Daily Press Briefing
TRANSCRIPT:
1:05 p.m. EST
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone.
QUESTION: Hello.
MS. PSAKI: Hello. Happy Wednesday.
QUESTION: Wednesday.
MS. PSAKI: So a couple of items for all of you at the top. Secretary Kerry will host his counterparts from Canada and Mexico in his hometown of Boston, Massachusetts, on Friday, January 30th, and Saturday, January 31st for the North American Ministerial. Secretary Kerry, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Meade will review efforts to support greater North American competitiveness, advance leadership on energy and climate change, enhance our security cooperation, cooperate on hemispheric priorities, and strengthen education initiatives throughout North America.
One other item. We are deeply concerned by reports that Ukrainian parliamentarian and former military pilot Nadiya Savchenko is gravely ill due to her continued detention by Russia. We understand that Ms. Savchenko has been on a hunger strike since December 13th to protest the terms of her detention. Ms. Savchenko was captured by Russian-backed separatists in June of 2014 in eastern Ukraine, and illegally transferred to Russia by the separatists. We note that Ms. Savchenko is also a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a body dedicated to protecting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. We call on Russia to immediately release Ms. Savchenko and all other Ukrainian hostages as well as fulfill all commitments it made under Minsk.
Go ahead, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. So before we get back to Ukraine and before we get to Lebanon, I just want to ask very briefly if there’s any update beyond the statement that – the joint statement that you put out on the attack in Libya yesterday. Is there anything new that you can report about that – on that or about the American who was killed?
MS. PSAKI: There’s nothing new to report. I believe we put out details on the name of the American, or those have been confirmed out publicly; nothing since then.
QUESTION: Okay. Going to Israel/Lebanon, you – what are your thoughts on this Hezbollah-claimed attack on Israel that killed two IDF soldiers and Israel’s response?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we will have a statement on this that may be going out during the briefing, in my name. So if it does, I’m happy to reiterate that, but you should have that in your inboxes soon. We support Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense and continue to urge all parties to respect the blue line between Israel and Lebanon, as prescribed by UNSCR 1701. We also, of course, condemn the act of violence and will be watching the situation closely.
QUESTION: You condemn the act of violence – you’re referring to?
MS. PSAKI: The attacks.
QUESTION: The Hezbollah attacks?
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Just on a technical question: There are some who have made the argument that this area, Shebaa Farms, is Israeli-occupied Lebanon. What’s the U.S. position on the status of this area?
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check with our legal team on the specific status, Matt. I’m happy to do that.
QUESTION: Do you know if anyone – the Secretary or anyone else – has been in touch with either the Israelis or the Lebanese about this issue?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any calls to read out from the Secretary this morning. As you know, he flew back and arrived early this morning. I can certainly check on contacts with our teams on the ground. I would certainly suspect that our teams in Lebanon and Israel have been in touch with relevant authorities.
QUESTION: Jen, do you think that the Lebanese army or the Lebanese Government bear any responsibility in this attack?
MS. PSAKI: I think this is an attack that obviously just happened. We certainly encourage all parties to respect the blue line between Israel and Lebanon. We urge all parties to refrain from any action that could escalate the situation. You’re familiar with our views on Hezbollah. As I mentioned, we strongly condemn Hezbollah’s attack today near the border, but beyond that I’m not going to speculate further.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You began your comments on this by reaffirming your belief that Israel has the right to self-defense, and then – which might be taken as that they have a right to defend against attacks like the one that killed the two soldiers, and now you say, however, that you encourage all sides to refrain from any actions that could escalate the situation. Which is it? I mean, do you feel that the Israelis should not take any actions that would escalate the situation, or do you feel that they have every right to attack in self-defense against such things?
MS. PSAKI: Well, they have the right to, Arshad, but certainly our preference is to reduce the tensions and the violence and the back and forth from here.
QUESTION: Well, let’s put it this way: Do you regard Israel’s counterattack or Israel’s retaliatory actions as being actions that escalate the situation?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we believe – and that’s why I stated it – that Israel has the right to defend itself. Obviously, this is a situation where they’re – and I don’t have any confirmation of the specific back-and-forths here, Matt – but they are dealing with a situation where they were attacked by Hezbollah. But again, of course, in this situation and anywhere there’s tensions back and forth, our preference is that all sides refrain from activities that would increase volatility.
QUESTION: Right. But there’s a problem, because if – because if you say that Israel has the right to defend itself, but then you say that you want all sides to refrain from any action that could escalate the situation, and you believe that the Israeli retaliation is escalatory, then you’re saying that you don’t think Israel should defend itself.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t think I said that, Matt. I said --
QUESTION: No, I am – it’s a syllogism. It’s a logical corollary.
MS. PSAKI: I understand, and Arshad asked a similar question.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: Look, this is a situation where there has been an attack from Hezbollah. Obviously, we condemn that. Is our preference that there are no more attacks and that the UNSCR is abided by? Yes. But we also believe Israel has the right to defend itself.
QUESTION: Maybe the way to state your position would be that you would prefer that Israel not exercise its right to self-defense --
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn’t state it in that way, though I appreciate your offer for – to give us talking points. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- so as to avoid escalatory actions.
QUESTION: We’re just trying to figure out exactly what the Administration’s position is here. Because either you think that Israel has the right to defend itself, full stop, or you think that Israel, as does Hezbollah, should not take any action that could escalate tensions. And if firing 20 or 50 or however many rockets into Lebanon that may have killed a UN peacekeeper isn’t escalatory, then you should say that that’s not escalatory.
MS. PSAKI: I will leave it at: We – our preference continues to be that there is not violations of the UNSCR and they – both sides abide by that. And obviously, peace and security there along that line, along the blue line, is our preference.
QUESTION: Right. But --
MS. PSAKI: However, does Israel have the right? Yes, they have the right.
QUESTION: Okay. So you don’t have a problem with Israel’s retaliation?
MS. PSAKI: I’m going to leave it at that.
QUESTION: Have you conveyed to the Israeli Government, since the killing of their two soldiers, that it would be your preference that they not undertake – that they and all other parties not undertake escalatory actions?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think Matt asked about contacts we’ve had. I’m certain we’ve been in contact on the ground. I can see if there’s more we can spell out about those discussions.
QUESTION: On that particular point --
MS. PSAKI: I understand your question.
QUESTION: I just have one more.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: There is some in Israel and elsewhere who have suggested that there is an Iranian hand in this. Is that something that the Administration is aware of or shares?
MS. PSAKI: We’ve seen the reports. I don’t think we have any confirmation of that report.
Go ahead, Barbara.
QUESTION: Will this event affect the talks with Iran regarding the nuclear issue?
MS. PSAKI: No, it will not.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: A new topic?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Jordan. Have you been in discussions with the Jordanians about their offer of a prisoner swap for their pilot? And if so, given your well-known position about not having ransom or prisoner exchanges with ISIS, are you saying this might be a counterproductive move, or are you standing back and just – and letting things go as they are? And also, would the Jordanian pilot in your view be considered a prisoner of war?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are a range of reports out there, as we’ve all seen, and many of you have reported on. And we certainly understand the interest in this issue. We’re also watching closely. We’re not going to discuss the details of our diplomatic exchanges with Jordan, with Japan, with any other country involved. Our position is well known. The United States Government policy, in terms of how we operate, is we don’t make concessions to terrorists. That is our policy. I don’t think there’s any secret about that to other countries around the world. But otherwise, in terms of reports of what is being considered or may or may not be considered, I would refer you to the governments of Jordan and governments of Japan?
QUESTION: Can I follow up --
QUESTION: And would the pilot be considered a prisoner of war?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any analysis of that from here. Obviously, we designate our own individuals, as we did certainly with Sergeant Bergdahl, who we’ve spoken about in here.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Aside from not wanting to talk about the diplomatic piece of this, do you support – can you say whether you support or not a prisoner swap between Jordan --
MS. PSAKI: I’m just going to leave it as I’ve said it. Obviously, this is a very fluid situation; there are lots of reports out there. I think everybody understands the pain and the suffering that the people of Japan and the people of Jordan have gone through. We have our own – unfortunately, our own prisoners, but there’s no benefit to us in spelling this out more specifically.
QUESTION: And how is it dissimilar from the Bergdahl swap? Wouldn’t it in a sense be exactly the same, and therefore you would support it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Justin, as you know, there’s lots of different reports out there that I don’t think I need to spell out for you about what is or isn’t being considered. So let’s see what happens and we can speak about it at that point in time.
QUESTION: Put it this way --
QUESTION: There was supposed to be a review of the terror hostage policy. Has that – has anything become of that? Has – is that review complete?
MS. PSAKI: It’s ongoing. Again, I think you’re familiar with the fact that we have confirmed that ransom payments, in our view on that, is not a part of that.
QUESTION: Putting it more broadly – and maybe this will help elicit an answer – does the United States believe that foreign governments have the sovereign right to do whatever they can to release their own prisoners of war? Or is that a right or privilege that the United States believes only belongs to it.
MS. PSAKI: Well, every country has the ability and the right to make decisions --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: -- about – obviously, within the realm of what is acceptable by international law. We have our own positions, our own views that are well known, and there’s reasons behind them.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the swap for Bergdahl, which has been mentioned, fell within the realm of international law, of legality?
MS. PSAKI: We do, yes.
QUESTION: We do. Okay, you do. So in other words then, given those – given that stated position, you shouldn’t have a problem with the Jordanians releasing a prisoner to get their pilot back.
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, there’s lots of reports out there about what’s being considered. Let’s see what happens. I’m not going to speculate on what that may or may not be or what will happen.
QUESTION: Right, but let me – I just want to make sure – you think that foreign governments have the right to do whatever they deem necessary to get their own prisoners of war released from --
MS. PSAKI: Well, there are certain international laws and policies.
QUESTION: -- as long as it complies with international law, right? Correct?
MS. PSAKI: We – as you know, different governments make decisions about what’s appropriate.
QUESTION: I know. But you don’t – you’re not telling – you’re not saying that you think that other governments don’t have the same rights as the United States does when it comes to getting – winning the release or getting the release of their prisoners.
QUESTION: Broadly speaking, that is our view, Matt, but I’m not going to speak more hypothetically about this.
Go ahead, Elliot.
QUESTION: I just have one on that.
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: If it is wrong for the United States to make concessions to win the release of hostages, why is it not wrong for every other nation to make concessions to secure the release of hostages?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as we have this discussion and debate, which unfortunately has been happening around the international community given the number of hostages held by ISIL, we have conveyed why that is our position. Beyond that, I’m not going to get into discussions we’re having private – through private diplomatic channels.
Go ahead, Elliot.
QUESTION: Thanks. I was just a little confused by your continued reference to the range of reports. I mean, it seems like the Jordanian Government has pretty clearly stated its intention to swap the prisoners. I mean, is that in your view still unclear or --
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think – Elliot, I don’t think I have to spell out for you the range of reports out there. I’ll encourage you to Google when you get back to your desk and see what’s out there.
QUESTION: I actually already have.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) statement by the Jordanian Government that was released on the (inaudible) official newswire --
MS. PSAKI: I understand. We’re not confirming any details of it, Arshad.
QUESTION: -- and then emailed out to every reporter in this room. There’s no ambiguity about that.
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details on it to offer.
Do we have any more on this to talk about?
QUESTION: Can I have a new subject?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: Oh, can I just --
QUESTION: I have on this – actually --
MS. PSAKI: Oh, sure. Let’s finish this, and then we’ll go to you next, I promise. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I just – I don’t know if you’ll have an answer to this, but obviously prisoners of war are different than civilian hostages, at least in terms of what their status is.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But is it fair to say that if you, as you said in response to one of my earlier questions that – believe that governments have – foreign governments have the right to do whatever the – whatever they can within international law to win the release of prisoners of war, is it also correct that the United --
MS. PSAKI: Well, with full well knowing we have our own positions, as many other countries do, on things like ransom and swaps for a reason.
QUESTION: No. Is it to your understanding a violation of international law to pay ransom or trade people for civilians, private citizens who are held hostage by whoever?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything for you on international law, Matt. I think there have been UN Security Council statements and others, but we can certainly check with our lawyers and see if there’s more we can offer.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Jennifer, I have a question on the sanctions – on the new sanctions – European Union against Russia. The new Government of Greece --
MS. PSAKI: I believe it’s a – they’re having a discussion.
QUESTION: Yes, I know.
MS. PSAKI: So I don’t think there’s been any confirmation, but --
QUESTION: Okay. But the leader of the new Government of Greece, Minister Tsipras, has raised yesterday a formal objection to this statement. Obviously, he’s against the sanctions, as we understand. He spoke with Mrs. Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief. He sent her a letter, and according to his office, we – means that Greece – underline that it does not have our country’s consent. Do you have any comment on this? I mean --
MS. PSAKI: Well, we are – these are deliberations --
QUESTION: -- he’s in agreement with you, with the Europeans?
MS. PSAKI: These are deliberations that are happening within the EU, so I’m certainly not going to speculate on that. Obviously, we appreciate the cooperation of our European partners in implementing the sanctions adopted by the EU, and we continue to work with them in helping to end the crisis in Ukraine. There’s been a meeting – this week’s meeting of the EU foreign ministers to discuss escalating violence in eastern Ukraine and what to do about it. And obviously, this discussion is a part of that, but we’ll let that discussion happen between the EU ministers.
QUESTION: Can we tease that out a little bit more?
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Are you concerned at all that Russia is trying to somehow hive the new Greek Government, and therefore Greece, away from the European Union, specifically in relation to Ukraine, the situation in Ukraine and sanctions – but more generally in terms of European Union unity, such as it is or ever was?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, one, the new Greeks – Greek Government, I should say, is only a couple days old, Matt. And obviously, we expect they’ll have conversations with a range of countries. There have been in the past, as you know, debates or discussions about what is beneficial or not on EU sanctions leading up to decisions that are made. So that has not been uncommon. I don’t think we’re at the point where we have concern.
QUESTION: Okay. And then – in the – in Greece, are you aware of any contact that there has been between the Secretary or other senior officials and the new Greek leadership, recognizing that I don’t think the government’s been fully named yet?
MS. PSAKI: I think it’s still in process, as I understand the status.
QUESTION: So is he --
MS. PSAKI: He – I don’t have a call from him to read out. Obviously, he’s been traveling and been on a plane, I think, for 23 hours yesterday. So, nothing to read out. We can see if there’s more to say about other officials, certainly.
QUESTION: But is he planning to call his counterpart in Greece?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any calls to predict. I expect when there’s a new government, often that’s what happens. So let me see if there’s a call planned and we can let you know about it.
QUESTION: Another question: Do you think it’s a problem that Greece is against the sanctions against Russia?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don’t want to speak on behalf of Greece. I know they have made their own comments. There are often discussions and debates leading up to the EU decisions about sanctions. That’s a part of the process, so we’ll leave that process where it is.
New topic?
QUESTION: Well, I have a question about Russia.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but the head of the parliament, Russian parliament, is – says that parliament is going to consider a resolution, which would be symbolic in nature, but that would condemn the reunification of East and West Germany. I’m just wondering if you guys have any thoughts about that.
MS. PSAKI: We haven’t seen that. I think if it’s a proposal I’m not sure we’ll have much to say, but I’m happy to talk to our European team on that, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. And it’s just a question of the tenor and the overall --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- atmosphere of East/West relations.
MS. PSAKI: Yes, understood. I will see if there’s more details or where it is in the process.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: There are reports based on sources from the State Department and some Syrian opposition groups in Daily Beast --
MS. PSAKI: Uh-oh. Okay. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- says that the U.S. has cut off the funds of some Syrian opposition groups and brigades for their failure against al-Nusrah Front in northern Syria. And these reports also say that some of these brigades have been dropped from the list of ratified militias. Do you – first of all, do you confirm this? Secondly, can you give us an update how many groups the U.S. is supporting? What kind of support is U.S. giving to these groups?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I spoke about this pretty extensively yesterday, so I would point you to that. I had mentioned that I can’t speak to reports about covert programs, which I believe is what you’re referring to. I can speak to what we’re doing from the State Department, and we are continuing to support the Syrian opposition. Obviously, we’re supporting the DOD train and equip program, which is expected to launch this spring. We continue our – are continuing our ongoing nonlethal assistance programs to provide food, medical supplies, winter gear, and trucks. We’ve been providing a range of nonlethal support to moderate civilian and armed elements of the Syrian opposition. That’s all continuing.
I don’t have a number for you, and I don’t think we’ve given a number for the number of groups. There are a range of groups that go through a vetting process in the moderate opposition that we continue to contribute to. Since the first of the year, we have delivered approximately 2.7 million in nonlethal supplies and equipment to the moderate opposition, including, as I mentioned, water trucks, back hoes, generators, winterization gear, and more than 17,000 food baskets. So that support is ongoing from the State Department.
QUESTION: Food baskets?
MS. PSAKI: Baskets of food.
QUESTION: Well, I got you, but I mean, what --
MS. PSAKI: Do you want to know what’s in them?
QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. It’s MREs, right, or is it not?
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s – I can find out more specifically what it contains.
QUESTION: I mean, it’s not like Pepperidge Farms, Harry and David food baskets.
MS. PSAKI: It’s unlikely it’s Pepperidge Farms, Matt. I think it’s food that can be transferred.
QUESTION: Okay. On – I understand.
MS. PSAKI: Transported I should say.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. I don’t mean – I’m not intending to make light of this. Did – on the vetting though --
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: -- the vetting issue, is it the State Department that does vetting for all of the U.S. Government or do different agencies have their own vetting process?
MS. PSAKI: I believe it’s an interagency, depending on what the issue is. Obviously, when it’s weapons and things, it would be the Department of Defense.
QUESTION: Right, but I mean if DOD decides that one group no longer meets the qualifications – the vetting qualifications, does that mean that the State Department is obligated to end – to also cancel the okay?
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, humanitarian assistance is provided across the board often. So I’d have to check on what the program is. I’m sure I can talk to our team about how it impacts.
QUESTION: Well, are you aware of – assuming for the moment that the State Department does its own vetting for its own programs, are you aware of it – of the State Department dropping the approval for any groups in Syria to be – to receive assistance?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think most of the reports are referring to military assistance, obviously, which wouldn’t be the State Department.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check if there’s more to convey from any concerns we’ve had about it.
QUESTION: Can I go to Kobani?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: I just wondered if it was still the U.S. position that the anti-ISIL fighters had secured 90 percent of the town, or whether you now believe that they were in total control of the town.
MS. PSAKI: Well, that was CENTCOM’s update from yesterday. I haven’t seen an update from them over the last 24 hours so it may have increased since then, but I don’t have a new number for you.
QUESTION: Okay. And just going forward, we’ve had a team in Kobani today and there’s sort of, obviously, as expected, I would imagine, massive destruction after a four-month heavy – four months of heavy fighting. I wondered if there was any U.S. aid, if you’ve been approached for any help now going forward for – whether there’s anything that you can actually help provide for people.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would say, one, we firmly support the humanitarian principle that refugee return should be strictly voluntary. As it – we’re not aware at this point – and it may be because it’s fairly fresh – of a significant number of refugees returning to Kobani, but we’re actively monitoring the situation. There are a number of countries, including Turkey, that has been providing assistance and protection for refugees from Kobani. We, of course, remain, as you know, the largest humanitarian donor in the world. That will continue and that will certainly continue in this area, as it does in others. And we’ve also indicated we’ll continue to help them militarily as well.
QUESTION: I believe that yesterday, or even maybe today, there was a few numbers of – large numbers of Kurds on the border, on the Turkish side of the border, who were wanting to go back and cross into Syria back to Kobani and weren’t being allowed; the border remains closed. Do you have a position on whether the Turks should allow that border to open or not, given that, obviously, Syria is in a – is a conflict zone?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, I think, obviously, there have been some concerns given the conflict that’s happening in Kobani. I don’t have a particular update on that, so I’m happy to talk to our team and see if there’s more we can convey about that border.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Do you think that the Syrian Free Army played – did it play any role in the liberation of Kobani, or only the Kurds played the major role?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think there are a range of groups and individuals who supported it. Obviously, the United States was a prominent part of that, as were the Kurds. I don’t think I’m going to give out awards or trophies today. There’s a long way to go.
Do we have any more on Syria?
QUESTION: On Syria. There are social media reports that Abu Muhammad Al-Amriki, an ISIS commander who, as his name would imply, has claimed to be an American citizen --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- have you seen any confirmation of a U.S. citizen --
MS. PSAKI: Seen the --
QUESTION: -- killed in Syria?
MS. PSAKI: Seen the reports. We don’t have any confirmation, though, of the reports on social media.
Any more on Syria before we continue? Okay, go ahead. Do you have another issue? Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. As you’ll have seen, the Thais have not reacted – the Thai Government has not reacted well to Assistant Secretary Russel’s suggestion that they should end martial law. And there are also reports that the U.S. charge was called in.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Are the reports of the charge being called in correct? And does the U.S. Government, which, as you’ll well recall, took a number of steps last year after the coup, plan to curtail further its cooperation with the Thai Government, notably by not including them in Cobra Gold?
MS. PSAKI: Well, in terms of the meeting, at the request of Thai deputy minister of foreign – of the Thai deputy minister of foreign affairs, our charge on the ground, Patrick Murphy, met on January 28th to discuss – with him to discuss Assistant Secretary of State Danny Russel’s visit. During the meeting, in addition to discussing our bilateral relationship, the deputy foreign minister explained the Thai Government’s point of view on comments the assistant secretary made regarding the importance of freedom of expression, the lifting of martial law, and perceptions of political fairness. Certainly, as you would expect, our charge repeated – reiterated our point of view and expressed our hope that we will continue to have an ongoing dialogue.
I think we’ve conveyed this before, but on Cobra Gold, in light of the coup, we have refocused and scaled down the Cobra Gold 2015 exercise. This year, Cobra Gold will focus on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief with the aim of expanding regional cooperation and coordination in these vital areas. That’s something I think we decided some time ago. So in terms of additional changes to that – and the exercise, as you know, is next month – I’m not aware of plans for additional changes.
QUESTION: But – so in other words, you would still expect the Thais to participate in Cobra Gold next month?
MS. PSAKI: For – with this --
QUESTION: For those purposes?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. And then you said “at the request of.” You wouldn’t dispute the characterization of the charge having been called in?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, I think it’s another way of saying “at the request of,” but I think that’s accurate. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So basically, the deputy prime – the foreign minister asked the charge to come in, the charge went in, the deputy prime minister complained about Assistant Secretary Russel’s speech, and the charge repeated what Secretary – Assistant Secretary Russel had said criticizing the Thai Government.
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: Is that a succinct way to put it?
MS. PSAKI: I think I was trying to convey it in a succinct manner. Obviously, Thailand is a valued friend and ally, and we have a range of conversations with them.
QUESTION: But --
MS. PSAKI: But those are our positions.
QUESTION: Right. And it’s – so suffice it to say, the difference of opinion over the issues --
MS. PSAKI: -- remains.
QUESTION: -- remains.
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s fair to say.
QUESTION: And one other thing: Have the Thais – has the Thai Government given you any indication that they themselves might choose to withdraw from Cobra Gold as a result of this?
MS. PSAKI: Not that I have heard an indication of, Arshad.
QUESTION: Can I stay in the region?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Yes. I think today there was a joint statement put out by the foreign ministers of ASEAN expressing concern about land reclamation in the South China Sea. I was wondering if you share those concerns and if you have anything. I think Danny Russel might have spoken to this issue a little bit, but I’m just wondering if you have anything --
MS. PSAKI: Yeah. We talked about it, I think, a little bit yesterday too. I don’t believe I have anything new to add. I’m happy to take a look at it and see if we want to echo it or add anything further.
QUESTION: Okay. You still support negotiations toward a code of conduct between the parties?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, we absolutely do. That remains our position.
QUESTION: In your view, is there anything that particular countries could be doing to move that along? The process has been --
MS. PSAKI: Well, as you know, this is a primary topic of discussion every time there’s an ASEAN meeting, and there’s generally, as you know, broad agreement among these countries about what needs to happen. So -- and the question of how to move it along, I think they’ll continue to discuss it, and we’re hopeful that all of the parties that would be a part of this will agree to take substantive steps.
QUESTION: I also wanted to ask about the Freedom House 2015 Freedom in the World report – I think came out today – noted that – it was a rather dim outlook on many countries’ records, including China, Turkey. I was wondering if you broadly share those assessments.
MS. PSAKI: Well, without going country by country, as you know, we put out our own reports on an annual basis that address many of the same issues. So I think those speak to what our views are. I expect that will be coming out somewhat soon. I don’t have a date yet. But in terms of where we stand on those issues, I would refer you to last year’s report.
QUESTION: You’re referring to the Human Rights report?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Can I ask you if you – if the great minds in this building have come up yet with an answer on the beheading question that I’ve had for the last two days?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything new to offer, Matt. Obviously, we don’t condone that – those activities, but I think you know that.
QUESTION: And – you don’t condone what, capital punishment in general, or beheading as a form of capital punishment?
MS. PSAKI: Beheadings, which is the question you asked about.
QUESTION: Okay. I’m going to have to ruminate about that for a little bit and get back to you.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. We’ll let you ruminate.
QUESTION: Can I – go ahead.
QUESTION: Well, I was just going to ask if you had any position on the announcement from Tehran today that the Iranians and the EU members of the P5+1 will meet in Istanbul on Thursday. I wondered about the choice of venue, whether you had any concerns about that.
MS. PSAKI: I have not heard any concerns expressed about the location or the venue, no.
QUESTION: And is this just another of the round of normal bilateral meetings?
MS. PSAKI: That’s my understanding. As you know, there have been meetings that the United States has had, there have been meetings that different countries have had, and that certainly has been a standard part of the process.
QUESTION: And in some of the – well, in many of the Iran-U.S. bilateral meetings, there’s been an EU presence, namely Helga Schmid.
MS. PSAKI: And many there have not.
QUESTION: And many there have not. But I was asking – I was going to ask whether you anticipated whether there’d be a U.S. presence at these talks on Thursday.
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to check and see if anybody from our negotiating team will be a part of them. And as you know, even when the EU is not in – sitting in the room with our talks, we often have readouts immediately following the meetings with our partners. And I expect it would be the same here.
QUESTION: Okay. Any update on when there might be another either Iran-U.S. bilat or a global P5+1 meeting?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have an update yet at this point in time.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: There’s a report out that a U.S. State Department-funded group is financing an Israeli campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu. Do you have any response to that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this is a report – just so people who haven’t followed this as closely know what the details are – about a group called OneVoice. The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv provided a grant to OneVoice to promote dialogue and support for peace negotiations and a two-state solution. That grant ran from September of 2013 to November of 2014. During the period of the grant, as is standard practice, the U.S. Embassy approved OneVoice Israel’s implementation plan for the grant and monitored its performance. And, as is routine for such a grant, final payments are disbursed after the grantee provides documentation showing completion of the grant terms. Now you’ve learned more about U.S. Government grants than you ever thought you needed to know.
The grant ended before the advent of V15. It ended before there was a declaration of an Israeli election. We’ve seen the media reports about the activities of V15, but the embassy has not provided any funds, support, or direction to the group.
QUESTION: How much was it?
MS. PSAKI: How much was the grant from last year?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm.
MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on that for you, Matt.
QUESTION: And how long has the U.S. been funding it prior to the grant that was – prior to --
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a history of grants prior to last year. This was related to supporting a two-state solution. I’d also note for you that in one of the stories, the – one – sorry, OneVoice spokesperson is quoted saying, “No government funding has gone toward any activities we’re doing right now whatsoever,” and that the grant money was going to build public support for the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
QUESTION: So when was the last – do you know when the last – you said that even though the grant expired in November, they might be – have gotten money after November as part of that grant because the money is not disbursed until they provide proof that their program has succeeded --
MS. PSAKI: Which is for the two-state – promoting a two-state solution.
QUESTION: I understand that, but were – do you know, were there payments made as part of this grant or to complete the grant after November 2014?
MS. PSAKI: We can certainly check. They were not for – they were for promoting a two-state solution regardless, but we’ll check on that question.
QUESTION: All right. I understand. The reason that the question arises is because – one of Arshad’s favorite words – money is fungible. And so if this group was doing your – the two-state solution stuff and they finished doing that, but they were still getting money afterwards, there could be a way that somehow – that this money indirectly funded some of their post-November 2014 activities.
MS. PSAKI: Well, but the point is, Matt, that there --
QUESTION: I understand what you’re saying and I understand you didn’t – the U.S. Government – what you’re saying is that the U.S. Government hasn’t funded anything, any political activity by this group, and any activity at all after November 14 – November --
MS. PSAKI: Thirtieth.
QUESTION: Right, after --
MS. PSAKI: Well, November 2014.
QUESTION: -- last November.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But it would be interesting, I think, to know if payments on that grant could --
MS. PSAKI: Well, and we approve exactly what the money is used for, so that’s where it becomes --
QUESTION: I understand, but --
MS. PSAKI: -- a little tricky to do what you’re talking about.
QUESTION: Well, to find out when the last payment was made?
MS. PSAKI: No, to use money for anything other than what they’ve been approved to use the money for. That’s – it’s very specific and complex in that way.
QUESTION: Right, but if you give money for them to do one project, it saves them – they don’t have to spend their own money on that project, which frees up the money to do – for them to do something else. I’m just curious as to know when the last payment on the grant was made, even --
MS. PSAKI: Certainly, but last thing I would say is they were doing that project, in part, supported by funding from the U.S. Government. So it’s also speculating that they would have done that project without that funding. I don’t know if that’s the case.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, the other thing is that the peace process was well and truly cooked, done, over by November.
MS. PSAKI: Correct. It doesn’t mean that we haven’t continued to support, as many, many in the world have, efforts to engage and discuss the benefits of a two-state solution. And that’s obviously what – part of what their objectives were.
Do we have any more on Israel before we continue? Okay. Any more topics?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: All right. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Oh, I was hoping we could go back to Libya just for a minute.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: You might not have anything on this, but maybe you could take the question. There’s this group claiming to be an ISIS affiliate in Libya that’s claiming responsibility for the hotel attack. And I don't know if you have an understanding that this group is in some way in contact with ISIS leadership, or is this more of a support generally?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we’re aware of claims of responsibility for the attack by a group claiming association with ISIL. We’re monitoring closely indications that several extremist groups in Libya have aligned themselves openly with ISIL. But I don’t have – I’m not going to have any more to offer for you in terms of analysis of that or the reports.
Any more on Libya? Okay.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask --
MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- if you had any more on the question about the arrests in Bahrain that Matt raised yesterday?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more on that.
QUESTION: Is that finished? Is it over?
MS. PSAKI: We don’t have a Privacy Act waiver, so there’s not more I can speak to about it at this point in time.
QUESTION: Do you know if there is still – if there are individuals still held in Bahrain?
MS. PSAKI: I just don’t have an update. I can see if there’s more we can offer.
QUESTION: I have three extremely brief ones --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- probably less than 10 seconds each.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: First, any update on the status of the embassy or situation in Yemen?
MS. PSAKI: No, nothing has changed.
QUESTION: Two, Venezuela. This country seems to be abuzz about the alleged defection of this former bodyguard to the United States – defection to the United States of this former bodyguard who some reports claim is going to implicate the country’s number-two in a drug-smuggling ring. Can you speak to these – this at all? Is it --
MS. PSAKI: No. It’s an ongoing law enforcement matter, so I can’t speak to it.
QUESTION: Is this guy in the U.S.?
MS. PSAKI: I just – I’m going to refer you to the Department of Justice. Don’t have any more details.
QUESTION: So there is a case going on? Is that --
MS. PSAKI: I would encourage you to pose your question with the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: Well, is the Department of Justice going to tell me or one of my colleagues that – they’re going to refer me back to the State Department?
MS. PSAKI: I think that’s unlikely. Do you have a third question?
QUESTION: Thank you. I do.
MS. PSAKI: You said three. Go ahead.
QUESTION: And this is just very – and I don’t expect that you’ll --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- have an answer off the top of your head. I’m just wondering – the Cuban interest section was having their celebration for the national – for Cuban National Day this Friday. I’m just wondering if there’s any high-level State Department people planning to attend given the recent changes or attempts to change the nature of the relationship.
MS. PSAKI: Not that I’m aware of, but we can check that question for you, sure.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Under 10 seconds on every reply.
MS. PSAKI: Oh, I felt pressure. (Laughter.) All right. Thanks, everyone.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:44 p.m.)
Short URL: http://m.state.gov/md236853.htm