Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–September 11, 2014.
TRANSCRIPT:
1:51 p.m. EDT
MS. HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to —
QUESTION: Happy Thursday.
MS. HARF: Happy Thursday.
I think we’re going to start the briefing now. Thank you. A couple items at the top, please. First, a trip update.
Today, the Secretary travel – or, excuse me, the Secretary was in Jeddah, as you know, where he met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. He also had a bilateral meeting with Bahraini Foreign Minister Al Khalifa. The focus was on a discussion on efforts to combat ISIL in advance of a meeting of the GCC and regional partners that also took place in Jeddah as well. The Secretary participated in this GCC and regional partners meeting. It included a number of countries from the region. He will be meeting with Saudi King Abdullah later today.
After his visit to Jeddah, he will travel to Ankara, Turkey to hold meetings with Turkish leaders. While in Turkey, the Secretary will discuss bilateral and regional issues, including how to promote security and stability in Syria and Iraq. After visiting Ankara, Secretary Kerry will travel to Cairo, Egypt to meet with senior Egyptian officials to discuss bilateral and regional issues of mutual concern. As I said yesterday, he will then travel to Paris where he will continue to consult with European and regional partners and allies about how to confront the threat of ISIL.
QUESTION: And then?
MS. HARF: Your guess is as good as mine, Matt.
QUESTION: Yeah, I know. Will he be flying west or east after Paris?
MS. HARF: Your guess is as good as mine.
And this final item at the top: As you know, today is the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Today, Secretary Kerry shared his thoughts in a video message to State Department and USAID employees on the 13th anniversary of the attacks here at home in which we lost thousands of Americans and also people from across the globe, and on the two-year anniversary of the Benghazi – the attacks in Benghazi, Libya where the State Department family lost four of our colleagues and friends – Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods. Their dedication brought them to a dangerous corner of the world, like many other Foreign Service officers, civil servants, and other State Department employees have done throughout history and continue to do today. This is what American leadership looks like all over the world.
We have also shown that America does not rest until the perpetrators of attacks against us are brought to justice. We’ve seen this with the killing of Usama bin Ladin – responsible, of course, for the attacks in 2001 – and the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khatallah, one of the terrorists responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Since that day two years ago, the Department has remained focused on ensuring and improving the security and safety of our people. We have hired more Diplomatic Security personnel, increased the numbers of Marine security detachments, improved training and procured critical security assets. Secretary Kerry concluded his message – which you all can view as well on our website, on state.gov – by encouraging employees to take time today to reflect on those we’ve lost and remember why we serve.
And on a personal note, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 are what prompted me to come to Washington many years ago now and to serve. So I think we all probably have a personal story about how it affected us, and we are all here taking some time from our very busy days to remember what it means to us.
With that.
QUESTION: On that, but just as kind of a logistical, tactical matter —
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: — are you aware if there were any embassies that had to or did, in response to any particular threat linked to the anniversary, step up their security? If – were there any, or are there?
MS. HARF: Well, first, we, as multiple people have said now, are not aware of any anniversary-related plotting directed at the homeland. So I just want to be clear about that. In terms of our embassies and facilities around the world, we are obviously around 9/11 always taking extra precautions, looking at any potential threats. In some places, we do take additional security measures. We don’t always or ever outline where those are or what those look like, but again, this is something we go through every year on this day, look for any threat – I’m not saying there are any, but if there were, we would obviously take additional steps.
QUESTION: Right. Well, the only – the reason I’m – how about threats to Americans in general abroad? I noticed that the only Travel Warning that was issued yesterday was the renewal for Egypt – for Israel —
MS. HARF: For Israel.
QUESTION: — the West Bank and Gaza.
MS. HARF: I’m not aware of any. Of course, there are a number of threats that are out there. The intelligence community determines whether they’re credible or specific. I’m not aware of any, but that’s probably a question best directed to the intelligence community.
QUESTION: Well, I just – can you confirm that there – that that was the only – that there was no worldwide alert, nothing that —
MS. HARF: Not that I’m aware of; I’m happy – from this Department.
QUESTION: Right. I just —
MS. HARF: But I’m happy to check. I know that DHS and the FBI, the domestic law enforcement authorities, always around this date step up.
QUESTION: So you’re not aware if any kind – if there is any country or any city where there is an embassy or consulate located around the world where there is a heightened threat today or around the anniversary? You’re not?
MS. HARF: Again – well, that doesn’t mean there aren’t, though.
QUESTION: I know. But no —
MS. HARF: Me, personally?
QUESTION: — Warden Messages, certainly no Travel Warnings, except for the one for Israel.
MS. HARF: Certainly no Travel Warnings. Again, I can double-check with our folks, Matt.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. HARF: None have been brought to my attention.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I —
MS. HARF: Go ahead.
QUESTION: On this day, Matt?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean, of course, on this horrific day when terrorists attacked this country. And here we are, 13 years later, and this war has gone on for the past 13 years. It doesn’t seem to have an end in sight. Do you see an end in sight to this war that is going on with the terrorists?
MS. HARF: Well, as we’ve said, terrorism is a tactic that’s been unfortunately around throughout human history in one variety or another. And when we talk about the attacks of 9/11 and the actions we took against AQ senior leadership in Pakistan and Afghanistan, who were responsible for those attacks – those specific attacks – we have taken out every single senior leader of the organization that planned and carried out those attacks, except for, of course, one Ayman al-Zawahiri.
So we have taken the fight to those responsible for 9/11. It doesn’t mean AQ still doesn’t exist there, doesn’t mean there’s not a structure in fighters, but we have significantly degraded their capabilities to the point where we do not believe they can carry out those kinds of attacks again. So when we’re talking about AQ in the Af-Pak region, that’s what we’ve been focused on. But at the same time, we know the group has continued to morph and continued to spread into different parts of the world in smaller offshoots, some officially affiliated, some not.
So as the threat has evolved, our response has evolved, and I think you heard the President last night talk about the latest front in this fight – what ISIS is in Iraq and in Syria, how we’re going to take the fight to them. He also mentioned Yemen and Somalia where the fight has come, where we have taken the fight to terrorists, to al-Qaida-linked terrorists there, and have had some success.
But it’s something we’re very focused on. You can’t kill or capture everyone who wants to be a terrorist. What you can do is systematically go after their capabilities, their financing, their support, their ideology to the point where we can diminish their ability to carry out the kind of horrific attack that we saw on 9/11 in 2001, and that we’ve seen in decades before, decades previous. Under every president of every party, we’ve seen these kind of terrorist attacks.
QUESTION: Let me just follow up very quickly. I mean, the 19 terrorists were Arabs, 15 of which were Saudis. Do you believe that countries like Saudi Arabia, where the Secretary of State had a meeting today, have really lessened the kind of rhetoric and climate that, in essence, fanned the – or some say ignited these kinds of terrorist attacks?
MS. HARF: Well, I think a couple points on that, Said. First, I think it’s important today that the Saudis were hosting partners from around the country specifically to say that we need to fight this terrorist threat that we are facing now, we need to aggressively take the fight to them, that they signed on to a communique out of Jeddah that, among other things, committed to, as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign, but also talked about contributing to humanitarian efforts, repudiating their ideology, their hateful ideology. This is a communique the Saudis led – at a conference, the Saudis led. So I think that is certainly an important moment right now to see the Arab world coming together and rejecting ISIS, rejecting their ideology and their tactics, and taking actions to fight against them.
QUESTION: Marie —
MS. HARF: I also think – just one more point on this and then I’ll go to you, Matt – that the Saudis have faced their own threats at home, and we’ve seen them very aggressively take the fight to al-Qaida when it really took hold in Saudi Arabia, and they’ve also had a great deal of success because they know at home that it’s been a threat.
QUESTION: In terms of the – what the commitment was that was made today in Jeddah as well as the commitment that was made in Wales between the core coalition members a week and a half ago, I’m a bit confused. There’s – nobody seems to know what is happening. You have conflicting signals coming out of the British Government and the British —
MS. HARF: Well, actually, the British have clarified those, and I can read their quote if you’d like me to.
QUESTION: Well, yeah.
MS. HARF: They did clarify those, though.
QUESTION: Yeah, but —
MS. HARF: The prime minister’s office clarified that.
QUESTION: That’s great, Marie, but the foreign secretary in Germany came out and said, “No, we’re not going to be part of any airstrikes,” and then the —
MS. HARF: Well, the prime minister’s in charge of the country and clarified, so – his office did.
QUESTION: That would include Scotland too, right? But —
MS. HARF: As I was clear yesterday.
QUESTION: — it doesn’t matter. It’s confusing. It – the Saudis —
MS. HARF: It actually does matter if they clarify it, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Well —
MS. HARF: Go ahead with your question.
QUESTION: The Saudis – the White House said, your colleague Josh Earnest said, officials said last night that the Saudis have agreed to host some kind of a training base or training operations. The Saudis are not saying anything about this. In fact, their response to questions about it could be construed as a denial by some people. So it seems like this is just kind of a real dog’s breakfast and no one knows what’s going on, what – who’s going to do what in this coalition. The Turks say they’re not going to be involved in anything militarily. So is it – I don’t think you can deny that there has been some confusion, whether or not there was clarification from Downing Street or not. So is this just the result of it being early on in the process and things haven’t really come together yet, or is it the result of – people are just flailing around and not being able to come up with a coherent strategy?
MS. HARF: It’s certainly not the latter, and let me just make a few points, then I’m sure you have follow-ups. I will clarify with the language that Number 10 used today to clarify their position, and I do think it’s actually important to make clear when their office does so. They said they believe ISIL must be confronted in both Iraq and Syria. In terms of air power and the like, the prime minister has not ruled anything out, not at the stage of taking specific decisions in further action at this point. So we should be clear about that.
But I think we need to step back here. In Iraq, we have already taken military action against ISIS, and you heard the President last night talk about expanding the reasons behind doing so. There have been a number of countries, as we’ve done so, standing alongside us in terms of providing humanitarian assistance, providing resupply and equipment to the Iraqis and to the Kurdish forces. So there are a number of countries that have spoken very publicly already about those commitments.
You have seen a concerted effort to build a broad-based coalition. It began in earnest, really, last week at the nails summit – at the nails – the Wales NATO summit – I just combined those two words – when we really met with our closest allies and our NATO allies, as well as others, to start talking about how they could get more involved. And then you saw the Secretary in the region this week talking to our regional partners, talking to the Iraqis who form the heart and the backbone of this coalition. Then he’ll go to Paris, where he’ll combine the Arab regional partners with the European partners. And then we’ll all come to UNGA, where there’s a global forum, a global stage, where we will all come together to talk about each role that each country can play. You have already seen countries come out and make clear they will participate in this effort.
Now, it’s not just a military coalition. There is – as we saw today, there’s things countries can do to cut off the flow of foreign fighters; there’s things they can do to cut off financing; there’s things they can do militarily; there’s things they can do in terms of resupply and equipment. So we’ve already seen countries come out and say this. We sent out a 40-page document last night outlining commitments and contributions countries were going to or are already making.
So I’m not sure there’s confusion about the fact that many countries want to contribute. What the process we are going through now – a deliberate, prudent process – talking to every country: what role can you play? What role can you play? What are we all going to do together? That process will be ongoing, but I would strongly reject the notion that, for any reason that you have mentioned, that this is a flailing effort. Every day more countries sign up. Today more countries committed more through this communique.
QUESTION: What is it that the Saudis have agreed to do in terms of these training bases?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, the – and again, I can let the Saudis speak for themselves. The Saudis —
QUESTION: The Saudis apparently don’t want to speak to it, so that’s the problem. And I think you have the Germans saying they’re not going to participate militarily, you have the Turks saying that; you have the British foreign secretary clearly uninformed about his own government’s position on this —
MS. HARF: Why do you always focus on what people say they won’t do instead of the plethora of things they’ve said they will do? Why is that what you – I’m – that’s actually not an unfair question, I don’t think, when we focus on our effort here.
In terms of the Saudis, they have – we’re in discussions with them about the specific program that the President asked for – funding for. They have agreed to help with part of it. Obviously, we can get more details out later as those are hashed out.
QUESTION: So it’s not fully cooked yet? It’s still being —
MS. HARF: Well, the discussions are ongoing. The Secretary’s on the ground in Jeddah and is meeting with the king of Saudi Arabia this evening. So let’s wait until – I know there’s a desire for everything to happen in real time, but let’s wait and see how those meetings go. But they have agreed to play a role here in some way.
QUESTION: Everything does happen in real time, Marie.
MS. HARF: You know what I meant, Matt. (Laughter.) Do you have any more questions on this before I move on?
QUESTION: Yeah, I just – yeah, I just wanted – I mean, you’re not in a position now to say exactly what it is that the Saudi contribution will be as it regards these training bases, these training operations?
MS. HARF: They’ve committed to play a role here and we’ll have more details available as we have them available.
QUESTION: All right. And then, just – the last one, my last one on the meeting in Jeddah today was that – and you mentioned it as well, which was that each country said that they would do whatever it was as appropriate.
MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: Does that mean – is it —
MS. HARF: I think that those are two words that are factual and totally make sense in this kind of communique.
QUESTION: Okay, I’m not – I – and I agree. I just want to know, “as appropriate” for their capabilities and the threat, or —
MS. HARF: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: — just their capabilities and what they’re willing to do?
MS. HARF: All of the above.
QUESTION: All right. And you are satisfied with that —
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: — that language? That doesn’t – it’s not less than what you would hope for?
MS. HARF: No, not at all. Not at all. And this will be an ongoing effort. Again, every day – I think you heard countries listen to the President speak last night and consider actively additional ways they can help. This is a fight that will take some time. We will need many partners. We will continue on that effort.
Yes, Lesley.
QUESTION: Marie, what is your assessment of the reaction to the announcement last night? I mean, do you think it was —
MS. HARF: Which announcement? The President’s?
QUESTION: The President’s announcement.
MS. HARF: Do you have a more specific question?
QUESTION: Do you – no, I mean, I was wondering —
MS. HARF: I support it.
QUESTION: Well, not you. I mean, is that – is the reaction that you’re getting today from – in this building – and he’s – does Burns not gone to the Hill today?
MS. HARF: He is, yes —
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: — with an interagency team, will be briefing in a closed session all Senate and all House members on this.
QUESTION: Do you feel that the reaction – not only domestically, but also externally – is what you expected?
MS. HARF: Well, you never quite know what to expect. That’s hard to predict. I think what you heard last night, as the Secretary said in his statement, was a strong, smart, aggressive strategy for how we will lead the world in destroying, degrading, and defeating this terrorist group that is a threat to the region and to the entire world. The President laid out several specific steps we’re going to take: first, expanding airstrikes inside Iraq to support the Iraqis as they go on the offense against these targets. Before, we had been operating under more limited goals here with our strikes.
The President made clear that we will continue to ramp up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition; again called on Congress to fund the train and equip program we’ve asked for. He also made clear that he will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria as well as in Iraq. It’s a core principle of his presidency: If you threaten America you will not find a safe haven.
So he made very clear in very precise terms our strategy here. We are bringing other countries on board; we are all working together to see how best to do that and what resources we can bring to this. But I do think you heard countries around the world step up and say ISIS is a cancer that needs to be eradicated, we want to play a role if we can, and appreciate the American leadership role here that we have taken.
QUESTION: Do you think it was necessary to come up now with that kind of strategy before you’ve even got a full coalition behind you to move forward?
MS. HARF: Well, I would reject the use of the term “full coalition.” This is not a once the door is closed, that’s it, you’re either in or you’re out. This is an ongoing bringing together of the global community to fight this. So again, this has been ongoing. As we’ve started – when we started, now weeks, maybe months ago – taking action inside Iraq, there were a number of countries that acted alongside with us, including the United Kingdom and Australia and others. So this is an ongoing process of building this group of countries that will fight this. And so we already have countries signed up. Putting forth the strategy allows more countries to contribute more.
QUESTION: One of the big issues is how – one of the concerns of the U.S. has been about arming the moderate rebels and how do you know that are not – those weapons are not going to eventually land in the hands of the wrong people. Does that risk and does that concern remain?
MS. HARF: It’s always a risk no matter where you do this. And as I said yesterday, the reward of doing so with the vetted moderate opposition that we have worked with now for many, many months and many years – to those opposition members, we think the reward greatly outweighs the risk. But there is always a risk, of course.
QUESTION: Marie —
QUESTION: Can you maybe point out practically how is this going to work with arming these – or stepping that up, because that’s what I heard from the President, saying that this is going to be stepped up. And obviously, the training with the Saudis, probably the Jordanians – I’m not sure – anybody else, how is this practically going to work?
MS. HARF: Well, I think I’d probably refer you to the Defense Department for more details on the practicality of how this actually works, given it’s their program. But in general, it will increase both training and equipping – ramping up our military assistance to the vetted, moderate armed opposition in Syria. So for the details, I think they’re probably best equipped to speak – no pun intended – to that issue.
But suffice to say we think it’s an important moment for Congress to act on this. We are in consultations with Congress about that right now. We know there’s a way for them to do so before they leave for recess, and that’s something we think is very important.
Said.
QUESTION: Let me just quickly follow up. The Secretary met with 10 countries and I think the Jeddah communique came out. Are they all signed on to the communique, all the countries?
MS. HARF: That he met with today?
QUESTION: Yeah – or, I mean, he met with 10 countries altogether, including Oman and Turkey and Lebanon and so on. Did they all sign on to the communique to do their part?
MS. HARF: Not all of them. Signing on to the communique were the GCC – the states of the GCC – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and the United States. Again, also significant that Iraq was represented there.
QUESTION: Okay, but also significant or conspicuously absent is countries like Iran and Syria and those who are going to be involved in this struggle. Do you agree with that?
MS. HARF: Well, I agree that they’re not on the communique, but I don’t agree that they should be. As we’ve said, we will not work with the Assad regime. We will not coordinate with them on this effort, and we won’t coordinate with the Iranians either on this effort. This was a meeting of GCC and other countries, partners of ours that we work with, to talk about how they can contribute. But I would also say that no one meeting is illustrative of the entire core coalition or coalition. We’re having conversations, even when the Secretary’s not meeting with people, at the diplomatic level with other countries. So I wouldn’t look at any one grouping and think that that is the sum totality of our effort here.
QUESTION: Let me just follow up. Former director of the CIA Hayden likened the aerial bombardment to “casual sex” – his words, I’m sorry, not mine.
MS. HARF: Wow. I did not see that interview.
QUESTION: Yeah. That’s what he said. And so —
MS. HARF: That’s a bit of a shock right there.
QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. He say – which means that he said that it looks good or it feels good but it’s not that effective; that ultimately you have to have boots on the ground. Who do you expect – if the United States of America is not going to send in its own boots on the ground – who are you – who do you see going – doing this job? The Iraqis —
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Yeah.
QUESTION: — a combination of all these countries —
MS. HARF: It’s a good question.
QUESTION: — going into Syria and so on?
MS. HARF: Two points on this. First, General Hayden, all joking aside, knows very well the counterterrorism tools that we have at our disposal from when he was CIA director – some of which we obviously don’t utilize any more, as we’ve been clear, but some of which are tools we still have at our disposal, including, of course, direct action. So he is well aware of how you take the fight directly to terrorists.
But setting that aside, we will not send troops in combat roles on the ground. The best partner on the ground in that role is the Iraqi and the Kurdish security forces in Iraq and the moderate opposition in Syria. I don’t want to predict what any other country might do, but our best options here are the fighters themselves from these countries on the ground, and that’s who we’ll be working with.
QUESTION: And my last question: Has there been a decision to train the moderate opposition, the Syrian moderate opposition in Saudi Arabia? Are you aware of something like this?
MS. HARF: Well, I think that’s what I just answered to Matt’s question. They have agreed to assist with this effort. I don’t have more details for you.
QUESTION: No, but actually have training camps and so on on Saudi soil?
MS. HARF: I don’t have more details for you on that assistance at this point.
QUESTION: Marie —
QUESTION: Follow up on the Syria angle?
MS. HARF: Let’s go to Samir and then I’ll go to Elliot.
QUESTION: Yes. Russia and the minister and the Syrian regime today – they said any bombing in Syria without the permission of the Syrian Government or a mandate from the UN will be a violation to international law and an aggression. What’s your reaction to this?
MS. HARF: Well, I find it interesting that Russia’s suddenly taken an interest in international law, given some of their past behavior. So that’s certainly interesting.
The President has the authority as Commander-in-Chief under the United States Constitution to take actions to protect our people. And any action we take overseas, of course, will have a – we will have an international legal basis for doing so. I don’t have predictions about what that is, given we haven’t announced additional actions yet. But we’ve been clear the President has that authority.
QUESTION: I have a second question.
MS. HARF: Go ahead.
QUESTION: A senior official at the White House yesterday in a background briefing – he said during the meeting that Deputy Burns had with the Iranians in Geneva, the U.S. encouraged the Iranians to support an inclusive government in Iraq, and it seems that what happened now – you have an inclusive government in Iraq now, but did – nothing was revealed about what you encouraged the Iranian to do recently regarding Syria. Do you have any information?
MS. HARF: Well – so separately, as I mentioned a few days ago, we did briefly discuss Iraq on the sidelines, on the margins of the P5+1 – the last bilateral round in Geneva, as you just mentioned. I’ve quite publicly said we’ve called on Iran to support a new inclusive government in Iraq.
I don’t have details for you about – I don’t think Syria itself and Iranian actions there came up, but I can check with our team. We’ve long expressed concern about Iran’s role in Syria and supporting the Assad regime, but when it comes to ISIL, they do know that it’s a threat and we are open to having a conversation with them about that threat. Obviously, we won’t be coordinating with them, though.
QUESTION: So you don’t see a threat from Iran while the U.S. is bombing ISIL in Syria, do you?
MS. HARF: A threat from Iran where?
QUESTION: From Iran and its proxies that are helping the Assad regime in Syria.
MS. HARF: Well, we are certainly concerned and remain concerned about Iran’s actions in Syria in supporting the Assad regime. That has not changed. I don’t want to downplay that in any way.
QUESTION: Marie, going back – just going back to the —
MS. HARF: Yeah, and then I will go to you, Elliot.
QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: You said you find it interesting that Russia has taken an interest in international, given their past behavior – referring to Ukraine, I would —
MS. HARF: I am indeed referring to Ukraine.
QUESTION: Anything else you’re referring to?
MS. HARF: I was mostly referring to Ukraine.
QUESTION: Taking that – leaving that part of it aside, because they would obviously disagree – but leaving that part of it aside, they talked about permission from, as Samir said, the legitimate Government of Syria. You – do you guys believe there is a legitimate Government of Syria? I mean, if you were going – if you accepted the premise that you want someone to invite you in to make it okay —
MS. HARF: That’s not the premise we operate under in Syria.
QUESTION: I know, but if you accepted —
MS. HARF: But it’s not —
QUESTION: But —
MS. HARF: — in Syria.
QUESTION: But if – do you believe there’s a legitimate government in Syria right now, or a legitimate authority? You’ve said that the SOC is the —
MS. HARF: Representative, yeah.
QUESTION: Can’t remember – yes, representative. But is there a legitimate government in Syria?
MS. HARF: So let me get our – pull up our exact language on this. We believe when we’ve been clear that President Assad has lost all legitimacy to be the leader of Syria. We’ve said that very clearly and publicly. We have recognized the SOC as the representative of the Syrian people. That does not confer on them official governmental duties.
QUESTION: So there would be, in fact, in your – under the Administration’s interpretation, even if you did think you needed to get permission from a legitimate government, there isn’t one to ask. Is that the argument?
MS. HARF: Well, I would also be clear that when we undertook the rescue operation to try and rescue our Americans in Syria, we did not inform or discuss this with the Syrian Government.
QUESTION: Right, okay.
MS. HARF: So just to use that as a guide for how we view this issue.
QUESTION: Okay. But —
MS. HARF: I think that’s a helpful guide.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. And I asked – the other part of it is the UN – a UN resolution.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Whether or not you think you – military action, airstrikes in Syria would require a UN resolution, a Security Council resolution, to be legal, does the Administration plan to seek some kind of a resolution at the United Nations this month when it’s —
MS. HARF: I don’t have any predictions on that for you. I don’t have any predictions on that for you.
QUESTION: I mean, given the fact that the Russians – I would expect that the Chinese would also probably take a similar line to them. Would it not be wise to try to seek such a resolution? I mean, the Bush administration sought one before the Iraq War in 2003.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: They didn’t get it, and as a result, even people like Kofi Annan said that the war was – violated international law. So you’re not aware at this moment if prior to any kind of military strike that you – that the President might order in Syria, you would seek a Security Council resolution?
MS. HARF: I haven’t heard that.
QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up quickly.
QUESTION: And – I just —
MS. HARF: Go ahead.
QUESTION: — the argument from the Syrian foreign minister and others in the Assad Government, you just, I think – I want to make sure – you just – you don’t accept that at all. They should – they don’t —
MS. HARF: I don’t accept it.
QUESTION: — they don’t need – they don’t – you don’t need to seek their permission? Whether or not you regard them as legitimate —
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: — you don’t see —
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: That’s what I want to follow up on, is that they said today it would be an act of aggression and that the countries could use the Islamic State simply as a pretext for attacking Syria.
MS. HARF: Well —
QUESTION: Is this not tantamount to almost two wars going on at the same time?
MS. HARF: Well, to be clear here, when the President talks about potential action in Syria, as he did last night, he is focused on the threat from ISIL. And that is the – his priority as Commander-in-Chief is protecting the American people. Obviously, we believe Assad has lost legitimacy, but that is separate from our fight against ISIL.
QUESTION: So there would – what you’re saying is that this is not about ousting Assad as well.
MS. HARF: Correct. Not at all. No. Look, the President has emphasized repeatedly that Assad has lost legitimacy and should go, but the President has also been clear that his first priority, as I just said, is the safety of the American people. ISIL, obviously, poses a threat to us, and that is what we are focused on when it comes to any potential action in Syria, to be very clear about that.
Yes.
QUESTION: But the President, though, was at one point planning on launching air strikes against parts of the Assad regime.
MS. HARF: That we made very clear last year did not have the intention of any kind of regime change.
QUESTION: Right. But is it not possible that any military action in Syria could have a perhaps unintended effect of either helping or hurting the Assad regime?
MS. HARF: Well, I don’t want to do much analysis on what those unintended effects could be. What I am saying very clearly is what the goals of any action would be, and the aims. So —
QUESTION: But the U.S. officials said yesterday that this increasing the arming and training of the Syrian opposition —
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: — is to fight both the regime and the ISIL.
MS. HARF: That is true. That is true. But that’s been an ongoing effort. We’ve increased our military assistance to the moderate opposition since last year, so I think that that has been an ongoing effort. You are correct. But when it comes – when the President talks about potential American military action, that’s what he’s referring to.
QUESTION: I guess I – the question is, then, if you’re really committed to seeing both the end of ISIL and the Assad regime, why not go all in? And whether you – you ruled out boots on the ground, but why not come by – if you’re already going to be bombing Syria, why don’t you bomb the regime as well?
MS. HARF: Because we —
QUESTION: That will further your goal of trying to get them out, right?
MS. HARF: Well, we believe that there needs to – and I know this is far away from here now from where we are in terms of the situation politically. But there needs to be a political transition. There cannot be a military solution for the Assad regime leaving power, I think, for all of the reasons we are very familiar with. The last thing we want is a power vacuum more than there already is in Syria. So that’s why there needs to be a political transitional process that puts in a transitional governing body for exactly that reason.
QUESTION: But aren’t you going to – don’t you run the risk of creating a power vacuum by doing what the President has said that he will do?
MS. HARF: Well, the Assad regime has created the security situation there is, where there are parts of their country that they don’t control. Whether it’s the moderate opposition or Nusrah or ISIS, what we’re focused on is tailored to go after ISIL wherever they are. That is the threat we are focused on right now, and that’s the threat that we are going to continue taking the fight to regardless of borders.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MS. HARF: Yeah. Elliot – yeah, you haven’t had one yet.
QUESTION: Given that ISIS is not just a terrorist organization, they’re also an administrative body at this point — whether – to what extent they’re succeeding at that is a matter of some debate. But they do control a wide swath of territory in Syria. What is your plan for that territory following this operation, and assuming that everything goes well, and ISIS is indeed destroyed?
MS. HARF: Well – so I wouldn’t refer to them as an administrative body. As you heard the President say last night, they’re not a state. Nobody recognizes them as one.
QUESTION: But the fact on the ground is that there are people —
MS. HARF: Well, they are a terrorist organization. What I was going to say is they’re a terrorist organization who has captured territory, which we’ve seen before in other places. And as you heard the President say in his press conference last week at the NATO summit, one of the first ways you degrade a capability of a group like ISIL is take back territory from them. And so obviously, that’s a key part of what we’re looking at how we do that. In Iraq, we’ve been focused on giving room, providing space through our air strikes, for the Iraqis to do that themselves. It’s about training partners on the ground. That’s why we want to increasingly train and equip the Syrian moderate opposition, so they can do more of that. To be clear, in Syria it’s a very tough fight, though.
QUESTION: So is your plan then for that – to destroy ISIS’s control on territory in Syria, then have the Free Syrian Army or the moderate opposition come and take control of that area?
MS. HARF: Well, in general, what you want to do is shrink their territory through whatever way you can do that, basically. And obviously, the goal would be for the people who then occupy that territory to be people like the moderate opposition that are committed —
QUESTION: People like, but not the moderate opposition?
MS. HARF: No. I’m talking about Iraq, too. But people like the Iraqis in Iraq, the Kurds, the moderate opposition – I was referring more broadly.
QUESTION: Okay. Sorry.
MS. HARF: But in Syria, of course, it would be – that would be our goal. But this is going to be a very long fight here, and so I want to be clear about that, and there aren’t always going to be nicely drawn battle lines that we can see either. So obviously, as territory is taken and squeezed from ISIL, we want people who come in behind them to be partners with us that we support and help, that can increasingly take on this fight, hold that territory, and really take away their capabilities.
QUESTION: And then I just have one more —
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: — and then I’ll let others go. But when you were doing the air strikes in Iraq and you were asked about the justification for doing that —
MS. HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: — you guys were – continuously said that it was because the Iraqi Government had invited the United States in.
MS. HARF: Correct.
QUESTION: In this case, there’s going to be no such invitation forthcoming from the Syrian – anybody that claims control in Syria.
MS. HARF: The moderate opposition would welcome us.
QUESTION: But you just said they don’t —
MS. HARF: Well, we recognize them as —
QUESTION: They don’t have governing authority over their territory.
MS. HARF: Right. They don’t. But we recognize them as the representative of the Syrian people. I think you heard – you’ve heard the President numerous times, though, say that as Commander-in-Chief he has the authority and must act wherever he has to to protect Americans. He talked about that a little in his speech at NDU. He talked about it years ago in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, when he talked about his responsibility is to protect Americans and take the fight to threats no matter where they are, and that’s been really a premise that’s underpinned much of his security strategy when it came to terrorists.
QUESTION: So then when you talk about international – the international justification for striking targets in Syria absent a government’s approval to do so, are you talking about the United States right to self-defense?
MS. HARF: Exactly, that’s certainly part of it. Again, I’m not an international lawyer, but there is written into international law the concept of self-defense. And I think that’s certainly part of what we would look at with any potential action. Again, without having anything to announce, I don’t have any more specific legal analysis to do.
QUESTION: Marie.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: A couple weeks ago, the President said that the United States will not be Iraq’s air force. Now, what we heard last night is quite a departure from that position.
MS. HARF: No, I don’t think so. I think it’s a partnership and the goal is to train them up to be able to do this on their own.
QUESTION: Okay. And let me just follow up very quickly on what you said about Syria —
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: — that there is no solution – no military solution and so on. So why wouldn’t it be wise to have some sort of a grand bargain where all – since ISIS seems to be the one common denominator as an enemy for all these forces, they come together and as part of that is actually have some sort of political resolution where a political transition can take place? That would involve Iran and Syria. Why would that be such a bad idea?
MS. HARF: Well, we have a diplomatic process in place that’s involved the regime that could get to a transitioning governing body, but the regime has thus far been unwilling to come to the table to talk about how that would work, signing on to the Geneva communique. So there actually is a process in place, one that we said potentially the Iranians could eventually be a part of. So that’s in place. The regime has so far refused to participate in any meaningful way.
QUESTION: Marie —
QUESTION: Marie —
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: I’ve been looking at the Jeddah Communique.
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why did Turkey not sign on to this?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, every country, including Turkey, is evaluating their role going forward. They’re an important counterterrorism partner. We’ll continue to consult closely with them. Obviously, the Secretary’s going there. So there are – each country will decide on their own what they would like to sign on to and what they would like to do, but I want to underscore they’re our very close counterterrorism partner.
QUESTION: But they were at the meeting, right?
MS. HARF: They were.
QUESTION: And by not signing this means they haven’t signed up to anything or is it —
MS. HARF: Again, I would just – they can speak for themselves, but every country will make their own decisions in their own time and make their own announcements.
QUESTION: Do you not find it unusual or concerning that they were at the core – the meeting of the core coalition and yet refused to sign on to it?
MS. HARF: You keep using the term and —
QUESTION: Well, you guys used it.
MS. HARF: I don’t think I’ve ever used it.
QUESTION: Well, I think the – both the Secretary —
MS. HARF: Okay. Well —
QUESTION: — of State and Defense in Wales used it to talk about —
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: — this 10 countries being —
MS. HARF: Right, when we’re going – I thought you were referring to the GCC meeting.
QUESTION: No, no, no, no.
MS. HARF: Sorry, sorry.
QUESTION: Wales, Wales, Wales. Sorry. I didn’t mean to say —
QUESTION: Which one —
QUESTION: — that three times. The – but they were there in Wales. They were at the table —
MS. HARF: And —
QUESTION: — because they’re a NATO member.
MS. HARF: Exactly.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that the only member of NATO that was present at this meeting in Jeddah refused to go along?
MS. HARF: We’re not. We’re constantly talking to them about counterterrorism, including the threat from ISIL.
QUESTION: All right. And then I had a question from yesterday about Israel.
QUESTION: Can you just carry on with the Turkey – has this anything to do with tensions over the Muslim Brotherhood?
MS. HARF: No, not that I’ve heard.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Could I ask a question about Pakistan?
MS. HARF: I think we —
QUESTION: No, this – just on Israel and the coalition.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
MS. HARF: And the – and then we’ll go to Pakistan.
QUESTION: You saw Prime Minister Netanyahu made some comments this morning our time, I believe —
MS. HARF: I didn’t.
QUESTION: — in Herzliya. Well, anyway, he did.
MS. HARF: Sorry.
QUESTION: It’s all right. Do you have an answer to a question that I asked yesterday, if there were any concerns that Israel’s involvement in this might —
MS. HARF: I’m sorry, Matt. I don’t. Let me get you something for tomorrow. That’s my fault.
Pakistan.
QUESTION: Yeah. Al-Qaida’s new branch in South Asia today made an announcement. They claimed responsibility for an attack in Pakistan on the navy personnel, and they chose to make the announcement today. Is there any concern about resurgency of al-Qaida, especially in the South Asia region?
MS. HARF: Are you talking about the new branch they —
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARF: — announced several – about a week or so ago?
QUESTION: Yeah, on 6 September, I think.
MS. HARF: Yes, yes, yes, or 5th or 6th, around then.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. HARF: I haven’t seen those reports from today. I’ll check with our team on those. As I said then, we don’t regard the announcement of an indication of any new capabilities. We obviously know al-Qaida has operated there for quite some time and does have some capability there, but let me check into this attack and see if we have some more analysis to do.
QUESTION: Okay. Just one more about the floods —
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: — in Pakistan. Has there been any request by India or Pakistan for any assistance regarding the floods?
MS. HARF: I can check on India. On Pakistan, we obviously have tools we can use, but I do not think – they have not requested international assistance.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). Okay.
MS. HARF: They have not. But we obviously stand ready to help in any way we can.
QUESTION: Okay. And nothing on India either?
MS. HARF: I can check on that. I’m sorry. I don’t have that in front of me.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
MS. HARF: Yes, what else? Go ahead.
QUESTION: Ukraine?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have details on U.S. plans for additional sanctions against Russia for its role in Ukraine? In particular, are there provisions underway that would stiffen penalties for Russian banks such as VTB?
MS. HARF: Well, as the President just announced in his statement right before I came out here, we are joining the European Union in announcing that we will intensify our coordinated sanctions on Russia. We’ll deepen and broaden our sanctions on their financial energy and defense sectors. So that will be happening. We don’t have specifics yet and won’t until tomorrow, I believe, on exactly what the sanctionable entities will look like. But broadly speaking, it’s in those three sectors.
QUESTION: And one more question.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Russia also, but a different area. The INF meeting today —
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: — saw the statement on that and the results were inconclusive in that the U.S. did not get the Russian admission. What’s the next step? Have the negotiators set up a new meeting date?
MS. HARF: Not that I know of. I don’t think there’s a new meeting date. They did meet today. Both sides acknowledge the importance of the treaty and reconfirmed their commitment to it, which I think is an important step. But the U.S. concerns were not assuaged in this meeting. We had a useful exchange of ideas. We agreed to continue the dialogue. We have not set a timeline for the next meeting.
QUESTION: Marie, the Russian side of this – of the readout of this meeting said that they did not receive any satisfactory answers to their concerns from the U.S. side. Was anything accomplished at this meeting other than the two sides just kind of talking past each other and —
MS. HARF: Well, it was a useful exchange of ideas. We would, of course, reject any notion of any noncompliance issues on our side here. But it was a useful exchange of ideas. We didn’t expect this to be resolved overnight, but we will continue working because our goal is for them to come back into compliance. And they did reaffirm their commitment to it, but we clearly have more issues to work out.
QUESTION: What were the specific questions that Russia raised or unsatisfactory issues that they raised?
MS. HARF: I can check with our team and see if – I don’t have those specifics in front of me.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Yes. Do you have a question? I thought you had your hand up. Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Marie, help me with this term, “war on terrorism.” Is that —
MS. HARF: Well, I don’t think I’ve ever used that term from here.
QUESTION: No, no, I’m just – Said it used it earlier. Thirteen years on, he said this “war on terrorism.” Is that something that’s out of the lexicon now of the U.S. Government’s comments on what’s happening?
MS. HARF: Well, it’s certainly not how I would refer to our efforts.
QUESTION: Okay. The second thing is that surely, this direct U.S. bombing of Syria is really back into – without UN sanction or being involved with this – is back into the doctrine of preemption.
MS. HARF: Do – is there a question?
QUESTION: Yeah, it’s a question.
MS. HARF: Or was that just a statement?
QUESTION: Is that the road that we’re traveling on now?
MS. HARF: Well, I wouldn’t use that term either. When we talk about how you degrade and defeat terrorist organizations, it’s not exactly, I think, how you’re probably using the term, and it’s not one that I’m using. Our goal is to prevent terrorist organizations from being able to attack the United States or our interests, to degrade their capabilities to do so. Obviously, that’s – those are the kind of terms I would use when it comes to this current effort.
QUESTION: There have been three D-words used: destroy —
MS. HARF: Degrade and defeat?
QUESTION: — degrade, decimate, and – well, four, defeat.
MS. HARF: Four. There you go.
QUESTION: And if – the goal, the endgame here, is the end of ISIL and the Assad regime. Is that a correct statement?
MS. HARF: Well, first, the – what the President spoke to last night was about destroying ISIL as a terrorist group. We obviously believe Assad has lost all legitimacy to lead. There needs to be a transitional governing body put in place, but those are separate efforts. Obviously, we support the Syrian opposition, who’s fighting on both fronts there.
QUESTION: Another Israel-related?
MS. HARF: You can.
QUESTION: The Human Rights Watch report that came out on the – what they call war crimes, the school shellings.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: What is your view or comment?
MS. HARF: Well, we’ve consistently made clear our position on this. We were horrified by the strikes that hit UNRWA facilities, emphasized that UNRWA facilities must not be used for military purposes, as some were by Hamas, and that they should not use civilians to shield fighters. But also at the same time, the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians. Israeli authorities say they’re investigating. We expect these to be investigated thoroughly and promptly, and we’ll continue pushing them to do so.
QUESTION: Human Rights Watch also didn’t seem to place much faith in the sincerity of the Israeli investigations based on their track record. How much credence does the U.S. place in these investigations?
MS. HARF: Well, we expect them to be investigated thoroughly, as I just said, and we will continue pushing the Israelis to do so. We will also make clear our serious concerns when we have them, as we’ve done – as we did throughout the conflict.
QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t have any reason to doubt that the Israelis are somehow not doing a full and thorough job?
MS. HARF: Again, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. But we haven’t also seen the end of an investigation, so I think we should wait and see and then we might have more to say on it then.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Anything else? Thank you, everyone.
Source: state.gov
