you?

MS. PSAKI: Well, but Arshad, I think what I’m getting at here is that the reason why it’s not just about military action, which – the United States has a military second to none. We have a range of capabilities. We all understand that. But there are other components and other elements of this, and this is a long-term effort, and one where a lot of these countries are going to continue to play increasing roles. And I would say that I wouldn’t agree with the notion that we had to – I’ll use all your adjectives – cajole, beg, or whatever —

QUESTION: Verbs.

MS. PSAKI: Sorry, verbs.

QUESTION: “Beg” was not mine. Mine was “implore,” which was my last one.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, okay, fair enough. I’ll give credit where credit is due. A range of these – a lot of these countries, this has been a unifying moment for these countries, and they have concerns about ISIL and the threat it poses, and they want to play a proactive and engaged role.

Now, are there agreements on every point about how everything should be dealt with? No. You’re all aware of that. But this is an ongoing effort and one we think these countries will continue to build the role that they’re playing over the course of time.

QUESTION: Former Secretary Panetta in his book stated that this will be a 30-year effort. Does that sound about right?

MS. PSAKI: I think, James – I know we spoke to the book quite a bit on Friday. I’m not going to put a timeline on it. I would say that we know that this is going to be a long-term effort. Our focus, as you know, is degrading and defeating ISIL. There’s going to be a range of steps that are required to do that, and it’s not easy. But —

QUESTION: After 9/11, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, and probably Secretary Powell at that time, were all quite explicit in saying that this was going to be a multigenerational challenge, as was embodied in the act of 9/11. Would you say that we are in not just for a long-term challenge but a generational one?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I’m not going to put a new timeframe on things. Obviously, as you know, terrorism is not new. It’s unfortunately not something that is necessarily going away. We go after it wherever the threat of terrorism – wherever it lives. And I think that will be our approach moving forward.

QUESTION: And last one. Since this, again, is identified as a multipronged effort, is it assumed by the Administration that some lines of confrontation against ISIS will be resolved more swiftly than others? For example, the military piece could be resolved more swiftly than say, the effort to combat their ideology? Or is one of these going to take a lot longer than the other, or we expect they’re all going to come to fruition at roughly the same time?

MS. PSAKI: That’s a good question, James. I mean, we’ve only had this effort underway for a couple of months, so I just don’t have any predictions of what particular line of effort we’ll be able to accomplish. Obviously, defeating the ideology – if you can’t defeat the ideology, it’s hard to accomplish the other particular pieces. That’s one of the most important components. I mean, they all are important, but I think expect they’ll all take some time.

So go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to move on if I may.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: But before moving on, were you relieved that over the weekend there wasn’t another former senior official coming out criticizing the President’s strategy?

MS. PSAKI: I’m always happy to answer your questions about books or other issues that come out, Matt.

QUESTION: All right. So this is a different topic. I know that your colleague at the White House was also asked about this and gave an answer, but I want to get your response, although I’m sure it’s probably very similar. You already know what I’m going to ask, don’t you?

MS. PSAKI: I do.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend talking about how the criticism of his country, or at least of his government, is – conflicts with American values. What’s your response to that?

MS. PSAKI: Well, American policy has been clear and unchanged under several administrations, both Democratic and Republican: We oppose any unilateral actions that attempt to prejudge final status issues, including the status of Jerusalem. These can only be legitimately determined through direct negotiation between the parties. So I have to say it was a bit odd to use American values when clearly we’ve had a consistent view and a consistent position on this particular issue.

QUESTION: Do you – Secretary Kerry got into trouble and had to apologize when he made this reference to the possibility that Israel could become an apartheid state. Is it your view that that – that this is in the similar vein? And by that I mean is it okay for Americans, American citizens, to talk about the possibility of something being un-American and not okay for a foreigner to do so, much in the same way a lot of the people who criticized the Secretary for his comment about Israel acknowledged that Israelis themselves talk about this all the time? Is this, to your way of thinking, to the Administration – is that the Administration’s view?

MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t put it exactly that way. I think we just don’t think it’s consistent given we’ve had the same viewpoint and point of view on this issue. It didn’t seem like the right use of phrase.

QUESTION: All right. Have you asked – much in the same way as the Turks demanded an apology from the Vice President, have you asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to revisit, clarify, or apologize for his comments, which you clearly disagree with?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of Matt, no.

QUESTION: And can I ask why not?

MS. PSAKI: I think we clearly stated our view. There’s – he did an interview. I don’t think – I think we have other issues that we’re ready to keep engaging with Israel on.

QUESTION: All right. And since the criticism to which he referred was issued by both yourself and the White House last week, shortly after the prime minister had left town, have you seen any steps, any moves by the Israeli Government to address your criticism, your concerns about these East Jerusalem projects?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates from events on the ground, no.

QUESTION: So that means – no. So are you disappointed that they have not moved to address your complaints?

MS. PSAKI: Our concerns haven’t changed. It remains the case that we view these actions as contrary to Israel’s goal of – stated goal of a negotiated two-party – sorry, two-state solution.

QUESTION: Well —

MS. PSAKI: So that hasn’t changed. I don’t have any update of events on the ground though.

QUESTION: All right. I’m just wondering, I mean, every time the Israelis do something like this or announce projects like this, as every time the Palestinians do something that you don’t like, you come out and you say this is bad, we’re opposed to unilateral actions. You criticize or otherwise condemn/abhor or whatever —

QUESTION: Beg and cajole.

QUESTION: You say – express deep concern or great concern or you’re troubled. And nothing happens. Nothing is ever addressed. These – the construction continues. The Palestinians continue to do things that you say are counterproductive.

When is the Administration – and this has been going on for – across administrations. But when is an American administration going to actually do something? When are there actually going to be consequences for either side completely disregarding everything that you say?

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as you know, we have an important security relationship with Israel and they’re an important partner. We still voice our views and concerns when we have them.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: But ultimately, this is about what is the stated goal of Israel itself, and that is to achieve a two-state solution.

QUESTION: I’ve been very – I’m trying to be very clear that it’s both sides, not just the Israelis who are —

MS. PSAKI: Fair enough. You were asking me —

QUESTION: — who are ignoring this.

MS. PSAKI: That’s right.

QUESTION: But I’m just wondering, I mean, when are you going to get to the point where you actually do something other than say you’re concerned about it to get a result? Because the results of it – there are no results from you concern.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, what we’ve seen, as I referenced last week I think, is some of the response from the international community, and that’s one of the things that we think will continue to build as well.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Do we have more on this topic?

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: No – nope? Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Over the weekend, a very high-level delegation from North Korea visited the South for the Asian Games and also meetings with government officials. What’s your reaction?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we support improved inter-Korean relations. We were in close consultation with the Government of the Republic of Korea as the visit was happening. But I don’t have any other updates from here.

QUESTION: When you say “close consultation,” were you informed ahead of time that they would be having this meeting?

MS. PSAKI: I can check on that for you, Elliot. I’m not sure off the top of my head if we were.

QUESTION: Okay, great. And then one more just on this while we’re on the topic. Any updates on the three detained Americans? Any new consular visits or things of that nature?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any new updates as of today. We can – I can take it and see if there’s anything that happened over the course of the last several days – not that I’m aware of, but we’ll check and seen.

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: And one more on this topic.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that Assistant Secretary Danny Russel met with South Korean counterparts?

MS. PSAKI: He has been on a trip, as you know. He met – let’s see. I think he did a short press avail while he was there where he outlined some of the meetings, so let me just see if I have this in front of me.

QUESTION: One more on this?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can you confirm or – can you confirm the reports suggesting that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is ill or can you confirm the denials of those reports?

MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have anything on that. I don’t have any information on it.

In terms of Assistant Secretary Russel’s trip, I know we put out a media announcement. Obviously, he’s been on the trip and he did a press avail with his DOD counterpart, which you may have seen – we can also get that around to you after the briefing – to talk about the meetings.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) readout of those meetings as well?

MS. PSAKI: They did, I think, a readout in their short press avail afterwards.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Asia?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: On Hong Kong, three ex-U.S. consul generals to Hong Kong has issued an open letter to the chief executive, saying that the Chinese Government’s decision to prescreen Hong Kong’s candidates, quote —

(Sneeze.)

QUESTION: Bless you.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you.

QUESTION: “Fails to advance Hong Kong’s system toward being more broadly representative or democratic.”

MS. PSAKI: Who was the letter from? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Three – I can read the name to you. They are Richard Boucher, once a spokesperson, and Stephen Young and Richard Williams. They are former U.S. consul generals to Hong Kong.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So I just wonder if you have any comments on the letter, and does that reflect the official view through – or law delivered through the private capacity.

MS. PSAKI: I believe all the individuals you mentioned are private citizens, and as we know, private citizens can certainly say what they like and send letters. I haven’t seen the letter. We can check and see if there’s more to say from here on it. We’ve stated what our view is on this particular issue.

QUESTION: Now, a few days ago you mentioned that there’s no discussion to review the 1992 U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Now, in section 202, it indicates that if – should the United States determine that Hong Kong is insufficient – is not sufficiently autonomous, the United States President may issue an executive order which may change the law – the way the law is implied. Is there any discussion on the determination and the way it’s —

MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed since I spoke to this last week.

I can just do a couple more here. Go ahead, Pam.

QUESTION: Jen, one more on Hong Kong.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Has there been any fresh dialogue between the United States and China now that the deadline has passed – the deadline that had been imposed by authorities for protestors to clear the square? Obviously, things seem to be peaceful so far. But has the U.S. been in touch with its counterparts, urging restraint, or has anything taken place?

MS. PSAKI: We remain in regular contact, but our focus has been on encouraging the differences between Hong Kong authorities and protestors to be addressed peacefully. I understand – I think there were reports about the chief security officer, I believe. Is that the correct title? Carrie Lam plans to meet with some of the protestors. So obviously, continuing to encourage dialogue is what our focus remains, and we certainly remain in close touch with our Chinese counterparts.

QUESTION: Jen, can I ask you on this – what is your impression of Britain’s role so far through these whole protests? There’s been some anger among Hong Kong Chinese that, in fact, the United States has been much more vociferous in its support of the demonstrations than Britain. And they’ve even – a lot of demonstrators are actually going as far as to saying that Britain’s betrayed the Hong Kong Chinese and the tenets of the Basic Law under which the territory was handed back to China in 1997. Has Britain betrayed its – the Basic Law? Is it not —

MS. PSAKI: I don’t think —

QUESTION: Is it failing to live up to its role as a sort of overseer, to a certain extent, of the – that the Basic Law is implemented correctly?

MS. PSAKI: That’s not our view, but our focus, again, remains on encouraging dialogue between the parties, so I don’t have any other analysis for you.

QUESTION: I have four extremely brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: One, Ukraine: Is there anything new in terms of dialogue with the Russians over the situation in Ukraine? I noticed that Ambassador Tefft was into the Russian Foreign Ministry today.

MS. PSAKI: Let me see if there’s anything new.

I don’t think I have anything new, Matt, in terms of dialogue. Let me just make a quick check on calls here. One second. Let’s see here.

No, you’re aware of the call from Friday with the Secretary.

QUESTION: All right. Two, do you have any comment to – reaction to the – to Iran releasing the wife of the Washington Post reporter?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is this a good sign, or do you have any indication that he too will be released?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, we welcome the release of Yeganeh Salehi, the Iranian wife of detained U.S. citizen Jason Rezaian – Rezaian, sorry. Out of respect for the privacy of her and her family, we’re not going to comment further on her release. I don’t have any other predictions for you. We of course continue to call on the Iranian authority – Government to immediately release all of our detained U.S. citizens in Iran, including, of course, Mr. Amir Hekmati and Mr. Saeed Abedini. Our focus is doing everything possible to secure their return, but I don’t have any updates, unfortunately.

QUESTION: Okay. Three, you may have seen that the Hilton hotel chain has sold the Waldorf to a Chinese insurance company for close to $2 billion. I’m wondering if this raises any concerns in the U.S. as it regards the large amount of money that the U.S. Government spends in the Waldorf every year during the UN General Assembly, and if it has any implications for the apartment of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, which is in the Waldorf Towers. Is that rented, owned by the U.S. Government? Are you comfortable paying rent or even hotel fees to the Chinese?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I know this information just came out this morning. I mean, broadly speaking, we have had a long-term relationship with the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, as all of you know, because many of you have stayed there for years for UNGA. In particular, as you mentioned, the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations has maintained a residence there for some time. There have been several analyses done through Democratic and Republican administrations about cost effectiveness, and this has been concluded to be cost effective. There’s a lot of requirements that are needed for the residence, to include reception space, security, proximity to the U.S. mission in UN headquarters. I don’t have any analysis at this point in terms of anything changing – not that I’m aware of, but —

QUESTION: Do you have any security concerns?

QUESTION: Does the government own or rent that apartment?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on that, Matt.

QUESTION: And then – I’ll let Arshad ask —

QUESTION: Just security concerns. I mean, do you have any security concerns about the possibility that a foreign government, particularly one that, well, is – about a foreign government owning the hotel, and therefore potentially being in a – well, a foreign-owned company owning the hotel, and therefore possibly being at – the hotel being at greater risk of bugging or other kinds of —

MS. PSAKI: Not that have been expressed to me in the last couple of hours.

QUESTION: And then my last one is just whether you have any thoughts – positive, negative, or neutral – about the death over the weekend of Baby Doc.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe – let’s see. I may have something on this, one moment.

The United States notes the death on October 4th of former Haitian president – of the former Haitian president and extend condolences to his family. Haiti continues to come to terms with the challenging impact of this period in its history and as the Haitian people work to build a more democratic and prosperous country. We encourage the people and Government of Haiti to continue their ongoing pursuit of justice and reconciliation. As you know, we also support accountability for crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations regardless of the perpetrator.

I can do about two more here, so go ahead.

QUESTION: I have a very short one on Turkey and Cyprus.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: As you may know, Turkey sent the ships again in the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus. In Nicosia, Jennifer, they consider this act as another invasion. And do you have any comments since the Secretary and the Vice President are involved in these efforts to convince Turkey to stop the provocations against Cyprus?

MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we recognize the Republic of Cyprus’s right to develop its resources in its exclusive economic zone. We continue to believe the island’s oil and gas resources, like all of its resources, should be equitably shared between both communities in the context of an overall settlement. It’s important to avoid actions that may increase tensions in the region, and we certainly support – continue to support, under UN auspices, efforts to reunify the island as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

Let’s just do one more in the back here.

QUESTION: Regarding flare-up of tensions between Pakistan and India in the disputed Kashmir region.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There was heavy shelling, as a result of which four people, including two children, were killed in – on the – in the Azad Kashmir in Pakistani side. There were similar reports from the Indian side. What is the U.S. doing to help the two countries to find a solution to this longstanding Kashmir dispute?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we are concerned about any violence along the line of control. We continue to encourage the governments of India and Pakistan to engage in further dialogue to address these issues. Our policy on Kashmir has not changed. We still believe that the pace, scope, and character of India and Pakistan’s dialogue on Kashmir is for those two countries to determine.

Do you have more?

QUESTION: But – may I follow it?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the peace efforts have not taken off. As you know, the foreign secretary’s talks, which were scheduled to be held in August, they were canceled. And Prime Minister Modi was here. What did you – did you talk about the Pakistan-India relations during that visit? And what are you doing to make new efforts to encourage the two countries towards beginning and resuming that dialogue?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, relationships in the region was a part of the discussion during the two days that the prime minister was here. I don’t have any other updates for you, though.

Jo, last one.

QUESTION: I just had a question.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: You might want to take this, I don’t know.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: There’s a reconstruction conference on Gaza coming up at the weekend.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: And I just wondered if you could tell us what the U.S. expectations were for that conference and whether there’s going to be any U.S. monies put up for it and the level of representation.

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, I can confirm that Secretary Kerry will be attending the conference. In terms of expectations from the United States, let me talk to our team and see if there’s anything more we’ll preview in advance of the conference. We may wait till this weekend if there’s more to say.

QUESTION: Do you know, does the Administration have a position as to whether Israel should contribute to this?

MS. PSAKI: I’ll talk to our team and see. I’m not sure what the discussions have been in that regard.

Thanks, everyone.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)