Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–September 8, 2014.
TRANSCRIPT:
1:42 p.m. EDT
MS. PSAKI: Hi everyone. Happy Monday. I have one item for all of you at the top. On September 9th, which is of course tomorrow, Secretary Kerry will depart for travel to Amman, Jordan and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In Amman and Jeddah, Secretary Kerry will hold bilateral meetings with counterparts, discuss regional issues and the current situation in Iraq. While traveling in the region, Secretary Kerry will also consult with key partners and allies on how to further support the security and stability of the Iraqi Government, combat the threat posed by ISIL, and confront Middle East security challenges.
With that, Matt, why don’t we go to what’s on your mind.
QUESTION: Well, let’s start with that, actually.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: So is this a coalition-building trip?
MS. PSAKI: Absolutely. That is the focus of the trip. So as he did last week at NATO with Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry during his travel will discuss with regional leaders how they can engage on measures that they can take to assist the coalition that is developing to degrade and defeat ISIL. There are obviously a range of capabilities or capacities that different countries have. The focus will be on multiple lines of effort, including military support to our Iraqi partners, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, countering ISIL’s financing and funding, addressing humanitarian crises, and delegitimizing ISIL’s ideology.
One more thing, and then I’ll get to your follow-up question. I think it’s also important for people to note – because I know there’s a tendency to do a tally of numbers – there are more than 40 countries that have contributed to the effort in Iraq, whether that’s humanitarian assistance, whether that’s arms to the Kurds, a range of steps that countries have taken. This is building on that effort. And so it will be a discussion with the countries he will be visiting. Obviously, that was a discussion last week, and this will be an ongoing effort.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, will he be meeting with officials from countries, from governments other than Jordan and Saudi?
MS. PSAKI: We are still finalizing specifics of the trip. It is possible there could be additional stops. It is also possible he will see other leaders in some of these countries as well.
QUESTION: Right. In Amman and Jeddah, it’s possible he could meet with people from others in the Gulf.
MS. PSAKI: Correct. That is right.
QUESTION: Is that expected, or is it just possible?
MS. PSAKI: That is something we are actively pursuing. I expect we’ll have more to update you on as the hours and days continue.
QUESTION: All right. Do you have any – I presume it’s a positive response to what the Arab League – the Arab League announcement this morning.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we were certainly encouraged by statements coming out of the Arab League meeting this weekend. And the Secretary also spoke with Arab League Secretary General Elaraby on Saturday in advance of the meeting and emphasized the need for the Arab League and its members to take a strong position in the coalition. So obviously, we’ll continue the discussion with them now on what specific capabilities and capacities they’ll have from here.
QUESTION: Well, is this – when they spoke on Saturday, is this the kind of outcome that you – that the Administration was hoping for from the Arab League meeting?
MS. PSAKI: Certainly. And of course, as I mentioned, this will be an ongoing process. So —
QUESTION: Because what they announced – sorry. But what they announced was very unspecific in terms of what they’re actually going to do. Are you hoping that – or is it the Secretary’s intent to try to get some specificity when he – on his trip from the various members of the Arab League as to what precisely they plan or intend to do?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there have been discussions about that also going on behind the scenes as well. And again, there are a range of contributions that a number of countries have already made in Iraq, including members of the Arab League.
QUESTION: Okay. Would you —
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Would you consider the Arab League or the members of the Arab League, the 22 members, to be members of the coalition?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think they’ve indicated —
QUESTION: Based on this thing?
MS. PSAKI: I think they’ve indicated support for the efforts. They’ve indicated an openness to engaging with it. So I’ll let them define that, but certainly we’re all working towards the same goal here.
QUESTION: All right. And when you mentioned the 40 countries – and I’ll stop after this – you mentioned more than 40 countries that have already contributed to —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — you said Iraq. I’m just – you mean recently? Because —
MS. PSAKI: Yes. The efforts to combat ISIL in Iraq, yes.
QUESTION: Post-Iraq War Iraq?
MS. PSAKI: Yes. I mean over the last several weeks, yes.
QUESTION: No – okay. So not going back to, say, 2003, when there were 48 —
MS. PSAKI: No, I was not doing a history of anybody’s contribution.
QUESTION: There were 48. Okay, so more than 40 countries. Do you have an exact number?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are countries that have been public about their efforts. I think there are almost two dozen or about two dozen of those.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: And there are some countries that have decided not to be public.
QUESTION: Well, would you include Iran as one of those 40 countries?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe we’ve included them in the calculation officially, Matt. But the point I was making is that there are a range of —
QUESTION: So it’s more than 40 plus one? And what about Syria?
MS. PSAKI: I think, Matt, you’re familiar with our view in terms of what a productive contribution is to this effort.
QUESTION: I understand. But among – you’re saying – it sounds like you’re trying to blunt criticism of the core coalition size by saying hey, there’s more than 40 countries. And I’m just wondering if among those 40 countries you include Iran or if you would prefer to say more than 40 countries plus Iran have —
MS. PSAKI: I will let you decide how you’re going to report it. But by 40 —
QUESTION: But what is the Administration —
MS. PSAKI: — countries we’re not talking about Iran, no. We’re not talking about them specifically.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: But are you talking about within those 40 countries, as Matt mentioned, are you talking about the 22 Arab League members? So is it 18 plus Arab League members?
MS. PSAKI: That number is numbers that have – is countries that have already contributed to the effort to combat ISIL in Iraq. So some – there are some Arab League countries, yes. Some are public, some are not.
The point I was actually making is that our effort here that we’re pursuing this coalition building is building on the effort that we’ve already been undergoing in Iraq. And so I think sometimes some of this information may not be readily available, and I wanted to just note it for all of you.
QUESTION: But are you in a position where those ones – you don’t want to speak for those who aren’t public, but you said there were about two dozen who were already public. Can you give us a list of all of those?
MS. PSAKI: I’m sure we can look and see if that can be compiled, sure. And I think there actually has been information that the White House provided to a number of your colleagues last week.
QUESTION: Is there anything that (inaudible) an idea of where this is going? Do you yet have a clear idea of what this coalition could look like?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, obviously, as the President has noted many times and as the Secretary has as well, this is not an effort that will be resolved overnight. This is – will be an ongoing effort. They’ll be building support for the coalition. So certainly, we expect to make progress on that in the coming weeks leading up to UNGA, but we don’t expect the coalition building to be done at that point. It will continue.
So in terms of what it will look like, do you mean what they will do, or do you mean – or can you add a little bit more?
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. I mean, just what they’re each going to do. Is it becoming clearer on where that – what that looks like right now? And also, we know that the President – we have a story on the wires since yesterday the President is going to Congress to detail some specifics, but he obviously can’t give all those specifics, right? And what is Secretary Kerry’s role in that – in giving those details?
MS. PSAKI: To Congress or in general?
QUESTION: In general.
MS. PSAKI: Well, the Secretary obviously isn’t – not only a member of the national security team, he’s the country’s chief diplomat. So his role is certainly to engage with countries around the world about becoming – about participating or – in this coalition. And by coalition – what we – what the goal of the coalition is is to coordinate on an effort to address the threat that ISIL poses, not to – just to the region but to the global community. There are a range of different capacities or capabilities countries could contribute. It will be up to the individual countries to determine, also up the capacities of some countries. Some countries may not have the ability to counter the financing and funding, others may. Some countries may not have the ability to offer military support, others do.
So it’s different capacities with different countries. I think part of the conversation the Secretary will be having over the coming days will be about that capacity. And specifically when he is in the Middle East, not just the role of what they can – these individual countries can do as it relates to material contributions but also the voice and the importance of the voice and the role they play in communicating about the threat of ISIL and the reason to combat it.
QUESTION: Jen, on Jordan there was —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: There were a lot of rumors in the last three days that Jordan actually will send in its special forces troops, at least one battalion numbering about a thousand that will be between Raqa and the Iraqi border. Could you talk about that a little bit, that they will use – if they will be given support by American Apache helicopters, Blackhawks, and perhaps even be transported by the Chinooks? Could you —
MS. PSAKI: I’ve certainly seen, Said, the same report you have. With any country we’re not going to from the United States announce or outline or confirm what their capabilities or interest in participating will be. So I’d point you to the Government of Jordan.
QUESTION: But something like this would be welcome, as Jordan has participated in the past. I think they were helpful in tracking Zarqawi, for instance, in 2006 and so on. They know the tribes in the area. They have probably blood relations with them and so on. They would do a great job, wouldn’t they?
MS. PSAKI: Said, I’m not going to speak to the capabilities or the participation of any country as it relates to intelligence gathering, and certainly in this case, I’d point you to the Government of Jordan.
QUESTION: Okay. Now let me just – if you’ll allow me to stay a little bit on Jordan —
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — because the Prime Minister Abdullah Nsour came out and he says, “We are not going to be part of any coalition.” I mean, he’s distancing himself because apparently there were allegations that Jordan has been receiving oil sent to it by ISIS. Can you comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: What – I’m not sure what your specific question is.
QUESTION: Well, there were – I mean, the prime minister is saying, “We are not going to be a part of any coalition,” because apparently these reports came out, like, very starkly, and on the one hand, there were accusations that Jordan’s been receiving sort of illicit oil.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, Jordan is one of the countries, as I announced, the Secretary will be visiting. I’m certain there will be a conversation about this moving forward and how we can best cooperate.
QUESTION: Okay. My last question on this related to the Saudi-Iranian factor. Now we know that – or there are reports that Iran is quite active in fighting ISIS in – or ISIL in Iraq, and we know that there’s going to be a coalition that includes the Saudis and so on, and might possibly include the Iranians. But it seems that the GCC countries are adamant about the U.S. maintaining its position on the lack of legitimacy of the Assad regime. Do you see it that way?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one, let me state very clearly that we have long made clear, and this certainly continues to be the case, that Assad has lost legitimacy in Syria and therefore should go. We don’t believe Syria can be stable under his leadership, and his policies and preference to prosecute a war against his own people have created the situation in which ISIL and other extremist groups thrive. So our position has not changed on that.
I will remind you that long before the events of the last several weeks – or longer than that at this point – the President requested from Congress their support and approval for a train-and-assist program that we certainly are hopeful they will approve. We recognize that the moderate opposition has publicly and privately made clear that it regards ISIL as an existential threat, wants to fight against ISIL as an urgent priority and seeks our help. And we’re therefore going to work with our regional partners to provide it, and that will certainly be part of the conversation in the coming days as well.
QUESTION: So the fact that the Syrian regime or Syrian army has been fighting ISIL for a couple years now does not boost their credentials in your eyes, in any way?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, the enemy of your friend is – or the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. We continue to believe that Assad is not – has lost his legitimacy. We have been clear also, though, that the first priority of the United States, of the commander-in-chief, is the safety and security of the American people. And ISIL’s rise in Syria and Iraq poses a threat to Americans, to the security and stability of those countries in the region, and potentially to Europe and the United States. And so in order to degrade their capacity, we will need to take action to combat that. That doesn’t change the fact that we would like to see Assad go.
QUESTION: What about the friend of your enemy?
MS. PSAKI: Did I screw up that phrase?
QUESTION: No. (Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: No. But I’m just wondering whether it was the friend of your enemy. Is that your enemy too?
QUESTION: Like the Iranians?
MS. PSAKI: Let’s see, this is – the friend of your enemy is probably your enemy. Not always, Matt.
QUESTION: So everyone is an enemy, pretty much, right?
MS. PSAKI: This is a tongue-twister, not – a tongue-twister, what —
QUESTION: So can I ask you, you mentioned that there’s some countries – different countries will bring very different capabilities —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: — into this. You mentioned that some countries might not have the capacity to do anything militarily and some might not have the capacity to fight – funding – cut down on the funding.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Can you – I mean, countries around the world have – particularly in the Gulf where a lot of this funding is coming from, have pretty sophisticated financial institutions and financial laws.
MS. PSAKI: Well, but Matt, the point I was – you’re right, they do. But there are also many countries that are smaller that may want to contribute, that have concerns about the threat, that may not have the same capabilities, or may not be best equipped to do that.
QUESTION: All right. But I want to stick – forget about the military side.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I want to talk about the funding part of it.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: It seems to me that that would be – that that’s a pretty easy ask for any – to make of any country that is actually serious and committed to being part of this coalition.
MS. PSAKI: Certainly.
QUESTION: So —
MS. PSAKI: I did not mean to overemphasize that piece. I was giving an example of how some countries have more sophisticated capabilities in a range of ways than others, and it varies from country to country.
QUESTION: But you would agree – or maybe you wouldn’t. Would you agree that every country that is in this coalition – whether they’re actively, publicly part of it or just a supporter on the sidelines – should be doing what it can to fight the financing and the funding of ISIL?
MS. PSAKI: Certainly, but that doesn’t change the fact – and I’m not meaning to overemphasize this – that different – there are different capacities, so – do we have more on this particular issue? Should we move on to a new topic?
Go ahead.
QUESTION: You mentioned the importance of the voice of the Arab Muslim leaders speaking out against ISIL. What is it you want them to speak out about? And does that include the hijacking of Islam?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, obviously, there are – the actions of this extremist terrorist organization do not represent the religion of Islam. And certainly, we leave it to individual countries and leaders to determine what is most appropriate and what they’re most comfortable communicating, but what I mean is communicating even to their own people about the – not just the threat and why there needs to be an international coalition, but also the fact that this is not an organization that is – has good intentions. I know that seems fairly obvious to us, but there is a range of information – misinformation that is communicated throughout the world that needs to be combated, and we need help of leaders in the region to do that.
QUESTION: Do you believe that some of the countries actually behind – hide behind that facade that these people do not speak for Islam? And on the other hand, maybe underhandedly, they support these groups? I mean, these groups are not supported in a vacuum. They are not on a different planet.
MS. PSAKI: Well —
QUESTION: They are on a piece of geography where they have contacts with these governments and so on, and there is a record – a track record of certain governments supporting them.
MS. PSAKI: Well, first, Said, I think it’s very important to note that there’s no evidence we have that any government is funding ISIL. But I think communicating – there’s an effectiveness of communicating to the individuals in any country from their leaders about ISIL and the threat it poses and the steps that need to be taken to combat it.
Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: Can I ask – last week when the Secretary was in Great Britain, he made some comments at the beginning of the meeting that he chaired in which he said that you don’t know how long it will take to fight ISIL; it could take one year, two years, or three years. A three-year timeframe would actually put it into the purview of the next administration. Would that not be problematic? Would it not be – would you not be searching to try and get this over and done with fairly swiftly?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think there are a couple of phases that, obviously, we’re going through with this effort. Over the past six months, we’ve certainly shifted resources, intelligence, and reconnaissance and completed an assessment on the ground to be in a position to address it. Then since, over the past couple of weeks, we’ve taken step to make sure that Americans are protected – our personnel, our embassies, our consulates – including taking airstrikes in Erbil, in towns around Erbil, around the Mosul Dam, around Haditha Dam, over the course of this weekend. We’re now in kind of a phase here of going on the offense. A crucial step here is, of course, getting the Iraqi Government in place and formed. That’s something we’re hopeful will happen this week.
Certainly, I think any individual – and not just in the United States, but in the global community – would like to see ISIL degraded and destroyed as quickly as possible. But we also need to be clear that this could take some time because it needs to be done in a deliberative way, it needs to be done in a strategic way, and the United States is not going to go it alone. So we are building this coalition so that we can have a coordinated effort over the course of time. This isn’t a partisan issue. This isn’t an issue that stops with the conclusion of one government. This is one that we’ll continue to address as long as is needed. And I think that is the point the Secretary and the President and others have made.
QUESTION: Related to —
QUESTION: Next topic?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let’s finish this and then we’ll go to you, Elliot, first. Go ahead.
QUESTION: It’s actually related to Iraq —
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: — so it may be – it’s on the formation of the government of Iraq. Do you have any update on that? Because the last thing is 182 members of the COR attended out of 328, and it seems that supporters of the Badr Brigade, which is (inaudible) – the other – the largest coalition walked out because of a dispute over the interior ministry. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, that may have just happened before or as I was coming out here. So we were —
QUESTION: Right. Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: We’re obviously tracking it closely. Brett McGurk remains on the ground —
QUESTION: Yeah, okay. That’s fine.
MS. PSAKI: — and Ambassador Beecroft. We’re hopeful, of course, that the Iraqi leaders will finalize this process as soon as possible. We continue to engage with party leaders. The government formation process has continued to progress, but as you know, there are some remaining steps that need to be taken. We are encouraged – we have been encouraged, I should say – by events in the past several weeks that the parties were meeting and continue to meet to seek compromises needed to agree on a new cabinet. I haven’t seen that specific report. It may have come out as I was coming out here, but this is something, certainly, we’re continuing to press and work closely with the government on.
QUESTION: Is your feeling, or Mr. McGurk or the ambassador – is their feeling that the differences are sort of getting – that the gaps are getting less and less, or differences are getting less between the different parties?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I – certainly, I think that is the goal, is to resolve the differences so that the cabinet can – a new cabinet can be agreed to, and we feel that there has been progress made. But, of course, you need to take – the Iraqi leaders need to take those final steps.
QUESTION: Now would you agree to or would you accept Maliki having like a deputy prime minister? Is there someone who is —
MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of that being in discussion, Said —
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: — but it’s up to the Iraqis to determine their leadership.
Did you have another on this, Jo?
QUESTION: Yeah. I just want to go back to the destroying and degrading ISIL.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What is it making it so difficult to do that? You have been carrying out strikes now for a couple of weeks. What is your understanding of the membership, the numbers on the ground of ISIL? How many forces are we talking about and why are they being – why is it so difficult to actually get to the heart of degrading their capacity?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, ISIL has gained strength over the past several months, and they’ve had, of course, a safe haven in Syria even longer than that. And so we are not naive about the challenge, I think, Jo, and that’s reflected in the fact that we believe this is a multi-step process and one that requires a coordinated coalition that can address this over the course of time. If we can do it more quickly, we will, but we want to also be clear about what we think the challenge is and why it’s going to take some time and a range of capacities to address it.
QUESTION: And what is the U.S. assessment of the number of ISIL forces on the ground?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an assessment of that in front of me. I can check and see if that’s something we have for public distribution.
QUESTION: I’m just curious. You’re saying that the actions that the U.S. Government is taking now are aimed at destroying and degrading, or degrading and destroying ISIL?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly, Matt. I think we’ve done more than 100 – more than 120 strikes —
QUESTION: Yeah, but not to – but the authorization for that is to protect humanitarian – to protect minorities —
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: — and to protect U.S. —
MS. PSAKI: Yes, but the threat to —
QUESTION: — diplomats and facilities, not to —
MS. PSAKI: — minorities, the – okay, let me finish. The threat to minorities, the humanitarian situation in Iraq, the threat to American personnel is not happening in a vacuum. It’s because of ISIL. And certainly, we have taken airstrikes that have impacted and killed, of course, a range of fighters on the ground. Part of our effort is certainly to degrade ISIL.
QUESTION: But that’s not what the authorization is, though. The authorization is very specific, at least the current one. Now, I don’t know, maybe the President will outline something else right now, but I’m not sure how you can say that your – what you’ve done to date is intended to degrade and then ultimately destroy ISIL, when that’s not what it – I mean, that’s not what the authorization is. The authorization is very specific on protecting minorities. It doesn’t say I’m going to – we’re going to do these to degrade and destroy – ultimately destroy ISIL, right?
MS. PSAKI: Well, but the point, Matt, is that the situation in Iraq is a result of ISIL. That is – the cause of it is ISIL posing a threat to our American personnel, causing the humanitarian situation on the ground.
QUESTION: All right, I understand that. But the – I mean, some of the criticism directed the President and at the Administration has been that the vision or the strategy hasn’t been clear, or there wasn’t one at all. And if you say that your intent is to degrade and ultimately destroy this group, shouldn’t that be what is laid out in the authorization that —
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt —
QUESTION: — and instead of a very narrow —
MS. PSAKI: One, the President has the authority, as the Commander-in-Chief, with the invitation of the Iraqi Government to take action here. Yes, he’s outlined what the objectives are and why he took action.
QUESTION: I understand. But in the War Powers Act stuff that he sent to the Hill and then in these CENTCOM announcements about the airstrikes, it always talks about how they’re being done to protect either minorities or U.S. —
MS. PSAKI: Correct. But are you saying that you don’t think there’s been an impact on ISIL and their capabilities in Iraq?
QUESTION: No. I’m saying I don’t know that – I don’t know that they – that what you have done so far has – that you can say that it’s intended to degrade and ultimately —
MS. PSAKI: It is a result.
QUESTION: — destroy ISIL.
MS. PSAKI: It is a result.
QUESTION: So you intend to keep going under the current authorization until ISIL is degraded and then destroyed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, as you know, there are War Powers Acts —
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — issued every time there’s action taken. Of course, that will not change, the requirements that that is done within 60 days of any action taken. We abide by that, certainly.
QUESTION: Do you expect – and I realize this is probably a question better asked to the White House, but do you expect the President to come out tomorrow or Wednesday, whatever it is, and say very clearly that U.S. airstrikes, U.S. military action, along with the rest of the other things that are being done within the coalition framework, are going to degrade and destroy ISIL?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think when the President had – says, as he did yesterday on Meet the Press, that – let me finish – that he is going to lay out for the American people the path forward on ISIL. I think – and he’s outlined what the objectives are. I don’t have anything to preview for you here in terms of what he’ll say, but certainly discussing what we’re going to do from here to achieve our objectives is part of what he’ll do.
QUESTION: Okay. But the objective is definitely degrade and destroy, and not just the narrow protect the minorities and protect U.S. personnel and facilities?
MS. PSAKI: The objective is degrade and destroy, certainly, as it relates to taking on the threat of ISIL.
QUESTION: I think the President used also the word “defeat,” didn’t he? He said we will defeat them as we defeated al-Qaida, correct?
MS. PSAKI: He has spoken about this quite a bit, so —
QUESTION: It’s quite clear. Do you believe that perhaps the threat of ISIL is being too exaggerated where the President or the whole Administration is falling under maybe unfair pressure to sort of act or increase their act and so on?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure what you’re referring to, or why would you think that?
QUESTION: Okay, let me rephrase it. I mean, this is – do you feel that this talk – there’s so much talk, almost a frenzy to talk about ISIL and what’s going on. Do you think that it’s being exaggerated than what the picture on the ground is, maybe?
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me be clear. There are a range of individuals publicly speaking about the threat of ISIL. We have been clear, the President has been clear, the Secretary has been clear that while we don’t have information that they are planning a 9/11-style attack, we certainly have a responsibility to prepare for – ensuring that we’re taking every step to protect the American people. And this is not just a threat – certainly not just a threat to the United States. It’s a threat to the region. It’s a threat to countries in the region, to the global community. And I think the actions that they have taken in recent months have led us to that conclusion.
Should we go – go ahead Elliot.
QUESTION: Yeah, Ukraine?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: What is your assessment of the status of the ceasefire agreement on Friday given the renewed fighting that broke out over the weekend?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it appears that the ceasefire is mostly holding, although there are reports of mortar attacks and small arms fire around Mariupol and the Donetsk airport, as well as reports of more intense violence in areas of Luhansk. I think it’s important also to note that this is not just about what’s on a piece of paper and what’s been agreed to; it’s about how it’s implemented. And I think many of you have probably seen the 12 pieces or 12 steps that were agreed to. A number of those have not yet been implemented. There’ll be a discussion through the trilateral channel with the OSCE and the Russians and the Ukrainians about how to implement them with working groups moving forward. But that’s the piece that’s most important.
QUESTION: And then Amnesty International made a statement over the weekend that said that both sides are responsible for war crimes. Do you agree with that statement?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve seen the Amnesty International report. We’re concerned by allegations of abuses committed by both sides. We call on both sides to allow for full and transparent investigation into these and all abuse allegations. I would also point you to the fact that Prime Minister Yatsenyuk outlined or stated publicly the commitment by the Ukrainian Government to work with Amnesty International to investigate the reported abuses. We certainly haven’t seen that on the other side.
There also was a Human Rights Watch report you may have seen last week. It was a little bit different, but it focused on the efforts or the steps taken by the separatists to arbitrarily detaining civilians and subjecting them to torture, degrading treatment, and forced labor. We certainly condemn abuses by all sides, but it’s clear to us that the separatists are committing the bulk of the abuses against the local populations.
QUESTION: What evidence do you base that assertion on that it’s the separatists that are responsible for the bulk of abuses?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think there’s a range of information that’s been publicly available over the course of the last several months. We certainly have discussions with Ukrainians. We have our own means of evaluating. And I think that’s consistently been the assessment. But violations by either side we’re concerned about, and certainly we welcome the commitment by Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to investigate and work with Amnesty International to investigate reports from their side.
QUESTION: But there’s nothing sort of you can point to specifically to say this is any kind of – anything you’re making public just to back – reinforce that these are –
MS. PSAKI: Well, Elliot, I think, obviously, this conflict has unfortunately been going on for five months now. There has been a range of publicly available examples of steps the separatists have taken. I would remind you that, of course, this is a case where Russian-backed separatists and Russians have violated the sovereignty and intervened in a sovereign country. And so I think the steps they’ve taken – taking over buildings, taking over towns, attacking and kidnapping civilians – are steps that were taken in, of course, an aggressive manner, and one that was violating Ukraine’s sovereignty.
QUESTION: Ambassador Tefft presented his credentials in Moscow today. Do you know if he – or are you aware of any calls or conversations the Secretary or people in this building have had with either the Russians or the Ukrainians about the ceasefire – about this specific situation?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’ve certainly been in close contact through our embassies on the ground. I don’t have any other calls from the Secretary to specifically read out – excuse me – but I would just say that we’ve really been in touch through our ambassadors.
QUESTION: Are you aware – apparently, President Putin called President – or President Putin and President Poroshenko spoke by phone today. Is that – are you aware of that, one? And if you are, is that an – do you think that’s an encouraging sign?
MS. PSAKI: I’ve seen the reports. I don’t want to overstate it. I think we’re looking at this with hope but with skepticism. And as I mentioned in response to Elliot’s question, there are a number of steps that need to be implemented, and so there has to be a discussion about that with the OSCE, and that’s really the next step. We’ll see where that goes.
QUESTION: All right. So which – are there – well, how many of the – how many steps are unimplemented, according to the U.S., or do you not know?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any – I don’t think we are in the position to analyze that specifically. There are some obvious ones like moving Russians back – or Russian-backed individuals back, moving – disarming that have not been implemented, but there are other steps.
QUESTION: But you are in the OSCE, I mean, so it’s not – you’re not entirely divorced from this process.
MS. PSAKI: No, we’re not, but the OSCE is certainly the appropriate body to work with both countries.
QUESTION: All right. And you haven’t seen anything from them, any report from them on progress or lack thereof?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the next step is to have a discussion with the – to create these working groups that will implement the ceasefire —
QUESTION: And then —
MS. PSAKI: — beyond what’s already taken place.
QUESTION: Also on Ukraine, are you still expecting the preliminary results of the MH17 investigation tomorrow from the Dutch?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm, we are. We understand that the Dutch Safety Board, the lead investigation team, will release a preliminary report tomorrow, September 9th. We understand the preliminary report will present factual information based on the sources available to the Dutch Safety Board. So our understanding is that is still on track.
QUESTION: Have you gotten any kind of a preview from the Dutch about this, or do you know if their preliminary investigation will comport with your version of events which may or may not be —
MS. PSAKI: I would have to check on our team. I’m not aware of a preview, but I’ll see if there’s more to convey on that.
QUESTION: Okay. Would you expect that you will accept or at least buy as – buy – I don’t want to use that word – accept as credible what the Dutch come up with?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think that certainly is our expectation. We’ll see what the report says.
QUESTION: All right. So this isn’t a case where if you don’t like what the report says, you’re going to say – you’re going to have a problem with it, but if you do like it, then you’ll – everything will go on as —
MS. PSAKI: Well, the report hasn’t even come out yet, so —
QUESTION: No, I know. But in previous —
MS. PSAKI: — stay tuned till tomorrow.
QUESTION: In many previous reports by – maybe not governments, but you’ve come out and – this government never believed that the Goldstone report on Israel was going to be – you opposed it. You thought it was going to be inaccurate. I just want to make sure that you – and biased and unfair. You have no reason to have similar concerns or suspicions about the Dutch report; is that correct?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe we have predisposed beliefs.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: We’ll see what the report says.
QUESTION: Just to ask it maybe a little more simply, do you regard the Dutch civil aviation authorities, generally speaking, as a credible, impartial, fair-minded investigator?
MS. PSAKI: I think we’ve consistently believed that. And obviously, we, through the Department of Justice, the NTSB, and the FBI have been contributing information and expertise to the Dutch-led investigation.
QUESTION: On the —
QUESTION: Do you expect – you are – you’ll probably be gone, right? Yeah. Would you expect some kind of a more formal reaction to the initial – to the preliminary investigation tomorrow after it comes out?
MS. PSAKI: I’ll check with our team and see. I assume you all will have questions, so sometimes that prompts a —
QUESTION: Well, my —
MS. PSAKI: — comment.
QUESTION: I mean, I obviously have to wait to see what it says before we ask questions, but I would be interested in knowing how much of a U.S. component there was or how much was – how much did the U.S. and the U.S. authorities contribute to the investigation.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you got the report, or —
MS. PSAKI: I will see if there’s more we can say on that. I don’t have that available in front of me, but I can check.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: On the ceasefire steps implemented —
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — I think there was also an exchange of prisoners. I think they turned in – the separatists, I think, turned in like 1,200 prisoners. Are you – do you know how many prisoners the Government of Ukraine or the Ukrainian military released in exchange for that?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of detail. I think part of this —
QUESTION: Whether any Russians were with them?
MS. PSAKI: Well, part of this agreement – which, again, still needs to be implemented, and that’s an important component we’re watching – is certainly freeing hostages and illegally held persons. But I don’t have any update on that. I think the OSCE is more likely to. I’ll see if there’s something more we can convey from here.
QUESTION: Speaking of unfinished agreements, can we go to Afghanistan?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: So after promising not once, not twice, but I think at least three times the Secretary that they would accept the results of the election audit process, it appears that one of the candidates is refusing to accept. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one, let me note that we continue to engage with candidates at the highest levels. I know the White House read out a call that the President did or calls the President did over the weekend. Secretary Kerry remains in close contact with both candidates and has spoken with both of them repeatedly in recent days, including this morning.
Dr. Abdullah’s comments – in his comments this morning, I would also note he rejected violence, he called on all Afghans to remain calm in the coming days, and he also asked his supporters to refrain from violence as the process continues to unfold.
In our view, the audit process is still ongoing under the supervision of the United Nations. I think it was confirmed that part of the process had been completed. There’s more that needs to be done. Dr. Abdullah has indicated consistently that he will abide by the constitution. And so we’re continuing to work with the candidates to determine how we can resolve this moving forward.
QUESTION: Yeah, but this was supposed to have been done before the NATO summit. I mean, it was supposed to have been done months ago, and it hasn’t been. Do you have any confidence at all that this process is actually going to end at some point with one of the candidates conceding defeat?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, again, there’s a political component of this as well, as you know, in terms of the formation of what would happen post-conclusion. We expect the candidates and their supporters to remain committed to the process and to the conclusion of the process, and that’s what we’re going to continue to work toward.
QUESTION: You may expect that, but do you have any confidence that that’s actually what’s going to happen?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Matt, certainly our preference would have been to resolve this quite some time ago. But obviously, we have to work in the situation that we’re in, and so our effort is to determine how we conclude this through the electoral process.
QUESTION: Well —
QUESTION: But that’s —
QUESTION: Is your reference to the fact that there’s a political component to this with regard to the formation of a government after the agreement is – after the audit process is completed, is that meant to suggest that whoever comes out as the loser should accept some kind of position in a future government?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Arshad, as you may remember, when this agreement was made originally, that was part of the agreement. So – and I don’t think it was necessarily accepting a position as much as being able to designate an individual. So obviously, we’re working to resolve this with the candidates. We know it’s difficult; it is difficult. But it certainly is in the best interests of the Afghan people to have a united government moving forward.
QUESTION: But the comments by Dr. Abdullah actually go beyond that. I mean, he says he’s won, so that means that he isn’t committed to any – necessarily what comes out of the audit. He’s already stating affirmatively that he has won and that whatever happens in the audit he doesn’t necessarily believe, unless, I suppose, it says that he won the audit.
MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s still in process. It’s ongoing. We’re continuing to work with the candidates. That’s the choice that we have at this point in time, so that’s what we’ll continue to do in the coming days.
QUESTION: Do you have any update – they were supposed to be working on this government sharing idea, that they would have a government-sharing coalition going forward, irrespective of who won. Has there been any progress, to your knowledge, on this? The reports coming out of Afghanistan suggests that there hasn’t and that it’s actually just stalemated.
MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s – obviously, there’s been an ongoing discussion about that. I don’t have anything to outline for you in terms of progress, but certainly, there’s been a discussion about it, and that’s part of what it was agreed to a couple of months ago.
QUESTION: Change topics?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. First of all, will the Secretary meet with any Palestinians while in Amman?
MS. PSAKI: While in Amman?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: There are no meetings planned at this point in time. We’re still putting our schedule together, of course.
QUESTION: Okay. And on the apparent plan that the Palestinians submitted – is that totally rejected out of hand, or is that something that you’re still looking at?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think Marie spoke to this —
QUESTION: I mean the timeframe.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Marie spoke to this last week. I don’t think I have anything to update for you.
QUESTION: Okay. My last question is, there has been reports that the Egyptians proposed some sort of a state in Sinai that would encompass maybe three or four times the size of Gaza, maybe a little longer, and at the same time have autonomy for the Palestinians in the big cities like Nablus and Hebron and Jenin and other places. Are you aware of that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this is – I’ve seen – certainly seen the reports. This is a recurring rumor. As far as we understand it, there’s no such proposal on the table, and the Egyptians and the Israelis have both refuted the reports.
QUESTION: And you would contradict that this – this concept of the two-state solution. The two-state solution, as far as you’re concerned, is on area occupied in 1967, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I think you’re familiar with our position, Said. That hasn’t changed.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have any more on that issue, or should we move on to another one?
Why don’t we go to the back, Elliot, and then we can go to you. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Different topic.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: On Azerbaijan, there is a U.S. citizen, Said Nuri, who has been detained in Azerbaijan. We – he has been prohibited from leaving the country. I wanted to find out if the State Department has expressed any type of protest to the ambassador over this detention.
MS. PSAKI: Embassy and Department officials have been in touch with Azerbaijani authorities in Baku and Washington about this matter and will continue to do so. Our understanding is that the general prosecutor’s office, for those of you who didn’t see this report, barred Mr. Nuri from leaving the country. We call on Azerbaijani authorities to provide Mr. Nuri a full explanation and are monitoring the case closely. We’ve been in regular contact with him as well and are providing all consular – possible consular services. Our consular officer actually met with him on September 5th, so just a couple of days ago.
QUESTION: Somalia?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Did you – and forgive me if you got asked about this, but I don’t think you did. The bombings of AU peacekeepers and government vehicles in Somalia – the rebels claimed that four Americans were among those killed in the attack on an AU convoy. Is there any truth to that?
MS. PSAKI: We – as you know, this just happened, I believe. We are certainly aware that a suicide attack targeting African Union troops took place today. We can’t confirm at this time – we cannot confirm at this time whether any U.S. citizens were injured or killed in the attack. Obviously, as we have more information to provide, we will do so.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on —
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: The – al-Shabaab released a statement, and they designated a new leader and also vowed revenge for the killing of Ahmed Godane. Do you – are you on any kind of increased alert or heightened kind of sense of – situation of precaution as a result of that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, we evaluate that as it relates to anywhere in the world. Are you speaking specifically – are you asking specifically about our —
QUESTION: In the region or any kind of heightened alert posture that you might be —
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to preview you or update you on. That’s something we consistently review. So – but not at this point do we have anything update you on than that.
QUESTION: On embassy security writ more broadly, ahead of the “torture report,” you guys have written to Congress saying that you’re – you’ve asked all the embassies and consulates to review their security. Do you know – has that gone beyond the review phase yet?
MS. PSAKI: I —
QUESTION: Or have you – or have actual steps to increase security been taken at some embassies?
MS. PSAKI: Why don’t I take it, Matt, and see if there’s more we can update you on. I know that was something, I think, Marie talked about several weeks ago. But we’ll see.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just want to know if it was – if it’s still a review thing or if stuff has actually been done.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: When you check that, can you also check whether there’s any increased security precautions taken as a result of the 9/11 anniversary this week?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. We will check that and see if there’s anything we can provide publicly.
Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: Can I ask about North Korea, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Over the weekend, we had reports that the North Koreans are planning to put on trial Mr. Miller, one of the three Americans held in Pyongyang. Do you have any reaction to that? Have you been informed? Have your Swedish protecting authority partners been able to have contact over the weekend to Mr. Miller?
MS. PSAKI: There is no update on contact with our protecting power. As you know, in any case, we always request access. It’s not always granted. That’s been consistently the case. We are certainly aware of news reports that Matthew Miller will face trial in North Korea this week. We don’t have additional details on charges. As you also know, there’s no greater priority for us than the welfare and safety of United States citizens abroad, and we certainly will continue to request that North Korea release the individuals who are being held, the American citizens, so they may return home.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Given that the trial is going to coincide with UNGA and that there are reports that the North Korean foreign minister will be attending, will you attempt to make any kind of contact to negotiate with the North Koreans in that setting to try to procure their release?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe there are any plans to do that at this point in time.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Very quickly on Saudi Arabia and religious tolerance.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Saudi authorities, it appears – or there are reports – have arrested an Asian family, accusing them of turning their home into a church. Are you aware of those reports?
MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports, Said.
QUESTION: Would it be really disturbing for you to see that people are not allowed to worship in their own homes?
MS. PSAKI: Why don’t we look into the details and we can get you a comment after the briefing.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Libya, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: On Friday, the briefing gave rise to an extended discussion of the accounts of individuals who were contract security employees at the CIA annex in Libya at the time of the Benghazi attacks. Without revisiting the specifics of those attacks, I just wonder if generally you could address the role that security contactors play in U.S. foreign policy – diplomatic force and property protection and so forth. How vital are these contractors to America’s diplomatic mission overseas?
MS. PSAKI: Well, security contractors play a vital role in a range of countries, as you know, I’m sure. It depends on country to country on what role they play. And obviously, there’s been a lot of discussion about the events on the night of September 11th just two years ago. Let me note, since you gave me the opportunity, that the individuals that you were asking about on Friday – these men served, as contractors do around the world, with bravery and acted heroically to protect the men serving in Benghazi that tragic night. And that is certainly the case as it relates to individuals who serve in other countries in this capacity as well.
QUESTION: So their role is very vital around the world? I mean, I just —
MS. PSAKI: Certainly. Absolutely. And I think – again, I just – obviously, in country to country there are different security requirements. There are different needs. This is something we evaluate consistently. We’ve been clear about the fact that security was not sufficient the night of – that horrible night in Libya. But again, we look country to country to what the needs are and how we can meet them.
QUESTION: And just one more on this. I wanted to get your reaction to Mitt Romney’s charge on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Governor Romney says that the Administration hasn’t been transparent and forthcoming about what happened the night of the Benghazi attacks and blames former Secretary Hillary Clinton for it too. Your response?
MS. PSAKI: Well, without getting into politics, let me just convey that this is a case where there have been tens of thousands of documents provided to Congress. There have been dozens of interviews and briefings to Capitol Hill. There have been extensive reports done by independent – the independent ARB, by the Senate Select Committee, by the House Armed Services Committee, looking into the events of that night. And so I think the facts certainly back up our view, our consistent view that we have taken every step possible to participate and to be cooperative and transparent in looking into the events of that night.
QUESTION: Jen, this came up on Friday. I wanted to ask Marie, but somehow it slipped my mind.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you see any discrepancy between the version and the narrative that these guys are – have written about in this book and the official accounts – the accounts that have come up from the investigation? Because it seems to me that it – that – well, can you just say, do you see – do you think that they’re wrong, or are they right in just describing it a little bit differently than – or very differently than you would?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it certainly is describing it very differently than we would, but I think the facts, of course, are important, as they are always. The chief of base wasn’t telling the contractors to wait out of malice or unwillingness to help those under attack. He was telling them to wait to see if they could get back and have additional – get backup, I should say – and additional firepower. That’s a small – I mean, that’s a smart call based on safety and a desire to prevent additional loss of life.
So there’s a huge – to get to the point of your question, there’s a huge and fundamental difference between a short delay for security considerations and a stand-down order, which implies an effort to prevent people from aiding those under attack in any way. And there have been a range of investigations by the Senate Intelligence – reports, I should say, by the Senate Intelligence Committee that said that they – the committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the chief of base or any other party. There’s also – was also a report, of course, by the House Permanent Select Committee looking into this, by the ARB, and so – by the ARB.
And so there are a range of officials from democratic and – from both parties who have looked into this and have not found that to be the case.
QUESTION: So you – but you don’t disagree with their account. You just think or say that the investigations have found that this was – that they’re describing it wrong. It was not a stand-down order and it was just this wait order and it – or whatever it was, order or not – and that it was done purely at the local level with no involvement from anyone in Washington, and that it was the right thing to do? That’s your —
MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. That’s right.
QUESTION: So in other words —
MS. PSAKI: There was no stand-down order whatsoever, period.
QUESTION: Right, I know. So in other words, what these guys are – have written, you don’t argue with their version; it’s just that you disagree with what they were actually – the intent of what they were told to do or not to do?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I have not read all the specifics here, but I will say that our view is – or our view of the events of that evening are as I just outlined them, and that there were steps taken, certainly, to request backup and additional firepower. That was the case that happened. It wasn’t a stand-down order, though.
New topic?
QUESTION: Yeah, Bahrain, unless someone else wants to go.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm, Bahrain.
QUESTION: The trial of – or the court case against this human rights activist, Maryam, do you know anything more about it? Have your concerns been addressed by Bahrain?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates on it. We remain deeply engaged or focused on this issue. We understand, of course, that she has access to legal representation, but we’ll continue to track it closely. I don’t have an update beyond that, though.
QUESTION: All right. And then I have —
QUESTION: I’m sorry. Can I just follow up on that, Matt?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Well, they actually – I think on Saturday – extended her detention for another 10 days and there was a Danish representative in court along with a couple of others, but there was no American, as I believe, who actually attended or observed the hearing. Is this not something that you thought you would do since you’re concerned about this case?
MS. PSAKI: We typically do. I can – I’ll look into if there are more details to the circumstances here, and we can get that around to all of you.
QUESTION: And the news that the – her detention’s been extended for another 10 days?
MS. PSAKI: Again, I think this is a case where we are watching closely. We urge the Bahraini Government to handle it in a transparent manner. We also urge the government to protect the universal rights of freedom of expression and assembly, but beyond that, I don’t have any additional comment on it.
QUESTION: Do you have any response or comment or any – or even knowledge of this alleged money-laundering investigation into former State Department official Zal Khalilzad?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any details on that, no.
QUESTION: Are you aware of it?
MS. PSAKI: I’m aware of it. Certainly, I’ve seen the reports.
QUESTION: Is it something that this building is interested in, considering that, apparently, these – the allegations stem from his time after he was a diplomat?
MS. PSAKI: That’s also my understanding. I don’t have any particular comment on it beyond that at this point.
All right. Oh, one more?
QUESTION: Jen, thank you. The United States has a legal definition on terrorism, terrorist states.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I had asked Marie last Thursday do we have a legal definition on what constitutes an act of war. She said she would talk to the legal team and come back to us. I’d appreciate an answer.
MS. PSAKI: Certainly. Well, we did talk to our legal team. It depends on each case and each scenario. That’s how we look at it. I will see if there’s more we can provide to you.
Is there more, or are you talking about a specific circumstance or a specific incident? That may help get your information on what you’re —
QUESTION: I’m specifically talking about Russia and the Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Russia and the Ukraine?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t believe we’ve labeled it in that capacity at this point in time.
QUESTION: You haven’t.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. So you went to the lawyers and they came back with “it depends”?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it certainly does depend. But I think he was looking for a legal definition, so we followed up as we do.
QUESTION: But —
MS. PSAKI: Thanks. Okay?
QUESTION: Well, but that’s not a legal definition.
MS. PSAKI: Well, it depends on each scenario, Matt. So we followed up —
QUESTION: That’s the best they could come up with?
MS. PSAKI: That is the information we have at this point in time.
Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:38 p.m.)
Source: state.gov
