Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–October 10, 2014.
TRANSCRIPT:
12:18 p.m. EDT
MS. HARF: Packed crowd today. Happy Friday, everyone. It’s been a while. And I’m on a little bit – I’m warning you at the top, on a little bit of a tight time schedule today, so let me just do one topper and then we’ll hop into questions.
Just a travel update. General Allen and Deputy Envoy Brett McGurk today, in Ankara, met with Turkish Deputy Chief of Defense General Guler. They also met with NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg in Ankara. This was a natural conclusion to their meetings earlier this week in Brussels. They had not had the opportunity to meet with the secretary-general while they were there. They then had further meetings with moderate Syrian opposition leaders before departing Ankara. General Allen is currently en route to Washington; Ambassador McGurk is staying in the region for some further consultations.
As we noted in our statement last night reading out the Ankara meetings, the U.S. delegation and all of their Turkish interlocutors had detailed discussion on all five lines of effort to degrade and defeat ISIL.
Excuse me – take a sip of water before I finish this. It’s been a while. I’m out of practice.
We discussed areas where we think Turkey can contribute more, especially along the military line of effort. And coming out of the last two days of meetings with General Allen and Deputy Envoy McGurk, we understand that Turkey has agreed to support train and equip efforts for the moderate Syrian opposition. We are looking forward to a DOD planning team traveling to Ankara next week to continue planning through military channels. Also I want to note that, as Jen previewed yesterday, humanitarian support was an important theme throughout their conversations in Ankara. Both sides committed to continued humanitarian partnership in support of the more than one million Syrian and Iraqi civilians sheltering in Turkey.
This concludes a productive first trip for General Allen and Ambassador – or excuse me, Deputy Envoy McGurk in their new roles. This followed, obviously, on the President and the Secretary’s meetings at NATO, in Jeddah, and at the UN General Assembly. I think this really shows the breadth of our coalition, and I would remind people that since UNGA, which is the last time we sort of took stock of where we were, the Belgians have signed up and taken their first bombing runs; the Netherlands has taken airstrikes; the Australians took their first airstrikes; the Canadians have now signed up to do so as well. So just since we were all in New York – during which, I will remind people, five Arab partners joined us to take strikes in Syria – we have gotten specific kinetic military commitments from a number of countries and they’ve begun taking action.
I also want to emphasize, in closing this topper, that this is going to be a long campaign; as the President and Secretary have said, multiple lines of effort coordinated globally. In that spirit, General Allen and Deputy Envoy McGurk will travel to the Gulf states later this month for discussions with regional partners. We will provide details on those consultations in the days ahead.
Sorry, that was a long one.
QUESTION: That’s okay.
MS. HARF: Get us started, Lara.
QUESTION: That’s okay. Let’s stay on Turkey, if we could.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Going back to the lines of effort that are being discussed with the Turks, I think Jen touched a little bit yesterday on the issue of whether the U.S. is seeking Turkey to commit ground troops, but I’m not clear on what the answer is. So is the U.S. seeking troops from Turkey to contribute to this fight? And also, what’s your reaction to the reports that Turkey won’t commit troops unless the U.S. agrees to a buffer zone?
MS. HARF: A couple points, starting with the ways they can be helpful. Obviously, Turkey can be helpful in a number of ways, not just with direct military action. As I just mentioned, supporting the training and equip program for the moderate opposition. They could also provide some basing rights. I know Secretary Hagel made some comments about the specifics on this yesterday. I won’t repeat them, but certainly are in line with our thoughts on that. So we’re not going to get into specifics about what we’re exactly asking them to do militarily. Obviously, they’ve talked publicly about ground troops.
When it comes to the so-called buffer zone, no-fly zone, they’ve proposed these for some time. We are not considering the implementation of this option at this time. I know Jen has said this, as have other people, but we are continuing discussions about a range of options and working with the Turks to clarify their objectives and intentions and to identify and undertake actions that support our shared objectives in Syria and in Iraq. Those conversations continued over the past few days, and they will continue with the Turks, but again, at this point, we’re not considering the implementation of this option at this time.
QUESTION: Okay. But going back to the troops bit, and I don’t want to belabor this point, but —
MS. HARF: But we will for a few more minutes.
QUESTION: For a few more minutes, why not?
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: When you and others in the Pentagon, for example, go through this list of what might be expected, the omission of troops makes it sound like the U.S. is not expecting or does not want Turkey to commit ground troops. So —
MS. HARF: I’m not trying to indicate that. I was mentioning a few things that we think they could do and that the Secretary of Defense mentioned yesterday in some interviews. I know they’ve talked about ground troops. We’re having a conversation with them about what that might look like and what role they can play broadly, including that, but don’t have much more on ground troops to offer.
QUESTION: Let me put it this way: Has it been ruled out among the things that the U.S. is not going to seek? Or —
MS. HARF: There were two negatives there, sorry. Has it been ruled out that we will not —
QUESTION: Would the United States like to see Turkey commit ground troops to this fight?
MS. HARF: We’re having a conversation with them about what that might look like. I’m not indicating that we would not be open to it. We’re just having a conversation with them.
QUESTION: You just gave me a double negative there.
MS. HARF: I know. It’s Friday, guys.
What else?
QUESTION: Marie —
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: — I was wondering, I mean, do you – was there progress made in those talks? Or was it —
MS. HARF: With the Turks?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: There was. As I just said – and I’m sorry, I started a few minutes early because I wanted to get out here, given I have short time today – that they did discuss – General Allen and Brett McGurk discussed how Turkey can play a role; understand, coming from those discussions, that Turkey has agreed to support train and equip efforts for the moderate Syrian opposition. There will be a DOD planning team traveling to Ankara next week to continue planning that through military channels. Obviously, this is a DOD program, but that was certainly one thing that came out of it. I also think that we’ll hear more announcements and more coming as the discussions continue.
QUESTION: So the issue of training and equipping is all about bringing down Assad, isn’t it, really? Because that’s what Turkey —
MS. HARF: No, it’s about supporting the moderate opposition. It’s about supporting the Syrian moderate opposition in their fight against ISIL, Nusrah, and Assad.
QUESTION: But isn’t Turkey’s wish that they really want to focus on bringing down Assad, rather than – I mean, that’s their focus. Like, you’ve got your strategic focuses, but that’s what they want to do.
MS. HARF: Well, I’ll let them speak to their strategic objectives. We agree that Assad has lost all legitimacy in Syria. But when it comes to the train and equip and supporting the moderate Syrian opposition, those are our partners on the ground in Syria. That is the opposition group we want to continue supporting, we want to grow even stronger so they can be a counterweight here. They are fighting on a number of different fronts, though. You’re right.
QUESTION: And when – I believe there was a nine-week timeline given on the training and equipping, as to when that’s going to start. I think a briefing —
MS. HARF: Let me check on that with DOD. They’d have more specifics on the operationalizing of that. I can check on that.
QUESTION: And then while this has been going on, it seems like the population is caught in the middle. The UN has said today that thousands of people will most likely be massacred in Kobani. What is the U.S. doing to stop that other than the strikes?
MS. HARF: Just a couple points on Kobani and on the numbers. I know we’ve had a couple of conversations about this over the past week now. We have undertaken multiple airstrikes in the Kobani area – 16 strikes north and south of Kobani yesterday and today, on top of the strikes we’ve taken earlier in the week. So I just want to make sure people have some of that specificity. These most recent airstrikes destroyed two ISIL training facilities, three ISIL vehicles, four ISIL-held buildings, one ISIL tank, and one ISIL heavy machine gun. They hit four ISIL units and damaged an ISIL fighting position. So we are taking strikes around Kobani, obviously, because we understand the situation is very serious there.
As Jen has said, I know that it’s extremely difficult to obtain accurate numbers on civilians in areas of active conflict. Our partners have indicated that the number of civilians in and around Kobani remains low. I don’t have more specifics than that. Most of those needing protection have already entered Turkey over the last three weeks. That’s a huge number of people. Obviously, we are incredibly concerned about the situation around – in and around Kobani. We know there’s a very dire situation there, but we think the number remains low. It’s difficult to ascertain.
QUESTION: Low as in you’re thinking —
MS. HARF: It’s – honestly, it’s really hard.
QUESTION: I know, you don’t know.
MS. HARF: And I don’t want to give – indicate a specificity when we just don’t have it.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Yeah.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Can I go back to Turkey?
MS. HARF: You can.
QUESTION: Can you elaborate a little bit on this joint military team which will be visiting Ankara next week? What will be specifically discussed? And broadly speaking, what do you expect from the Turks? Because despite all your efforts and you are trying to convince them, they seem to be – to remain very reluctant to get involved.
MS. HARF: Well, today they said they would support the train and equip program – A, I’d start there. B, I think DOD can give more specifics about the military team that will be heading out to talk about the operational piece of this. Secretary Hagel said yesterday that they could do things like provide some basing rights. We’ve laid out a few things they can do. The conversation’s ongoing. We think we had good meetings over the last two days. We’re looking forward to having those continuing, and to see what else they’re committed to do.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you think that General Allen succeeded in convincing the Turks with the U.S. strategy against Assad? Because their priority is to remove Assad.
MS. HARF: Well, a couple points. It’s not just General Allen. Secretary Kerry spoke with Prime Minister Davutoglu twice this week regarding the situation in Kobani specifically. We’ve had a number of conversations with our Turkish counterparts. As I said, this military team will be going out next week. The Turks understand the severity of the situation. They do. And they’re – they are affected by it more than almost any of the neighboring countries. So the conversation has been what specific role they can play on the five lines of effort. This is a long fight, and just because allies didn’t come out two weeks ago and say they would do something, that doesn’t mean we won’t continue the conversations and welcome support from them going forward. We’re going to need support for the long haul here. It’s not about one day or one week or one month.
QUESTION: Jen, the –
MS. HARF: Marie. It’s okay.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. It’s Friday.
MS. HARF: It’s okay. I could dye my hair red. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Blonde hair, red hair, glasses, no glasses.
MS. HARF: More people do that than you think, though, actually. It’s a –
QUESTION: Clearly, my prescription needs to be checked.
MS. HARF: You’ve done it.
QUESTION: What? I never did.
MS. HARF: No, called me Jen. Called me Jen. (Laughter.) I think it’s just a natural —
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: Anyways, go ahead, Roz. Sorry. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Not that the criticism hasn’t been there almost from the beginning of the airstrikes back on August 8th, but there seems to be a cresting of criticism of the Administration’s strategy on confronting ISIL, primarily focused on the airstrikes from quarters as varied as David Ignatius in The Washington Post, Frederick Kagan writing in The LA Times, Congressman Buck McKeon speaking on one of the cable channels in the past couple of days, a former top advisor to General David Petraeus who was with him in Iraq, all suggesting that the airstrikes really need to be backed up at this point by U.S. ground forces.
And my question to you is: Are these people coming from different perspectives wrong? Is the criticism misplaced? What are they and the American public not understanding about the Obama Administration’s strategy?
MS. HARF: Well, a couple of points, Roz. I think, first, it’s easy to sort of try to be an armchair general and look at a very surface level of the strategic picture in Iraq and Syria and offer suggestions. I think that what we are confident in is the strategy as outlined by this President is being implemented by the Department of Defense, by other agencies working on the different five lines of effort, has a very comprehensive and clear path forward here. This is going to be a long fight. No one phase of it will be decisive. That’s how these fights happen. We only – how long ago was it that we started airstrikes? Not that long ago.
As of this week, the Defense Department and our coalition – the U.S. and our coalition partners have conducted a total of 398 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. We have continued to say that we will make every effort to degrade ISIL’s capabilities, to take out their command and control, to go after their sources of financing with the oil facilities, and to really push them back out of parts of Iraq. This is a long-term fight, and looking at any one day or any one week or any one town by no means gives a comprehensive picture of (a) what the fight looks like or how we’re going to take it on.
So I appreciate some of the commentary and understand where it comes from, but it’s just not a comprehensive look of what we’re facing, how we’re facing it, and how we’re fighting it. That’s what the Pentagon is doing. We’re obviously playing a role in some of the other lines of effort. And if you look at other conflicts we’ve faced, these are long-term efforts here. They can’t be driven by any one cable news cycle; that’s just not how it works.
QUESTION: But it’s not just the focus on what’s happening with the status of Kobani. There’s also concern about what is happening in Iraq, which some could argue isn’t getting as much headline attention because of the fighting in Kobani.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But there is concern in particular about the status of Anbar province –
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — where ISIL has been quite aggressive in its –
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: — efforts to take large parts of that province.
MS. HARF: And you’re not wrong, Roz, in that ISIL is going to be aggressive. We didn’t think that as soon as we started airstrikes and taking out their fighters and their positions and their tanks that they would just stop fighting. They’ve shown themselves to be brutal, aggressive. That’s why we’re taking the fight to them. But nobody thought as soon as we would take airstrikes they would stop fighting. We know there will be intense fights as part of this conflict in the days and months ahead. We should all be prepared for that. This is a tough fight.
But I will say when it comes to the fact that we are taking direct U.S. military action in Iraq and in Syria with our coalition partners, I just named at the top of the briefing all of the countries even since UNGA that have signed up to take strikes. This is a global effort here to do so. We don’t see an imminent threat to Baghdad at this time. I know there’s been speculation in the press about this.
Iraqi Security Forces in and around Baghdad are strong. They’re under constant assessment. The Embassy remains open and we continue to conduct business. We’ve deployed a significant number of our own military personnel to Iraq and to the region for the protection of American personnel and to advise and assist Iraqi forces.
When it comes to Anbar, it’s difficult to speculate as it has been under severe threat – you are absolutely right – since the beginning of this year. The situation remains very fluid. I’m probably not going to be providing battlefield updates from the State Department podium. But we continue to support efforts by Iraqi Security Forces, working in conjunction with the tribal fighters, directed against ISIL in Anbar. So this is going to be a tough fight. We are committed to it. Our partners are committed to it. You’ve seen us take almost – what did I say? – 400 strikes now. Those are going to continue.
Yes, Pam. Let’s go – and then Lara, you can follow up. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yesterday, there was a protest that involved Syrian Kurdish demonstrators. They were protesting near the border with Turkey and they were protesting against what they view as Turkey’s inaction in helping Kurdish residents in Kobani. A VOA cameraman who was there said he saw Turkish soldiers firing at the protestors —
MS. HARF: On the Turkish side of the border —
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: — or the Syrian side? Okay.
QUESTION: And he said that a teenage boy was killed in the incident. My question is: In light of this incident, have Turkish officials given – did they give General Allen or any other U.S. officials any kind of assurances that – regarding concerns that Turkey is not going to use this fight against the Islamic State as a pretext to go after Kurdish opponents in Turkey and in Syria?
MS. HARF: Well, we are concerned about reports of deaths, I think resulting from those clashes during demonstrations that you mentioned. We urge all sides though, all sides, to exercise restraint and avoid violence. We, of course, support freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in Turkey, as we do everywhere. I think there are still some facts that need to be gathered here but would urge all sides here, again, to exercise restraints.
Lara, yes.
QUESTION: But what about —
QUESTION: I just wanted to go back to Roz’s question about Anbar. Does the State Department or the Obama Administration writ large believe that Anbar is about to fall? Do you have any idea of who’s in control of Ramadi right now, for example?
MS. HARF: I can check on the latest update from the battlefield on Ramadi. I mean, Anbar writ large, as you know, is a fairly big place, so I don’t know if we would ever say Anbar is about – right? Who knows what’s going to happen tomorrow in this fight here. I can check with my counterparts to see if there’s any update there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: But we know the situation is fluid. It’s been under severe strain. We are very engaged with the Iraqis there.
Let’s go back to Pam. I think she had a follow-up. Sorry.
QUESTION: Right. Did he get any assurances – General Allen or other officials – any assurances from Turkey —
MS. HARF: Let me check on that. I don’t know that answer.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Yes, I’ll check for you. Let’s go to Roz. I think she had a follow-up, and then I’ll – hi, Said.
QUESTION: Hi there.
MS. HARF: And then I’ll work my way around the room. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, just one more follow-up. How vigorous is the discussion within the Administration about whether airstrikes are still the preferred way for the U.S. to engage militarily?
MS. HARF: Well, our strategy hasn’t changed and it’s not just airstrikes. If you – I mean, we have said there will be no American boots on the ground in combat roles in Iraq or Syria. That has not changed, period.
QUESTION: But –
MS. HARF: But it’s not —
QUESTION: But General Dempsey did allow a few weeks ago during congressional testimony that if he felt that ground troops could help make a difference, he would make that recommendation to the President.
MS. HARF: There are a lot of – he wasn’t saying that he had made that determination.
QUESTION: No, he did not.
MS. HARF: Right.
QUESTION: But he said that if he felt that —
MS. HARF: And the President’s been clear about the strategy.
QUESTION: And what I’m simply asking is: What is the focus of the discussion? Is there still agreement within the Administration that the airstrikes are achieving their intended goal? Does something else need to be done, namely ground forces?
MS. HARF: Well, there is more – it’s not just airstrikes and ground troops and nothing in between, so let’s talk a little bit about this. We know – and the Defense Department has spoken to this more and they should speak to this more – that the airstrikes are hitting the targets they are intended to hit. That’s how you judge the effectiveness of any one airstrike. This is part of a longer strategic, comprehensive way we are going after ISIL though. The airstrikes have been effective. They take our ISIL positions. They take out ISIL tanks. They take out ISIL weapons. That’s obviously helping. And if you looked at some of the airstrikes going back months now to retake – to help the Iraqis retake the dams, to help relieve the pressure on Mount Sinjar – they have had an impact. So we can start there.
But the President has been clear that we are not going to put combat troops into these roles. What we are doing is assisting and advising the Iraqi forces, obviously training and equipping the Syrian opposition forces, to help them grow in strength, to help them fight better, to help them reconstitute when it comes to the Iraqis, and push back on ISIL. So our military is engaged in helping advise and assist, which is more than just airstrikes, right? But everyone remains in agreement that we will not, as part of this strategy, put combat troops in.
Yes.
QUESTION: One more since you brought up train and assist.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Spanish said that they would be sending in two to three hundred advisors to help with the training of Iraqi forces. Are they the only other country that has offered to do this at this point?
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, Roz, but let me check after the briefing and get some specifics for you.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hi Marie —
MS. HARF: And then I’m going to you, Said.
QUESTION: Does ISIS’s gains in the Anbar province raise the prospect of more intense fighting later to push them back?
MS. HARF: Well, I think I would defer to my Pentagon colleagues for sort of that kind of battlefield assessment. That’s more their lane in the road than mine. We know this will be an intense fight at times. We are very clear-eyed about that. But I don’t have any more specifics for you.
QUESTION: And then one more: Has Iraq’s new government reached out to the majority Sunni population of Anbar?
MS. HARF: It’s my – to my knowledge, they have had preliminary discussions. They’ve been engaging with tribal leaders. I can get more specifics from our team. I know Brett McGurk has been very engaged in this issue, as have others. I can get some more for you on that.
Yes, Said.
QUESTION: Marie, sorry for being late. Good to see you behind the podium again.
MS. HARF: I know. It’s been a while. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Okay. So you may have talked about this, but let me take you back – indulge me if you would. Do you find yourself in conflict with your allies, the Turks, on what are the goals of this mission that, in fact, they are now moving because they have conflicting goals with you regarding Kobani?
MS. HARF: No.
QUESTION: Let me explain further. Do you —
MS. HARF: But explain further, and then I can maybe answer further.
QUESTION: Okay. I’ll explain further. Do you find that the inaction by the Turks, the military inaction by the Turks, is because you don’t see eye to eye on what the endgame should be?
MS. HARF: Well, as – and I know you were running a few minutes late – at the beginning, I said that the Turks in our conversations over the past few days have agreed to support the train and equip program for the Syrian moderate opposition. They are taking additional steps. The Secretary of Defense yesterday talked about even more steps they could take, including basing rights. Obviously, they have a role to play in all of the five different efforts here.
We agree with the Turks about the fact that ISIL needs to be defeated. We all agree on that.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: We also all agree that Assad has lost legitimacy to lead. We have said in this military campaign we are focused on the former: going after ISIL. But we agree on the fact of what the Syrian future should look like.
QUESTION: But that is the point. I mean, they – what you call the moderate opposition, or what they call the moderate opposition, you don’t see as moderate – for instance, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Ahrar ash-Sham. The Turks seem to be determined to train these people that you have placed on the terror list – or the terrorist list. So they want to train these people and give them basically safe haven so they can go about bringing down the regime.
MS. HARF: Well, I think, Said, that what I was speaking to today about their support for the train and equip program is for the moderate vetted opposition that we work with in Syria.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: And that’s what we’re focused on. Obviously, you’re right, Jabhat al-Nusrah is a designated terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Right. So you agree that what you consider the moderate opposition – or what you consider terrorists, they consider to be moderate opposition.
MS. HARF: Not at all. No, I’m not speaking for the Turkish Government. They can speak for what they – who they support inside Syria. What we have said is what we are focused on, working with them on now, is supporting the vetted moderate opposition that we work with.
QUESTION: Okay. And one last thing: The Turks say that they don’t want to – they don’t see defeating ISIS or dislodging ISIS from Kobani at this point as a priority because they don’t want to see regime forces filling the void or the gap or the vacuum. Do you agree with their assessment?
MS. HARF: Well, they are free to make their own assessments. As I said, we’ve taken an additional 16 strikes north and south of Kobani yesterday and today, multiple air strikes. We understand the severity of the situation there. Obviously, the strategic objectives aren’t limited to any one town or any one fight; it’s much bigger than that. But we have taken strikes around this area for this exact reason. Because we’re concerned about it.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. concerned that —
MS. HARF: Oh – and then I’ll go to you. Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. Is the U.S. concerned that Turkey is basically trying to upend what is already a difficult mission? I’m just rephrasing Said’s question.
MS. HARF: No, I don’t know what you’re referring to exactly.
QUESTION: By repeatedly talking about the need to get rid of Bashar al-Assad, which the U.S. decided a year ago it could not do because it didn’t have either the political support in this country or the support from key allies, namely the UK, to launch air strikes after the —
MS. HARF: Well —
QUESTION: — chemical weapons mission.
MS. HARF: That’s not an exact accurate reading of history.
QUESTION: Yeah, but —
MS. HARF: If we go back there, we’ve always said there’s no military solution to the – what needs to be a transitional governing body in Syria. The reason we set our objectives of the potential strikes last year was not to dislodge the Assad regime because we wanted to keep them very focused on the use of chemical weapons. So —
QUESTION: Right. But because of that, there was a discussion about using chemical weapons because of something that the Assad government had done. The U.S. has really dialed back from trying to deal with that whole issue beyond OPCW. Is —
MS. HARF: I don’t think that’s true at all, Roz. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: No, but is there – no, but is – but – right.
MS. HARF: Well, I disagree with the premise of what you just said though.
QUESTION: Well, but the basic question is: Is the U.S. worried that Turkey is trying to basically expand this conflict into something that could be unmanageable?
MS. HARF: What we are focused on in the conversations with the Turks as a NATO ally, as someone more directly affected by this than anyone, is what role they can play in the five lines of effort against ISIL. Obviously, we have conversations with them in general about the path forward in Syria, how we believe there’s no military solution, how Assad has lost legitimacy. Look, that’s part of the reason they’re supporting the moderate opposition in Syria that we support. So – but what we are focused on is these five lines of effort and how they can fit into those different pieces of them.
QUESTION: But it seems as if the Turks are trying to change the conversation – and I use that word in quotes – about what military action and what the other four lines of engagement ought to be focused on. It seems as if they’re trying to change this from dealing with ISIL into dealing with Assad. Is the U.S. worried about that?
MS. HARF: Well, the – well, no, because the conversations we’re having with them are focused on how to deal with ISIL.
QUESTION: Marie, just a quick follow-up.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Today, the envoy to Syria – the UN Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura called on Turkey basically to allow fighters to go in and help the Kobani residents. Now, these fighters are basically PKK, which you also place on the terror list. Do you support his call for that?
MS. HARF: Well, I didn’t see him say that specifically, Said.
QUESTION: Well, he doesn’t say that specifically —
MS. HARF: The PKK is a designated terrorist —
QUESTION: — but they’re the – they are the ones that really have the capability to do that. And basically, implicitly —
MS. HARF: Well, I didn’t see him call on the PKK to do anything. Obviously, they’re a terrorist organization.
QUESTION: He – okay. He called on Turkey to allow volunteers to go – to Kurdish fighting – or fighter volunteers to go into Kobani and fight, but Turkey is not allowing them.
MS. HARF: Well —
QUESTION: Do you agree with him?
MS. HARF: Again, I didn’t see his comments, and I want to make sure you’re characterizing them in the right way. The situation is horrific in Kobani to watch in real time. We all know this.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: And obviously, we – that’s why we’ve taken airstrikes around Kobani. That’s why we’re talking to the Turks about what more everyone can do, including the Secretary having two conversations with Prime Minister Davutoglu about Kobani just this week.
Yes.
QUESTION: Can you go to Hong Kong?
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. HARF: Yeah, and then you can go to Hong Kong, I promise.
QUESTION: You just said the conversation with the Turks is about ISIL —
MS. HARF: Well, we have broader conversations, too. But when it comes to the – what they can contribute to the coalition, it’s about the fight against ISIL.
QUESTION: So have they raised the issue of Assad?
MS. HARF: I would venture to guess in one of our conversations, I’m sure they have raised the issue of Assad.
QUESTION: And is it still the U.S. position that you are not going after anything Assad, that you believe that that’s a political —
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: — solution?
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: Given that, how soon – I mean, I know this is – I mean, is there a parallel system going on – conversation going on about that?
MS. HARF: About the political path forward?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: There is, and there has been. And the challenge, as we all know, is that we had two rounds of talks in Geneva. The regime came unwilling to discuss a transitional governing body framework or how to get there, and we’re not going to hold a third until they’re willing to. And they’re not willing to at the moment. So part of what we’re doing writ large in Syria with our support of the moderate opposition is trying to change the regime’s calculation. That doesn’t mean we’re going after them directly with this effort, because we’re not, but it’s trying to get them to change their calculation. That’s, as we know, very difficult and a long-term challenge.
Hong Kong? Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you, Marie.
MS. HARF: You can change the subject.
QUESTION: A few questions on Hong Kong.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: There is this research report titled “Hong Kong Occupy Central protest was scripted in Washington, D.C.,” in which the report pointed out two organizations, which is National Endowment for Democracy and the National Democratic Institute. They have backed, funded, and support the organizers in Hong Kong.
First of all, I would like to know what’s the State Department role in this Occupy movement, and what’s your connection with these two organizations.
MS. HARF: We do not have a role here. We categorically reject accusations that we are manipulating the activities of any person, group, or political party in Hong Kong. What is happening there is about the people of Hong Kong, and any assertion otherwise is an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, which is the people expressing their desire for universal suffrage and an election that provides a meaningful choice of candidates representative of their own voters’ will. So I would categorically reject those kinds of accusations.
QUESTION: But on public records we find online, these two organizations are mentioned. They are funded within the budget of USAID. So would you say they are part of the State Department because they are receiving funding from the State Department’s —
MS. HARF: Well, I’m not exactly sure what you’re looking at. I’m happy to look at it more closely and provide some explanation for what you are looking at, but again, categorically reject any accusations that the U.S. Government – that we are manipulating the activities in any way of any person, any group, or any political party there. Categorically reject. Again, I can take a look at what you’re looking at. I don’t know what that refers to, but I know what the facts are here and reject that accusation.
QUESTION: So you are rejecting any role of the State Department —
MS. HARF: Categorically reject.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: I would just ask – yeah – the follow-up. The conversation between Hong Kong Government and the student has canceled, as you know.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yes.
QUESTION: And more than 10,000 people – or student, again, continue to protest on the street. So how do you see this situation, and do you have a comment about the cancellation by the Hong Kong Government?
MS. HARF: Well, we obviously continue to encourage all parties here to address their differences peacefully through dialogue. That’s what we have said needs to be the path forward here. Obviously, that could include talks between – that should include between the two sides here. That’s what we’ll continue to call for.
I am very unnerved by Matt being in third row, by the way. (Laughter.) I just want everyone to see this.
QUESTION: It’s a different perspective —
MS. HARF: I know, I know. It’s like my whole universe is off. I’m going to call on Matt in the third row.
QUESTION: I apologize for being late.
MS. HARF: It’s okay.
QUESTION: I don’t – did you talk about the Nobel Peace Prize at all?
MS. HARF: I did not.
QUESTION: You did not.
MS. HARF: I did not.
QUESTION: Could you now?
MS. HARF: I can.
QUESTION: I presume that you’re – you will congratulate the two recipients. You’re not upset about the choice, are you?
MS. HARF: We extend our warmest congratulations to the recipients of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to promote the rights of children and young people, including the right to education. We’ve all talked a lot, particularly about Malala’s case. She served as an inspiration for children everywhere, demonstrated extraordinary courage throughout her campaign for universal education. I think we’ll probably be putting out a statement later today as well.
QUESTION: Are you at all hopeful that this, because India and Pakistan are essentially sharing this prize, that this might offer a moment – an opportunity for broader rapprochement, especially considering the two recipients have invited the leaders of the two countries to join them in the ceremony?
MS. HARF: Well, Matt, we certainly join Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi and the people of Pakistan and India in celebrating the achievements of these two global leaders who were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today. So obviously, anything that leads to greater understanding, greater conversation, greater dialogue is a good thing.
QUESTION: Okay. And last one on this: Are you – do you have any thoughts at all about Malala, at least her comments about the policies of a previous Peace Prize winner, as it relates to drone strikes?
MS. HARF: Are you referring to the President —
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: — as the previous Peace Prize winner?
MS. HARF: I am. And not Roosevelt. I don’t have —
QUESTION: Teddy.
MS. HARF: I don’t have anything on that.
QUESTION: You don’t – that doesn’t bother —
MS. HARF: I don’t have any comment on that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Don’t have any comment.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: I can just do a couple more guys. I’m sorry. I warned you at the beginning that I was on a tight time.
QUESTION: On the same subject.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Yes.
QUESTION: The – with all these talks and statements and – where do we stand actually? Have you reached out to India and Pakistan, because the fighting on (inaudible), the line of actual control is increasing now that India has taken a tough stand and the Pakistanis are (inaudible). So where do we stand, like, today?
MS. HARF: Well, we’re concerned about any violence on the line of control, as we’ve said. Continue to encourage both the governments of India and Pakistan to engage in further dialogue to address these issues, and believe that they – those two countries should determine the pace, the scope, the character of the dialogue on Kashmir.
Let’s just do two more. Said.
QUESTION: Could I go to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict real quick?
MS. HARF: You can.
QUESTION: Okay. We have two things. We have the donor conference and —
MS. HARF: Yes, we are heading there tomorrow.
QUESTION: Is there likely to be any kind of meeting between Secretary Kerry and the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas —
MS. HARF: We don’t —
QUESTION: — independent of the conference on the —
MS. HARF: We don’t have a full schedule for the conference yet, but I expect they probably will. We don’t have a full schedule.
QUESTION: Okay. And this being the olive harvest, every year Palestinian farmers that farm olives are subject to a tax by settlers. Today —
MS. HARF: You’ve asked about this before.
QUESTION: Yes, I have.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Yes.
QUESTION: Every year it’s the same thing.
MS. HARF: I remember.
QUESTION: Okay. So the – yesterday, there was an attack where they uprooted the trees in Yusuf, in the northern West Bank, and so on. Can you call on the – while the soldiers were standing around watching this happen – can you call on the Israel Government to do all it can to prevent some marauding settlers or whatever from uprooting or burning the trees?
MS. HARF: I haven’t seen those reports, Said, and I don’t want to comment without having seen them.
QUESTION: Okay, if —
MS. HARF: So let me get you something after the briefing if we have anything to say.
QUESTION: If you do see these reports and you can authenticate these reports, will you call on the Israel Government to do all it can to stop these actions?
MS. HARF: We’ll get you a comment if I can confirm them.
Yes. I’m going to do two more, and then, unfortunately, I’m really sorry guys, I have to —
QUESTION: Brief one on Ebola.
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: There is a kind of hysteria spreading across Europe and the U.S. about Ebola. Do you agree with the CDC chief, Dr. Frieden, who said yesterday that it could be the next AIDS epidemic?
MS. HARF: Well, I think what the CDC chief has also said is that with the proper procedures, Ebola can be contained. So he’s a doctor. I’m going to refer to him.
QUESTION: Iran?
MS. HARF: Two more – because I have an Iran meeting I can’t be late to.
Yes.
QUESTION: A follow-up on Hong Kong.
MS. HARF: And then I’ll do Iran —
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: — and then we’ll end with that. Yes.
QUESTION: A follow up on Hong Kong and the protest. Do you know if there has been any fresh dialogue on – with – from U.S. officials following the decision by authorities to break off holding talks with (inaudible) students?
MS. HARF: Today, I can – I don’t know. I can check. Obviously, we discussed this when the Chinese were in town last week. Let me see if there’s anything new to share on that, and then we’re going to end with Iran.
QUESTION: There was a suggestion that perhaps the P5+1 talks might be extended past November 24th.
MS. HARF: I saw that. By the Iranians, you mean?
QUESTION: Yeah, by the Iranians.
MS. HARF: Yes, I saw that.
QUESTION: So what does the U.S. think of this?
MS. HARF: We believe there is sufficient time in the time that remains – adequate, sufficient, enough time – to work through the issues we have, to arrive at a comprehensive agreement by November 24th. It’s in everyone’s interest to get to a comprehensive agreement that assures the international community that Iran’s program is entirely for peaceful purposes, that they cannot get a nuclear weapon by the 24th.
Next week, we’ll be going – as you know, the Secretary will have a trilateral meeting with Cathy Ashton and Foreign Minister Zarif. There will be a bilateral U.S.-Iran meeting the day before. There’s enough time. We know what the issues are. There’s a path forward here, but we all need to take it.
QUESTION: But you’re not ruling out extending if that presents itself?
MS. HARF: We’re focused on the 24th. We’re focused on the 24th.
QUESTION: Well, of course, there was enough time and you knew what the issues were a year ago too, right?
MS. HARF: Okay. Is there a question?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, if you did – I mean, I don’t know why – do you have any confidence that you’ll meet the 24th, the deadline?
MS. HARF: This is a tough challenge, right, and these are tough negotiations. If it were easy, it would have been done a very long time ago, as I’m fond of saying from this podium.
QUESTION: About many different —
MS. HARF: About many different – I can use it a lot, about many different issues. But I will say there has been some progress in these talks, but these are tough issues. There are still fairly wide gaps on certain critical issues, and that’s what we’ll be talking about next week. The conversations next week, I will say – the trilat will follow on the two trilateral meetings the three had in New York, at the UN General Assembly, will follow on those conversations. And coming out of that I think we’ll talk a little bit more about what happens between now and the 24th.
QUESTION: But despite what you say about there – you believe there is enough time, you’re not necessarily confident that (inaudible).
MS. HARF: I don’t think I would ever use that term about something that’s so complicated and difficult.
QUESTION: Do you expect —
QUESTION: But you wouldn’t close the door, having said that there’s been some progress made?
MS. HARF: Not at all. Absolutely. We believe there is sufficient time to resolve the remaining issues and to get to a comprehensive agreement by the 24th. Absolutely. I will repeat that again.
QUESTION: And do you expect the Secretary to talk with the Iranian foreign minister other issues beside the nuclear program?
MS. HARF: I know this is – this trilateral meeting is – and the bilat is not with the Secretary, it’s with Deputy Secretary Burns and that negotiating team. This is a meeting focused on the nuclear negotiations. As we’ve said, sometimes other issues come up, including last time in New York – ISIL came up. It would be sort of odd if three leaders of that level met and didn’t talk about what else was going on in the world. But these talks, these negotiations, this trilateral is focused on the nuclear issue.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Thank you, guys. Everyone have a good, long holiday weekend.
QUESTION: You too.
MS. HARF: We will see you – Jeff will see you on Tuesday.
(The briefing was concluded at 12:58 p.m.)
Source: state.gov
