Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–October 9, 2014.
TRANSCRIPT:
1:41 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: Happy Thursday.
MS. PSAKI: Happy Thursday.
QUESTION: Happy Thursday.
QUESTION: One day left.
MS. PSAKI: One day – well, two days, Matt. Count today. The day is young.
We’ve sent out a statement on the Yemen bombings, and I wanted to just highlight that for all of you and make sure you all had seen it. Also, just an update on General Allen and Ambassador McGurk’s meetings. Actually, Special Envoy Rubinstein also joined them today. They met today in Cairo with Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Shoukry to discuss ongoing global coalition efforts and Egyptian contributions to the fight against ISIL, including the positive role Egypt is already playing, countering violent extremist ideology.
They also met with Arab League Secretary-General al-Araby and several Arab League ambassadors to discuss how Arab League states can continue to counter ISIL across the five lines of global coalition efforts, especially on delegitimizing ISIL’s messaging in the Muslim world and supporting the new Government of Iraq and its program for an inclusive, united, and sovereign Iraq, as defined in the Iraqi constitution.
From Cairo, General Allen, Ambassador McGurk, and Special Envoy Rubinstein traveled to Ankara, where they met with Syrian Opposition Coalition leadership and members to review how the United States and coalition partners can continue to support the moderate Syrian opposition in the fight against ISIL. The delegation reiterated that the United States has not and will not coordinate with Assad, and encouraged the SOC to further strengthen their organization, given the central role of the moderate opposition in advancing the political solution that will be necessary to ending the Syrian crisis. The delegation also discussed the essential role the moderate opposition can play as a counterweight to ISIL in Syria, and how the U.S. plan to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition can support that role.
Later today, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will meet – or perhaps they are – have already met, depending on the time difference – with Prime Minister Davutoglu and other Turkish officials to discuss the situation in Kobani and how Turkey can contribute to ongoing coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL. We’ll have further readouts for you today after those meetings conclude.
Let’s see. It’s fair to say that the delegation will have very detailed conversations about the humanitarian situation in Kobani, and more broadly, the security situation across the Syria-Turkey border, while also identifying specific contributions in areas of cooperation across the five lines of effort on which we can agree right now. While we’re still in the early stages of consolidating a broad coalition for a long-term campaign, the events of last week have made it clear that urgent and rapid steps are needed to halt ISIL military capabilities, and General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will make that clear in their meetings with Turkish officials.
One more item for you: General Allen and – let’s see, no, I’m sorry, that is old. All right. We’re done. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Really?
MS. PSAKI: We’re not done. Go ahead with your questions – (laughter) – unless you have no questions, and then we are done.
QUESTION: No, no.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: No, you’re not so lucky. It’s not just me who has questions, other people.
MS. PSAKI: I know. I enjoy it. Go ahead. I meant everyone. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. You said that one of the things they’re talking about is how Turkey can contribute to the ongoing coalition efforts, that urgent steps are needed after seeing what happened last week and what’s going on right now in Kobani. So from the U.S. point of view, how can Turkey contribute to the ongoing coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, this is a conversation. It’s not a situation where we are making demands. It’s one where we are having a discussion with Turkey that’s been ongoing, but certainly will continue today, about what role they’re willing to play in the coalition efforts, also as it relates to the situation in Kobani.
Now, with all that being said, there’s no question that Turkey is well positioned to contribute to the broad-based coalition effort to defeat ISIL through military cooperation, stopping terrorist financing, countering foreign fighter flows into the region, providing humanitarian assistance, and delegitimizing ISIL’s extremist ideology. They have the capability to contribute in all of those areas, and we’ll be discussing all of them with Turkey.
QUESTION: Right, but the second part of your opening talked about how it’s – there is a need for urgent and rapid steps.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So clearly – I mean, I think your – the argument has been from you and other people in the Administration that the Turks have been doing – or at least stepping up —
MS. PSAKI: Many of those areas, yes.
QUESTION: — in the areas that you’ve mentioned.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The – when you talk about how urgent and rapid steps are now needed given the events of the last two weeks, it suggests that you – that more needs to be done. And so the question is: What is the conversation that you talked about – not demands – what is the conversation actually about? How can Turkey – or what do you think it is that Turkey can do to help improve or bolster the coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Well, you are right. There are areas where they are already contributing, but we’re also talking about a longer-term effort. Certainly, part of the discussion will be on military contributions and, as I mentioned, the situation in Kobani. But I’m not going to outline the specifics publicly. We’ll have that discussion through private diplomatic channels.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’ve got two more brief ones.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: One, who else are they meeting, aside from Davutoglu? Are they meeting with the defense minister, or are they meeting with Erdogan himself?
MS. PSAKI: I can check if there are more meetings scheduled. They’ll obviously be there tomorrow as well.
QUESTION: Just to follow up —
QUESTION: All right. And then, secondly, it seems that – it seems from comments made by Secretary Kerry and others from this podium, and from the podium at the Pentagon and the White House, that the Administration does not regard Kobani as a huge pillar or a huge – I don’t want to use the word “strategic.” The loss – the Administration doesn’t believe that the fall of Kobani would create a – would be a major disaster. It would be bad, but you’re looking at – there’s bigger fish to fry here, and you’re looking in the long game. The sense that I’ve gotten, and I think others have as well, is that the Administration looks at Kobani as bad but thinks that it’s getting so much attention simply because it’s so close to the Turkish border, where there are a lot of people who can watch it – watch the combat in real time. Is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: In terms of what our view is on why it’s getting so much attention, or —
QUESTION: No, in terms of – that it’s not – it’s just not that important. The impression has been left by officials that it’s just not – that you don’t regard it as being that important.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, as you mentioned, Secretary Kerry addressed this earlier today. We have addressed this. I have addressed this. My colleagues at the Pentagon have addressed this —
QUESTION: I know.
MS. PSAKI: — in terms of what our strategic objectives are in Syria and what our focus is on in Syria.
QUESTION: One of the strategic objectives that you’ve talked about for the coalition has been the – countering the ISIL propaganda that’s going on. Does the Administration not think that the fall of Kobani would be a serious propaganda – PR victory for ISIS, and even if it’s not – even if you think that it’s not particularly strategic?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I have an analysis of that, Matt, on whether it would be a propaganda victory or not. I think the point is that we have strategic objectives that we’re following through on militarily. We’re keeping our focus on the long term. We’ve still – as you know, we’ve done – we did 13 strikes, I believe, overnight in the neighborhood of Kobani. So it’s not that we are taking our feet off the gas pedal in terms of doing more to have an impact, but we still have to maintain our overarching strategic objectives.
QUESTION: So you’re not concerned that – and I understand that you’re doing the airstrikes, but as we’ve talked about, the Turks aren’t doing anything. You have people there in Ankara talking to the Turks now about what more they can do. Do – I mean, it seems as though if Kobani falls, that not only is it a major propaganda victory for ISIS – ISIL, but it also alienates the Kurds, who you are looking for help not just in Syria but even more so in Iraq itself.
MS. PSAKI: Well, and certainly —
QUESTION: Are you —
MS. PSAKI: We’re looking for help, but we’re also working with them to help them help themselves too, because they’re also concerned about the threat that ISIL poses. So this isn’t the – a situation where anyone’s doing a favor to the United States. We are trying to assist these different communities in fighting back against this threat.
QUESTION: Jen, just to follow up on that point.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So you agree that Kobani is not that strategic in terms of the fight against ISIS?
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve outlined this extensively over the last couple of days, Said, but —
QUESTION: Okay. Let me rephrase this question: Are you concerned that Kobani actually sits on a very strategic geographical area, where it can – it will allow more flow of arms and volunteers and so on from Turkey, because it will control a large strip of border? Do you agree with that?
MS. PSAKI: I think my colleague addressed this yesterday at the Pentagon, but —
QUESTION: Okay, okay. Let me just follow up on the issue of fighting ISIS. If you are committed to the fight against ISIS, as we – as everybody has, and to defeat them, first to deplete their resources and forces and then ultimately defeat them, and there seems to be an agreement – it’s a stated agreement; it’s not even tacit – that you could not do this from the air, that you must do it with ground forces. But on the other hand, you are committed to non-sending – to the not – to not sending any troops on the ground, American troops on the ground. Are you working with any of the countries in the region to send their troops on the ground so they can fight ISIS on their own territory?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re working certainly with many countries. But the Syrian opposition in Syria we’re working with on a train-and-equip program to boost their capabilities, to increase their military credibility, and that we think will help increase their political credibility. As you know, we’re working closely with the Iraqi Security Forces. There’s also a difference here in there are some areas where, say, for example, the Iraqi Security Forces or the Peshmerga had been fighting back against ISIL, and our airstrikes and air power did help, because there already was a force on the ground fighting. So we have seen airstrikes have a strong impact where there was partnership on the ground.
QUESTION: Well, airstrikes really have effect on, let’s say, large conveys or fixed positions. Isn’t this particular case – everybody agrees that you need ground forces. You’re saying that you’re having a conversation with the Turks. But the longer this conversation goes on the more territories ISIS seems to garner. And —
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, the coalition is a few weeks old. Turkey has indicated they want to play a more substantial role. We’re having discussions with them. We’ll see what comes out of those discussions.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me just go back, just one last – one last one on this issue. Okay. I mean, let’s look at precedents in this case. Back in 1990 there were – the Arab League was able to take a decision to go into Kuwait along with the American forces. Can you imagine a situation where the Arab League can, in fact, go into Syria without bringing the Syrian regime into the fold and rehabilitating them into the Arab League and —
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to draw comparisons to past conflicts, Said.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yes. The – a follow-up on the role that Turkey can play. The U.S. – this is the President’s strategy, and all officials, we’ve heard them say that they will ask each country that has expressed its willingness to help in this war on ISIS. They will specify what role they can help in after they study that. What is it that you’re asking the Turks specifically at this point?
MS. PSAKI: Well, with —
QUESTION: Because the U.S. is the one who’s assigning —
MS. PSAKI: No, I think you have it a little – not quite right. It’s not a – it’s not the United States assigning responsibilities. It’s the United States having conversations with our Arab partners, with countries in the region about what their capabilities are, what role they’re willing to play, and then making a determination about how that fits into the coalition efforts. So that’s exactly what we’re doing with Turkey right now.
QUESTION: And what is it that you think Turkey is most capable of providing?
MS. PSAKI: I think, as I outlined, Turkey’s well positioned to contribute in all of the five lines of effort. So we’re having a discussion with them about what their specific contributions can be.
QUESTION: And also on Kobani, please. It is – it sits on a very close point to the Turkish border. And not only there is a fear that Kobani will completely fall in the hands of ISIS but also other neighboring cities or villages on the Turkish border. Aren’t you concerned that this whole area could be the new safe haven for ISIS? They will rebuild there and then launch new strikes against Turkey or inside Syria or Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: I think you’re a bit ahead of where we are, where anything is on the ground. Obviously, we’ve had – we’ve undergone dozens of – I think almost 400, if not more than 400 –strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, including many in the eastern portion of Syria. And certainly, taking on ISIL and going after safe havens wherever we have a concern they may build is part of our stated objective. And that’s why we’re focused on command and control centers, oil refineries, places where we can really go at where their strength has built.
Go ahead, Margaret.
QUESTION: Jen, you said General Allen’s conversations are going to be partly about how Turkey can contribute to degrading ISIL. The Turks have been very clear that they want to take the fight to Assad. Is that part of this conversation as well? Is that on or off the table at this point?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Turkey has made a range of public comments, including their interest in being – playing a more prominent role in the coalition, including taking military action as it relates to ISIL. So what we want to have a conversation with them about in person is what specifically they’re willing to do. Our objectives and the focus of the coalition haven’t changed. It’s focused on ISIL, and that’s the discussion we’re having with countries in the region, including Turkey.
QUESTION: So in other words, you view these as sort of separate portfolios, separate missions?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what you mean by that. Or can you explain it a little further?
QUESTION: Sure. Well, from these public comments by Turkish leaders, they make clear that they see the issues as directly linked, that you have to —
MS. PSAKI: They’ve made a range of different comments, though. Some say that. Some say other things. So we want to have a conversation with them about what specifically their intentions are.
QUESTION: Is part of that conversation taking the fight to Assad, to the regime?
MS. PSAKI: That is not the focus of our international coalition and not the focus of our efforts by the United States.
QUESTION: And that won’t be part of this conversation? I mean, it’s just not on the U.S. (inaudible) at this point?
MS. PSAKI: Certainly, Turkey and any country may bring up whatever they choose to. And certainly, we all are taking part in an effort to boost the capabilities of the Syrian opposition, and including through our train and equip program, including through a range of assistance we and many countries in the region are providing. And I – certainly, they could expect that. And as I noted, they could – we could discuss that, I should say. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk also met with the Syrian opposition. So that would certainly be a natural point of discussion.
QUESTION: And so Turkey would be part of this train and equip conversation?
MS. PSAKI: I didn’t state that. I think we’ll let Turkey announce what role they will or won’t play and make that decision. But I’m talking about what efforts the United States is committed to and the fact that there are a range of steps that we’re taking, there are a range of steps our international partners are taking, as it relates to boosting the opposition. So we’ll talk about that with them, too.
I have a limited amount of time, so let’s just do a couple more on this. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Turkey. Today, foreign minister – Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu said that it is not realistic to expect from Turkey to do ground operation by itself. So you – I believe you clearly expect or coalition expects Turkey to do ground operation. So how you are going to convince Turkey to ground operation if they —
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s actually not at all what I said. We don’t expect any one country to resolve the crisis in Kobani or to take on this overarching threat. That’s why we’re working together. Certainly, Turkey has a role to play, as I noted, given their proximity, given their stake in the outcome of the threat of ISIL. But we want to discuss with them what their intentions are, what their capabilities are, and what they’re willing to do.
QUESTION: But the ground force – Turkish ground forces will be part of this discussion in Ankara, right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are past statements that Turkey has made about their openness to that. So we want to discuss with them what they’re willing to do.
QUESTION: Jen, I’m very confused about something you said before. You said this is not about the United States assigning responsibilities to various countries. But the President and Secretary Kerry and the Pentagon have said that they have assembled this coalition and say that they’re leading it. Isn’t that what the leader of the coalition does, to assign responsibilities or to —
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, the leader coordinates, the leader has discussions, the leader —
QUESTION: Exactly. But don’t you have to make it clear what you want from these countries?
MS. PSAKI: Well, first we have to make clear what they’re willing to do. We’ve outlined what the focuses are. We’ve outlined the five lines of focus. We want to talk to countries about what they’re willing to do. It’s a discussion.
QUESTION: Right. But I mean – but, right. But I mean, the very nature of leadership and leading the coalition would mean that you go and you tell a country, look, we would like this, this, and this; what can you give us? Not —
MS. PSAKI: It’s a discussion, Matt. It’s not an assignment. I think there’s a difference between the two.
QUESTION: It is a discussion, but you – the strategy – this is a U.S. strategy. This is President Obama’s strategy, and his generals know what the strategy needs in order to be —
MS. PSAKI: And generals are in touch with their military —
QUESTION: And they’re telling the countries —
MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. Our generals are in touch with their military counterparts. But it is about discussing with countries what they’re capable of, what they’re willing to do, and determining what role that can play in a coalition.
Let’s —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Turkey?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: ISIL in general.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I mean, General Allen, you mentioned that he was in Cairo. And I assume it was – there was a conversation with Egyptian officials. What were the fields or the fronts of the outlined five fields or fronts that they discussed regarding this anti-ISIL confrontation?
MS. PSAKI: Well, in all of the discussions we talk about are the five —
QUESTION: The five —
MS. PSAKI: — five lines of effort. Obviously, there have been increased mil-to-mil cooperation between Egypt and Iraq. And certainly, Egypt has an important role to play and important proximity to the challenges on the ground.
QUESTION: There is another question. I think it – you mentioned this – I mean, it’s a term that it’s a little bit hard to pronounce it. It’s delegitimizing ISIL extremist ideology. It’s good that I say it.
MS. PSAKI: It’s a mouthful, yes.
QUESTION: Yes. And you said that this was discussed with Egyptian officials. What is your understanding of this role?
MS. PSAKI: That means speaking out that ISIL is not Islam and that there are the actions of these individuals, the beheading of Americans, the violence against women and children – all of these are not representative of Islam. And the voices in the region are certainly far more powerful than the voices from the West, and we recognize that.
QUESTION: So this – I mean, you assume the Egyptian officials are going to say this, or —
MS. PSAKI: Many already have.
QUESTION: — or institutions, or who?
MS. PSAKI: Both.
QUESTION: Okay. There is another thing. Regarding this strategic objective, there is a lot of talk in this town about that although it’s, like, both sides – I mean, Iraq and Iran are targeted, ISIL is targeting both places, but it seems that it’s Iraq first, right? I am right or wrong?
MS. PSAKI: In what —
QUESTION: That Iraq first. I mean priority is to Iraq, not to Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Our priority is Iraq – the Iraqi Government is a partner with the United States. They’re certainly different circumstances. But we’re at the – we’re undergoing airstrikes and military action in both countries at the same time.
QUESTION: Hey, Jen.
MS. PSAKI: More on Turkey?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s finish Turkey. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Were you able to check that current population of Kobani?
MS. PSAKI: I did. It’s actually – it’s – in areas of active conflict, as many of you know, it’s extremely difficult to obtain accurate numbers on civilians. But that said, our partners have indicated the number of civilians in and around Kobani remain very low. Most of those needing protections have already entered Turkey over the last three weeks.
QUESTION: What do you mean, very low?
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: What do you mean, very low?
MS. PSAKI: I can’t put a number on it because there’s a range, and – but we’ve been in close touch with partners in the area who have given us —
QUESTION: Initial —
MS. PSAKI: I can’t – I’m not going to be able to give you a range.
QUESTION: Initial population was 200,000. And after the civil war, according to the expectations, one million people went to Kobani, according to the sources (inaudible). So your estimation will be – actually will be very useful.
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to be able to provide you a specific number. What I’m indicating to you is that most of those needing protection have already entered Turkey over the last three weeks and that the number still there is low.
QUESTION: And the second one —
QUESTION: Do you have a range? You said there’s a range.
MS. PSAKI: Internally, yes. But I’m not going to outline them publicly.
QUESTION: And why not?
MS. PSAKI: Because we don’t think that would be productive to do.
QUESTION: No, no. But why – is it that you are afraid that you will then be accused of essentially abandoning that range of people?
MS. PSAKI: No, Arshad. I think we want to be responsible about what information we provide as a U.S. Government. And we just don’t – because there’s been a range of numbers, we just don’t feel we have a number that we’re prepared to give at this point in time.
QUESTION: But you said it was – you felt that it wouldn’t be productive, not that it wouldn’t be accurate. So you have a range.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Do you believe it’s an accurate range?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe it’s inaccurate. But again, as a – the United States Government, we have a responsibility to provide information that we can – that is effective and that we feel we
can stand behind. And there’s a broad range – I’m not going to get into it. I think we’re done here.
QUESTION: Well, no, no, but just can I – I want to ask one more thing about this. Is your reluctance – it doesn’t sound like your reluctance is related to questions of accuracy or inaccuracy.
MS. PSAKI: No, it’s not.
QUESTION: So then what does it boil down to, your reluctance? What would be the harm in disclosing what you believe to be the range of civilians at risk?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve made a decision not to.
QUESTION: And if you say —
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: — can I just finish? If you say that the population is very low, the concern of the Turkish Government in terms of the Kobani, the influx of the refugee —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: — so if the population is very low, there is no such a concern.
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry. Can you say that one more time?
QUESTION: So the concern for the Turkish Government in terms of Kobani, influx of the refugees.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So the international community who is pressing Turkey to do something in Kobani, the people who are leaving there and the influx of the refugees – if the current population is very low and if the people already left Kobani, there is no such a concern.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Turkey has allowed huge numbers of refugees —
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: — you’re right, from Syria in need of urgent assistance to come across their borders. They’re – obviously, that was the case long before the events in Kobani. So they’ve long been letting refugees across the border. They certainly have the right and obligation to control their own border, but from this specific area, I think there are lower numbers of civilians still left there than most public reports are assuming.
QUESTION: Yeah. The second one – can I finish it? In the first 15 days, the U.S. airstrikes, the number of U.S. airstrikes in Kobani was 12. But over the last 72 hours, it’s 16.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So it seems that it’s much more effective, the airstrikes. Have you find any partner on the ground to conduct these airstrikes? The FSA – can you – should we assume that FSA is much more efficient on Kobani in terms of this airstrike operation? Who is doing this laser tactic?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of anything that’s changing in that regard. I think it’s just decisions made by our military.
QUESTION: Last question.
MS. PSAKI: Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: This no-fly zone issue. Impose a no-fly zone in Syria would target Assad’s regime? What is your approach of the U.S. Government on the legal consequences of no-fly zone? Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s not something – as I talked about yesterday, while we’re certainly going to be talking to and hearing from our Turkish partners, and that is happening on the ground now, I’m not going to get ahead of where we are, because it’s not —
QUESTION: No, the legal consequences of no-fly zone.
MS. PSAKI: The —
QUESTION: So what will be the legal consequences? It will be targeted —
MS. PSAKI: We haven’t made a decision to do one, so I’m not going to get into legal consequences.
QUESTION: Just really briefly, are you expecting that we’ll have some kind of a readout from this briefing today —
MS. PSAKI: I would expect —
QUESTION: — or is it – is – they’re having meetings tomorrow as well, correct?
MS. PSAKI: They’re both —
QUESTION: If there is —
MS. PSAKI: I believe the plan is for another readout tonight.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: We can check and make sure you all know what to expect.
QUESTION: But if there is to be a “deliverable,” would you expect it not until tomorrow, or would you expect it potentially today?
MS. PSAKI: Well, if there’s more of an update, I would expect at the conclusion of the meetings. But again, I’m not – I’d – I don’t want to make a prediction —
QUESTION: Well, that gets into who they’re going to meet with. I mean, do they have to go see – if their meeting with Davutoglu goes well and – are they going to then go see Erdogan?
MS. PSAKI: How about this? After the briefing, we’ll let you guys know —
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: — if there’s anything to expect tonight on a readout, just so you know what will be coming to your inboxes.
Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: Didn’t you say that he’s also meeting with his military counterparts, General Allen, in Turkey?
MS. PSAKI: I think whatever I outlined in the beginning is his list of meetings.
Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: What’s the latest on Iran’s role? Are they playing a constructive role against ISIL or negative? I mean, because I’m reading what – Turkey’s demands to play an important role to fight ISIL are very provocative to Iran’s interests in Syria.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a new update in terms of Iran’s role in what they are or aren’t playing as we’ve – doing. As we’ve said, there’s a role for almost every country to play. We’ve expressed our concern in the past about military engagement. That hasn’t changed. But I’d – I really don’t have a new update for you on what they are doing.
QUESTION: And what’s the last – the old update, was it good or bad?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update since the last time we discussed this. I’ll say it like that.
QUESTION: So there is —
QUESTION: Since the last time you’ve given an update. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Nicolas.
QUESTION: — no stand on Iran.
QUESTION: Yes. One more on Turkey, please.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Apparently, the head of the national Turkey agency, the spy chief of Turkey is in Washington. Does he have meetings at the State Department? And more broadly, you said yesterday Turkey can do more, you said again today more steps, urgent steps are needed. So is there a sign of frustration, anger from the U.S. with your Turkish ally?
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t describe it that way at all. We’re in discussions with Turkey. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are there today. We believe they’re positioned to contribute in all five area – lines of effort, and we’ll see where we are at the end of the next couple of days.
And your first question, I’d have to check on that. I wasn’t aware of their visit. We can see if there’s any meetings scheduled here at the State Department.
Do we have any more on Turkey?
QUESTION: Yes, one more.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: So for last few days, you have been talking about how – needs to be done by Turkey, a lot more. And there are a series of editorials by the Western newspapers also slam Turkish Government. But when we come to this briefing and we ask what exactly you want from Turkey, you really don’t tell us what exactly you need is.
MS. PSAKI: To be absolutely clear, we want them to contribute in all five lines of effort. We want them to play more of a military role. We want them to do more as it relates to stopping terrorist financing. We want to do more on countering foreign fighters. There are a range of ways they can contribute, but we’re not going to have that discussion publicly because we’re having that discussion privately. And when there’s an update about decisions that have been made, we’ll make that information available.
Go ahead in the back.
QUESTION: One more on ISIL?
QUESTION: I know you can’t get into specifics in terms of what’s happening in the talks in terms of Turkish commitment. But considering the urgency of the situation in Kobani, can you say in general whether or not General Allen is going to press upon Turkey the urgency of the situation and a need to make some sort of commitment in whatever form, whatever avenue it’s going to be?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, the situation in Kobani and the urgency of that, as I mentioned at the top, will be a part of the discussion. But we want to see what their capabilities are, what their intentions are, and I think that’s going to be the tone and tenor of the discussion.
QUESTION: One more on ISIL?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish – do we have any more on Turkey?
QUESTION: ISIL.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey.
QUESTION: The NATO secretary general is also there today, and they have said that – NATO has said that they would act if they were to come across the Turkish border. Is there any further discussion about NATO ground troops being involved?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any update beyond what they have stated – what the NATO secretary general has stated. I know they spoke to this a couple of days ago as well.
Turkey or a new topic? Turkey?
QUESTION: Related to Turkey.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: So in these meetings and these conversations that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are having, what’s your understanding or what are they coming back with? Are they coming back with a set of commitments from the countries they’ve been to, or is this just the start of a conversation and they have to go back and do more?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this is their first trip to the region since they were announced in these roles. And certainly, we expect that even if there are some commitments, this will be just the beginning of their travel and their plans to visit these countries, have discussions with these leaders about what more can be done. And this is a longer-term effort.
QUESTION: So but then next week, there’s an – Martin – General Dempsey from the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is assembling a meeting of all 25-plus military chiefs from different countries. And so do you expect any decisions as a result of these conversations that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are having, or is it still in the very early stages? Because I mean, going back to the previous point you made, it’s an urgent – rapid steps are needed. So if it’s a long, drawn-out process —
MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been many decisions that have already been made and acted on, right. There are many countries that have taken airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. There are many countries that have taken steps to do more to crack down on terrorist financing. This will be an ongoing effort. So obviously, as there are new announcements or new commitments by countries, I expect – we expect they will continue to make them.
But the coordination that is happening with General Dempsey in the Pentagon is, of course, military implementation and military action, as you all know. That’s certainly – the military component is part of what General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are focused on, though they are not making the active decisions about it, but they are also focused on the broader coalition effort. So it’s more of a rolling, ongoing effort and process. And as there are new decisions made and new commitments made, we expect those will be announced by individual countries.
QUESTION: So there’s no sort of an urgent need or a brief to them – to these two gentlemen saying they have to come back with a set of commitments and promises from countries?
MS. PSAKI: Of course, there’s an urgency to every aspect of this, but the point I was trying to get at is that there – almost every day there’s a new country that announces that they are contributing – contributing – excuse me – militarily, that they are doing more on counterfinancing. This is an ongoing effort that is stemming from the conversations and meetings that General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are having, that Secretary Kerry is having, that a range of officials in the Administration are having.
QUESTION: Just on the – following about this General Dempsey’s invitation to the coalition partners, he invited, for example, Turkish chairman joint of staff, but the Turkish chairman joint of staff said that he cannot attend the meeting because of busy schedule, et cetera. So do you think Turkey is still remaining reluctant to do more in terms of the military contribution?
MS. PSAKI: Well, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are spending two days there meeting with them and discussing with them their role. So they’re welcoming them in. They’ve – they’re having the meetings, they’re hosting them for the meetings, so I think that tells you what you need to know.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. PSAKI: More on Turkey?
QUESTION: Turkey, yes.
MS. PSAKI: No – on Turkey. Okay, move on.
QUESTION: Turkey, yes.
MS. PSAKI: Turkey. Okay, one more on Turkey. Go ahead.
QUESTION: While mentioning the buffer zone proposal by Turkey, Secretary Kerry yesterday said that – and of course, he referred to the challenges of implementing this buffer zone and no-fly zone in Turkish border. He said you would have guaranteed safety, guaranteed that there would not be attacks by the government, referring to Assad regime. So he raised the concern about Assad regime rather than ISIL, but can we say that the drawback for the U.S. in implementing or considering the buffer zone for Syrian refugees is because it is targeting or the main target of the – this proposal is Assad regime or protection against Assad regime so that the United States is reluctant to get —
MS. PSAKI: Are you asking – just to make sure I understand what you’re asking, are you asking what the main focus of a buffer zone proposal would be, or are you asking something different?
QUESTION: No, the drawback of U.S. against this proposal is because several U.S. officials said that they are not – it’s not on table. So is it because that Assad regime is targeted by the proposal instead of Assad —
MS. PSAKI: I think my —
QUESTION: Instead of ISIL. Sorry.
MS. PSAKI: My counterparts at the Department of Defense and many people who are much higher than my counterparts have spoken to the implementation challenges of any no-fly or buffer zone, so I would point you to those. They’ve made many comments on them.
Let’s move on to – I think we have to move on because we have a limited amount of time. Do you have one more? Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah. The challenges of the implementation, that’s why I ask the population, actually.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Beyond the implementation difficulties, challenges, if there is no – any significant population left in Kobani, is it still needed, this kind of buffer zone?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to Turkey – and I know you have contacts there – to ask them the question of what – this is their proposal. It is not a United States proposal. So I know there are a range of reasons why they have put it out there.
QUESTION: India.
MS. PSAKI: Let’s move on to a new topic. Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: China and India.
MS. PSAKI: India and China?
QUESTION: Yes.
QUESTION: Can we ask one more —
QUESTION: Gaza.
QUESTION: — on ISIS in general?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead. And then we’ll move, Lalit. Is that okay? Go ahead, Ali.
QUESTION: I’m sure you’ve seen the tweets by Paula Kassig, who’s the mother of Abdul-Rahman Kassig who’s captured by ISIS. She has started a Twitter feed and has made a direct appeal to al-Baghdadi about finding some way of communication or help. And in it she mentions that – she says, “My husband and I are on our own with no help from the U.S. Government.” I’m wondering if, as a representative of the U.S. Government, you have a response to that, and is that a correct assessment of the situation?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say, of course, that we can’t imagine the pain that the Kassig family has been going through over the last year. While we’re not, of course, going to discuss the details of our discussions with the families, we have reached out to the Kassig family. It remains true that we are using all of our military, intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic capabilities to bring Peter home. Those efforts continue every day, and we certainly have been in touch from this building but certainly other buildings as well.
QUESTION: I know you’re not going to get into specifics, but is it correct to say that the Kassigs are aware of what is going on within the government on behalf of their family and their son?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me – I don’t know if this helps you, but let me outline sort of what each – and I think somebody asked this yesterday – what the efforts are from different agencies. So the FBI has the lead on investigations and liaison with the families while the White House coordinates interagency efforts to ensure that all U.S. tools are being brought to bear to try to bring hostages home to their families, including the military-intelligence community, law enforcement, diplomacy, counterfinance, et cetera, all of our efforts. The mechanism for that coordination is the Hostage and Personnel Recovery Working Group, which has existed for many years and has brought interagency participation.
From here, from the State Department, we are engaged predominantly in the diplomacy efforts. And Secretary Kerry himself has personally made dozens of phone calls to dozens of countries about the hostages and seeking information or seeking help from any country that can play a role. This has been a personal priority for him. He’s put it on the agenda at a range of international meetings. He had a personal connection to the Foley family and actually helped assist when James Foley was held previously.
But this is an issue that every agency in the government plays a role on, and there are a range of officials from different agencies that are in touch with the families, depending on what their responsibilities are from the different agencies.
But go ahead.
QUESTION: Two quick follow-ups. Has – I know that he had a longstanding relationship with the Foley – members of the Foley family, but has there been any communication with members of the Kassig family from the Secretary to any of them?
MS. PSAKI: The Secretary has, but he’s also asked his chief of staff to help run point and be available to the families, and he’s met with a number of these families. The Secretary also has – saw many of the families over at the White House when they had that meeting – I think it was several weeks ago. And he has expressed to them, whenever given the opportunity, that – and through his chief of staff as well that there are certainly no words to express what they’ve been going through, and as a father himself he can’t imagine what they’ve been going through.
QUESTION: And you mentioned that the FBI has the lead on the investigation. Would you be in any position to say to what extent they’ve been coordinating with the family or whether they’ve been keeping them apprised of what the government is doing?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the FBI, but I think it’s safe to assume that in any of these cases the FBI is in touch with the families.
I can just do a couple more here, so let’s move on.
QUESTION: And that guidance was prepared in response to potential questions about a particular news report? Do you —
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think she was asking me about a specific tweet from the family.
QUESTION: Right. But there was a story that was very critical that appeared in the last two days about the Administration’s overall effort as it relates to hostages, American hostages.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think there’s a lot of misinformation out there, so we venture to —
QUESTION: So you would —
MS. PSAKI: — venture to provide the accurate information.
QUESTION: Right. So you would dispute the – what the criticism in the article that said it’s discombobulated, that people aren’t working, coordinating together?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I just outlined what role every agency plays.
QUESTION: Right. But you – so you don’t – that criticism you think is not valid?
MS. PSAKI: I think the facts speak for themselves.
Okay. Let’s just do a couple more here. Let’s go to India, because we haven’t. Go ahead, Lalit.
QUESTION: China is expressing —
MS. PSAKI: Oh, sorry. China, China.
QUESTION: China is expressing resentment and displeasure of India and U.S. in the joint statement mentioning South China Sea. And China is saying that there’s no role for third country to play any role in resolving the dispute of South China Sea. What do you have to say on this?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our position hasn’t changed on this issue. You’re familiar with it. But we certainly work with countries in the region to address maritime issues. And certainly, India is an important partner, and it’s only natural that this was a topic of discussion but also of topic of output from our meetings when the prime minister was here just a few weeks ago.
QUESTION: So you stand by the joint statement?
MS. PSAKI: Certainly would. Yes. Absolutely.
QUESTION: Follow – India?
QUESTION: A follow-up?
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: On the revision of the U.S.-Japan mutual defense guidelines, Chinese media actually showing concerns over that and say that the U.S. may not be able to control Japan’s military development in the future effectively; it’s the act of inviting trouble. So I just want to make sure, how can the U.S. make sure that Japan’s military buildup won’t be out of control and cause miscalculation in the region?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, that the reason – and we outlined this – and the Secretary was in Tokyo last October, so a year ago – and that’s where we talked about reviewing these defense guidelines. And the fact is that was done because the world has changed quite a bit since 1997, when the guidelines were last written, and there are longstanding threats, such as North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, such as cyber security, space security, freedom of navigation that present new challenges. So certainly, updating the guidelines provides a framework for addressing those challenges. And we think that also provides security and it’s being done in a transparent manner, so it promotes regional peace and stability as well by doing that. So we not only – of course, we’re working with them, so we certainly support these efforts, but we think this is a win-win for the region.
QUESTION: And will the U.S. try to alleviate the Japan’s neighbors’ concern?
MS. PSAKI: I think by explaining what exactly this is and what it isn’t hopefully will help alleviate that.
So let’s just do two more here. Elliot, go ahead.
QUESTION: On North Korea, yesterday you were asked a little bit about – you talked a little bit about North Korean human rights violations.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There are reports that the UN is considering a resolution to refer Kim Jong-un to the ICC. I was wondering if you have any stance on that, if you can confirm it. Would the U.S. support that move?
MS. PSAKI: I would have to check with my UN – USUN counterparts, I should say. I hadn’t seen that before I came down there, so why don’t we do that.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks. Sorry, one more on South Korea.
MS. PSAKI: Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday you were asked about the Japanese Sankei reporter who’s being prosecuted there.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I was wondering to what extent that has been a subject of conversation between U.S. officials and their Korean counterparts, whether it’s been raised. I know you stated your concern yesterday, but on that front —
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve certainly been in touch, Elliot. I don’t have any more readout in terms of the extent of that, but certainly in touch on the ground.
QUESTION: Can you say at what level that —
MS. PSAKI: Not from Washington.
QUESTION: — conversation is taking place? Not from Washington.
MS. PSAKI: No.
QUESTION: Go to India?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s do – sorry, let’s do two here. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I have a question about the Ebola policy.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yesterday Secretary Kerry said that the U.S. would like to see airlines continue to fly in and out of the three countries in Africa that have been stricken by the virus and want borders to remain open. At the same time, Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC, said that about 150 people per day are entering the United States from those countries and that the policy going forward is to check them when they arrive to see if they’re asymptomatic and to question them to see whether they’ll admit that they had contact with someone with Ebola. If they’re asymptomatic and they didn’t – they don’t say they had contact, then they’ll be allowed into the country. And of course, Mr. Duncan did not admit to having contact with a person with Ebola and he was asymptomatic when he arrived.
Dr. Frieden’s explanation of that policy seemed to be a sort of cost-benefit analysis, that the American people were getting a greater benefit both in financial terms and also in terms of our ability to fight the virus —
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry. Do you have a question? I just have to go in a second.
QUESTION: Yeah. Fight the virus at its source than the price that we might pay by letting people into this country without going through an incubation period from those countries where people are suffering from Ebola.
So my question for the State Department is: When measured in terms of American lives that might be affected by this, American lives lost or permanently altered by Ebola, is there a point at which that cost-benefit analysis tips and it would be seen as a mistake to have let people to travel here without a quarantine period? Is it one American contracting Ebola? Is it five? Is it ten? At what point would the policy have to be reexamined and seen as imprudent?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one, I think what you’re referring to in part is some of the new announcements that were made by the White House or are in the process of being made about measures that are being put into place to screen over 94 percent of passengers arriving from Ebola-affected Western African countries. We continue to take steps and evaluate what steps that can be taken to, of course, not only protect American citizens but continue to treat – do everything we can to address this outbreak.
And I would also note that Dr. Frieden has also made comments that by isolating these countries, it would make it harder to help them. It will spread more there, and we’d be likely to be exposed more here. So there are reasons for finding ways to address this and address it in ways that are – don’t intervene as – with passengers, while still allowing these countries to travel.
QUESTION: But —
MS. PSAKI: I’m sorry, we have to continue.
QUESTION: But wait, if the policy —
MS. PSAKI: We have to move on because —
QUESTION: — if the policy is to allow people who have been in Ebola-stricken regions to enter the United States without a quarantine period, is there an acceptable number of Americans that could be exposed to the Ebola virus for that reason? Is there an acceptable number?
MS. PSAKI: I think the CDC has addressed this, as have I. I’m going to move on because I just have another moment.
QUESTION: I just have – this is very brief.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you know – are the embassies in the three countries that are most affected still processing all visa applications?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, they are.
QUESTION: So non-immigrant as well as —
MS. PSAKI: They go through the process that they’ve typically gone through with all of the screening that is naturally part of this.
QUESTION: Okay. But there hasn’t been any – other than a question to be asked, hopefully responded to truthfully, there isn’t any other – there has been no additional procedures put in place.
MS. PSAKI: Has been no – not in that process.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on the Gaza —
MS. PSAKI: Let’s just —
QUESTION: — on the national – the Palestinian national unity meeting in Gaza today?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Did you have a question? Or do you want me to just —
QUESTION: Do you have anything on it – the fact that it was held there? And also the donors conference, is there a number – what is it that you’re hoping to be achieved – the Gaza donors conference?
MS. PSAKI: Well, on the first question, as we’ve said all along, the only way to have a long-term sustainable solution for Gaza is for the Palestinian Authority to assume full authority in Gaza. So we support this interim technocratic government in its efforts, and we view this meeting as a positive step in that direction.
As it relates to the conference – and I spoke to this a little bit the other day, but I’m happy to certainly reiterate that – certainly, we know that the people of Gaza have felt – are in great need of many, many things: housing, they’re in need of water, they’re in need of very basic necessities. And this conference, which will be hosted, as you know, by the Egyptians and the Norwegians, is an opportunity for countries to contribute and talk about ways to help rebuild Gaza. And certainly, the United States is very committed to that effort as well.
QUESTION: Rebuilding before having a permanent – a cessation of war? The war is not – there is no cessation of war there.
MS. PSAKI: There is a ceasefire right now, as you know. But obviously —
QUESTION: Not permanent.
MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. The conference is very important because it’s setting those – it’s in addition to a top-down agreement about where – about how the countries will – or how the entities – the parties will agree, I should say. There also needs to be a bottom-up agreement, in our view, about how we can help rebuild. And there’s no question that having a ceasefire agreement that addresses these core issues is essential over the long term. And countries around the world – this is just one conference – are going to look at what progress is being made in that regard as they make decisions moving forward.
So I think everybody should look at it through that – those eyes, and we’re certainly telling countries that.
I’m sorry. I have to go because I have to the PAO conference. Thank you, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:29 p.m.)
Source: state.gov
