Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MS. HARF: Happy Friday, everyone. Welcome to the daily briefing. I have a few things
to do at the top, and then I'm happy to open it up. First, as I'm sure many of you
if not all of you saw today, the Nobel Committee recognized today the vision and efforts of
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons with the award of the Nobel Peace
Prize. The extraordinary work of the OPCW began more than 15 years ago after a 100-year
effort to ban chemical weapons succeeded with the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons
Convention in 1997. The OPCW has been instrumental in verifying
the elimination of chemical weapons around the world. Member states of the OPCW now represent
98 percent of the global population and land mass. The OPCW is the guardian of the global
ban on chemical weapons and implements humanity's collective judgment that the use of chemical
weapons by anyone at any time runs against the very conscience of mankind.
As the repository of international expertise on chemical weapons, the OPCW constitutes
a unique resource and an invaluable tool to address the threat of chemical weapons. The
award of the Nobel Peace Prize today to the OPCW no doubt reflects the critical role that
they are playing in the Syrian CW crisis. As people know, in March of this year, the
OPCW was called upon by the UN Secretary General to support a UN investigation into allegations
of CW use in Syria. A UN team staffed by OPCW chemical weapons experts investigated the
August 21st attack and confirmed utilizing OPCW-designated laboratories that sarin was
used to kill over a thousand Syrians. So I just want to take another opportunity
to congratulate the OPCW on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize, reiterate that they're
dedicated to a vision of a world free of chemical weapons through the verifiable elimination
of existing stockpiles, and the prevention of the re-emergence of chemical weapons. And
that's exactly what they're working so hard to do today in Syria.
So that's first. And then second I just have a quick travel update. You probably saw
the Secretary -- the notice that went out this morning about the Secretary's travel.
He is right now in Kabul, Afghanistan. He will be meeting with President Karzai this
evening. We're going to be talking about how to make progress, have discussions about
the BSA, also about preparation for the elections. And that's happening all right now, so I'm
sure we'll have a readout after that happens. Tomorrow he will be in Paris to have dinner
with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. They will be talking about a range of issues.
And then Monday, will be meeting in London with Mr. Brahimi to discuss a range of issues,
including, of course, Syria. Deb, let's go ahead and get us started.
QUESTION: Can you just -- when he's coming home?
MS. HARF: Arshad, I'm going to let Deb start, and then I'll go to you. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Just real quick, if we could get this out of the way real quick --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Is there any -- is the government
shutdown affecting the Keystone pipeline environmental review?
MS. HARF: I'll get to Keystone in one second. Did you just have a logistical question, Arshad?
QUESTION: I did, but -- MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- you want to start with Deb, so you do that.
MS. HARF: No, no, no. QUESTION: No, go for it.
MS. HARF: When's he coming home? QUESTION: No, you've -- go ahead. Ask Deb
your question. MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: Go right ahead. MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: Go right ahead. MS. HARF: Okay, we'll move on from travel.
Keystone, yes. Thank you. The State Department continues to carry out its
work to finalize the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement. As folks know, finalizing
the Draft SEIS involves work with consulting agencies to discuss and address their comments
as appropriate. Most of these consulting agencies have had a large number of staff furloughed
during this process, which has made it harder to work on with them. We obviously need information,
technical expertise that these agencies can provide, and it's just making it more difficult
right now. We don't have -- we haven't had an estimate on timing ever throughout
this process, so I -- obviously we can't make any predictions now, but it certainly
has made it harder. QUESTION: Did you have a sense before the
shutdown of when you had wanted to make this decision by?
MS. HARF: No. QUESTION: Because we expected there to be
some decision over the summer, and then that didn't happen. So I mean, it might be holding
up kind of discussions, but it wasn't really holding up, like, a pending decision, because
that wasn't imminent. Is that right? MS. HARF: Well, yeah. We never had a timeline.
We never put anything out in terms of expectations. It's just making it harder to work on right now. Yeah.
QUESTION: I'm pretty sure that U.S. officials actually, at the time, said that they thought
-- I could be mistaken, but I'm quite certain that U.S. officials said at the time that
they thought that the review could be completed as early as the first quarter. I may be wrong
about that, but there was a timeline that was discussed, it was briefed, and I'll
go back and check. MS. HARF: Yeah, let's go back and check
on that. It's my understanding that we never put forward a timeline for when the final
SEIS would be done. That's my understanding that we've never put a timing on that.
QUESTION: First quarter of the year or the fiscal year?
MS. HARF: It's -- again -- QUESTION: It was -- this was a review, and
it was calendar year. So maybe it's -- MS. HARF: Let's --
QUESTION: -- maybe we're talking about different things here also.
MS. HARF: We might be talking about different things. Let's go back and double-check.
I know for the whole process we haven't put a timeline on it.
QUESTION: Right. MS. HARF: And there's no update on that.
QUESTION: For the final decision. Okay. QUESTION: Do you have anything else on the
shutdown? MS. HARF: No, nothing else today.
QUESTION: Okay. MS. HARF: In terms -- I'm going to go to
Arshad next, though. In terms of when he's coming back, I don't have any -- his meeting
is Monday -- or, excuse me, let's see -- Monday, Sunday in London. I'm trying to look at my
notes here in terms of when this is. The Brahimi meeting, I believe, is Monday in London,
if I'm reading this correctly. So they should be back late after that, but I just don't
know exactly when. QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: What was the -- MS. HARF: And hopefully, we will have a briefing
on Tuesday. QUESTION: Can I ask you --
QUESTION: I just wondered why it was -- the Secretary felt it was necessary to add these
two stops on. I mean, obviously meeting the Saudi foreign minister, meeting the Syrian
envoy are important things, but -- MS. HARF: Very important. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- but he's also been on the road for quite some time now.
MS. HARF: He has been. QUESTION: And I just wondered what was the
urgency of actually a face-to-face meeting, something that couldn't be done by a phone
call or even Skype, for instance. MS. HARF: Well, I like the Skype idea.
QUESTION: If you use Skype. (Laughter.) MS. HARF: I'll tell the Secretary I think
we should do that. No, he obviously believes -- we talk on the phone all the time, but
sometimes it's important to meet face-to-face. Obviously, there's incredible urgency to
get towards a Geneva 2 conference, which is a major topic of conversation with Special
Representative Brahimi. And obviously, the Saud al-Faisal discussion will cover a range
of pressing issues as well that we've talked about. So --
QUESTION: Has he spoken to the Saudi Foreign Minister in the last couple of days since
the U.S. announced its decision on Egypt? MS. HARF: I --
QUESTION: Or before it, because of diplomatic consultations.
MS. HARF: I will check. I will double-check. I believe he has, but let me double-check
on that. QUESTION: Marie?
MS. HARF: Yeah? Mm-hmm? QUESTION: Is his visit to Paris specially
to meet with Saud al-Faisal? MS. HARF: That's my understanding, yes.
QUESTION: That's the only purpose? MS. HARF: That's my understanding, that
that's the purpose. I don't know if other meetings will get tacked on, but that's
the purpose. QUESTION: How do you characterize relations
with the Saudis now? Are you with -- are you on the same page with them regarding Egypt,
Syria, and Iran? MS. HARF: Well, look, we and the Saudis have
a very close working partnership on all of these issues. We talk about them constantly
with them, and we share the goals of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We certainly
share the goals of getting Syria back to a stable and secure place. So we're going
to keep talking about these issues, and I'm certain they will have a productive meeting
when they get together in Paris. QUESTION: Can we go to the --
QUESTION: But this is the third of fourth meeting between Secretary Kerry and Saud al-Faisal
-- MS. HARF: They've met quite a bit. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- in four weeks. What's the purpose of all these meetings?
MS. HARF: There's been a lot going on in the last four weeks.
QUESTION: Can I just -- QUESTION: But not with other foreign ministers.
MS. HARF: Well, he's met with a range of folks, including during his trip to Asia.
QUESTION: But not three or four times in one month.
MS. HARF: I'll double-check and see if he's actually met with Saud al-Faisal that many
times recently. QUESTION: Yeah. He met with him in Paris --
MS. HARF: I'll double-check. QUESTION: -- and New York, and this is the
third, I think. MS. HARF: I'll double-check on the timing,
but he's met -- I mean, we had UNGA, he's been on the road a lot. There have been, quite
frankly, a lot of bilateral meetings with a lot of folks over the past few weeks.
QUESTION: I think we're just trying to determine whether something has, like whether --
MS. HARF: No. QUESTION: -- these meetings weren't scheduled
when this trip was first kind of hatched. MS. HARF: Well, we hadn't announced them
publicly. That's true. QUESTION: So just wondering if, for instance,
the Saudis have called a meeting because of the decision on Egypt or if there was any
developments in -- MS. HARF: I'll try to find out if this is
in response to something. As we all know, they do meet quite frequently to discuss these
issues. I just don't know. QUESTION: And I just wanted to -- on this
incredibly expanding tour of the Secretary's --
MS. HARF: I know. QUESTION: -- whether there's a plan, since
we'll be getting close to the date, to swing by Geneva for the Iran talks.
MS. HARF: I know, I know. We keep guessing -- no -- about that to see if I'll see
him in Geneva. No, there's no plan for him to go to Geneva at this point. Obviously,
everything could change, but Under Secretary Sherman will be leading our delegation.
QUESTION: But when you say, obviously, everything can change, you don't have any expectation --
MS. HARF: Correct. I do not. I have no expectation of that.
QUESTION: Because I don't know if you saw
today -- there was just some comments out of Iran -- I'm sorry, I'm forgetting
who actually said it -- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that they feel that these negotiations are so delicate that they should actually
be led by the foreign ministers. Obviously, Foreign Minister Zarif is the appointed head
of the delegation. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But there was a suggestion -- MS. HARF: As lead negotiator. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: As lead negotiator, yes. But there was a suggestion that perhaps on -- on the
other side of the P-5+1 that the negotiation should be led by the foreign minister.
MS. HARF: Well, when it's appropriate for them to happen at that level, we're certainly
open to that. Obviously, at the UN that's the level we saw, sat down together and discussed.
So I think it's important to get all the political directors around the table to wait
for the Iranians to come, hopefully with a substantive response to our plan, and then
when it needs to be taken to a different level, we'll do so. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Marie, can we go to the OPCW and Nobel Prize winning?
MS. HARF: Yes. QUESTION: The Syrians are taking credit, actually,
for this. Do you concur, the fact that they facilitated their work and they made them
prominent and they made -- MS. HARF: The Syrian regime is taking credit
for this? QUESTION: Yeah, the Syrian Government is taking credit.
MS. HARF: Hmm.
QUESTION: They're saying that our cooperation has made this possible. Do you agree?
MS. HARF: No. I don't -- wouldn't put the Syrian regime in any sentence with the
word "peace" or "the Nobel Peace Prize" in any way, shape, or form, Said. What we've
said, and I think the OPCW and the UN have been the ones on the front lines leading this
effort to start destroying parts of the program and that will be doing the tough work going
forward, obviously, in conjunction with a lot of international partners. We've said
the Syrian regime has responsibilities; we expect them to comply with those. But the
OPCW has, I think as you saw the Secretary say this morning, taken unprecedented steps,
worked with unprecedented speed, to confront a situation they've quite frankly never
confronted in their history. QUESTION: Yeah. But you'd certainly agree
that the Syrians so far -- so far -- have been quite cooperative and things have gone
very smoothly, correct? MS. HARF: So the Syrian regime thus far has
met some of its responsibilities that it is beholden to under the Security Council resolution.
QUESTION: So they have met only some of their responsibilities and not all their
responsibilities thus far? MS. HARF: Well, they haven't had an opportunity
to meet all of their responsibilities yet. Their full declaration isn't due until October 27th.
We've certainly seen progress. The OPCW has had some success up until this point
starting to destroy some of the stockpiles. But let's be clear that the Syrian regime
has obligations, it has responsibilities, and it must be in compliance with the Security
Council resolution. We fully expect them to live up to those responsibilities.
QUESTION: Okay, just a quick follow-up. Do you believe now that this actually gives added
protection to the inspectors on the ground, the fact that they are international heroes
and their harm may create a lot of problems --
MS. HARF: Well, I think with or without a Nobel Peace Prize, I think that it goes without
saying that the Syrian regime has a responsibility to protect the safety of everybody as part
of this effort on the ground. I don't think this should -- I think that should have been
the case before it, quite frankly. QUESTION: Okay. But you're saying the Syrian
regime. Do you also expect that in areas where it is under the control of the opposition,
the militant opposition, that they should be held responsible as well --
MS. HARF: Absolutely. QUESTION: -- for their protection?
MS. HARF: Absolutely. We have underscored to the opposition repeatedly that they need
to also provide this. In the past they have talked about this when we talked about the
UN team. Absolutely. Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Marie?
MS. HARF: Yes. QUESTION: Marie, does Secretary Kerry -- I
know you read the statement, but in terms of the OPCW getting this award, certainly
there is -- the Nobel Peace Prize -- certainly there is a lot more attention on them because
of this mission in Syria. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm, absolutely.
QUESTION: And it all kind of came about after the Secretary kind of proposed this idea in
the first place, so I'm wondering if he feels any particular pride or anything or
responsibility in terms of them getting the award.
MS. HARF: No, not at all. I think you saw his statement this morning. I mean, look,
he put on the table an idea. It's one we'd been talking about and thinking about internally.
But after that, there was a lot of hard work required from, quite frankly, a lot of different
parties. And where we are today is that the Syrian regime is operating under -- has responsibilities
under both the UN Security Council resolution and an OPCW resolution which also passed with
unanimous consent. They are going to be the ones overseeing the implementation on the
ground. So the way we get from A to B, from the Secretary putting on the table an idea
and B being the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program, there's lots of
implementation that still has to happen. This is going to be very dangerous. It's going
to be very difficult. It's going to take some time. We're doing it as quickly as
possible, but that's -- the work the OPCW is doing is really unprecedented in any destruction
effort and is what's responsible for them getting this award today. They're taking
steps they've never had to take before because the situation is so dire. And the member states
of the Executive Council unanimously consenting to the resolution and then the OPCW technical
experts on the ground, they're doing the hard work out there on the front lines right
now as we speak. QUESTION: That's true. But a lot of events
have happened as a result of these kind of off-the-cuff remarks of the Secretary's.
MS. HARF: Absolutely. QUESTION: Wouldn't you say?
MS. HARF: Well, absolutely. We've said that, what, three or four weeks ago no one could
have even imagined that we would be at this place today where the Syrian regime finally
admitted they had chemical weapons, where they acceded to the CWC, where the OPCW and
the UN had folks on the ground in Syria starting to destroy some of this stockpile. Absolutely.
And there have been a lot of people involved in this and there will be a lot of people
involved in it going forward. QUESTION: Marie, can I just ask --
QUESTION: Do you agree with Elise's characterization that the comments were off-the-cuff?
MS. HARF: No, I think we've talked about this sort of ad nauseum.
QUESTION: I know. MS. HARF: What we've said is he was responding
to a question with something we'd been sort of talking about internally, right, an idea
about getting Syria to admit to and then destroy their chemical weapons, and put it on the
table as a challenge, right. I mean, he said at the time also, look, they can hand them
all over within one week. It was an off-the-cuff remark based on conversations we've been
having internally. QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: So I think that then other folks picked up the ball and ran with it, and we
had an obligation to see where it would go, and we are where we are today. Yes.
QUESTION: Do you believe that -- QUESTION: Can I ask that hidden among all
the plaudits for the OPCW -- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- there was also some criticism of the United States and Russia by the Nobel
jury, which said that neither United States or Russia have actually fulfilled their obligations
under the conventional -- the treaty on the -- on chemical -- the chemical weapons treaty.
MS. HARF: The convention? QUESTION: Sorry.
MS. HARF: The CWC. QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. HARF: Yeah. QUESTION: To get rid of all their chemical
weapons stock by April 2012. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Would you respond to that, please? MS. HARF: I'll check on the latest on that.
I do know that we and the Russians have both worked very hard together to destroy our existing
stockpiles. I'll get the latest on where that stands. It's a lengthy process, obviously.
But let -- I'll get the latest for you. QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: And I can actually take that as a question and see what I can do.
QUESTION: It'd be useful to know -- MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- exactly what the holdup has been and how far along the process --
MS. HARF: I'm not sure if there's been a specific holdup. I think it's just a process
that we work with the Russians and it takes time. We've both worked on it. Let me just
see what I can get for you on that. QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) working with the Russians --
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. QUESTION: -- do you believe that the tension
that was there before the announcement by the Secretary or the remark off the cuff
or otherwise -- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that the tension has been mitigated to the point where you can actually now see
eye-to-eye on the interpretation of, let's say, Geneva 1 and the move forward? Do you
believe that -- MS. HARF: The tension with the Russians?
QUESTION: Yes. MS. HARF: Over what issue, specifically?
QUESTION: Over Syria. I mean, we're talking about Syria.
MS. HARF: Okay. Well -- QUESTION: In this context, I mean --
MS. HARF: -- we've always said a couple things about our relationship with Russia
when it comes to Syria. The first is that we both agreed to the Geneva communique.
QUESTION: Right. MS. HARF: We both agreed that there needs
to be a transitional government based on mutual consent by the different sides. We both agreed
that needs to happen as soon as possible, and hopefully, that will be the case. We've
also made it clear when we disagree with actions the Russian Government has taken in terms
of supporting the regime. But I think it's important to focus right now on the fact that
the Russians have the opportunity and indeed have been helping to push the Syrian regime
to continue cooperating in -- complying I should say, excuse me -- not cooperating,
but complying with their obligations. QUESTION: Why can't you say cooperating?
They're cooperating and they're meeting their responsibilities.
MS. HARF: Because I'm going to use a more technical term, and that's complying. We're
going to use technical terms when we're talking about technical issues here. But going
back to Said's question, look, we've also said that this is an opportunity, because
we have been able to work together on CW, to make progress on Geneva 2. And that's
what we are hoping will be coming as soon as possible. And we'll continue telling them
when we disagree with things they're doing.
QUESTION: I still don't understand the rationale that progress on the destruction of chemical
weapons could lead to progress on Geneva 2, for the very simple reason that ever since
this agreement on chemical weapons, the Syrian regime has basically said that this is a license
for job security, we need to implement this agreement, we're not going anywhere, President
Assad is staying. In fact, since the agreement, the regime has only dug in its heels.
MS. HARF: Well, and since the agreement we've been clear that that's just not the case
-- QUESTION: I understand, but you're not a part --
MS. HARF: -- and that our position hasn't changed.
QUESTION: -- you're -- you may be helping
mediate these talks, but you're not a party to the talks. And so if one of the parties
is, in fact, digging in its heels and less prone to negotiation along the lines of what
you'd like to see -- and certainly what they're saying is a nonstarter for the opposition
-- how does that make progress more likely? In fact, it makes it look like it's less likely.
MS. HARF: Well, actually we are a party to
the discussions, right. We are -- we and the Russians and the UN --
QUESTION: You're hosting them, right? MS. HARF: Correct. The three of us, those
three parties, are working together to determine date, participation. Those conversations are
ongoing. We each are working with the folks that we talk to -- in the opposition, obviously,
on our side; the Russians with the regime -- to determine who will actually sit at
the table when we eventually do get to Geneva 2. So we certainly have a role to play. And
the fact that it's the UN and the Russians who we're working with on Geneva 2, the
exact same people we were able to negotiate a groundbreaking agreement with, actually
I do think could have a positive impact on it. When you're willing to sit down and
work with someone on one thing, inevitably it means it's easier to work on something else.
QUESTION: I'm not saying that the three
of you wouldn't work better together. But the situation that has resulted with this
agreement is that the regime feels that this is -- gives them job security, and the opposition
feels that they are less of a strong partner at the table. So how does that make it -- how
does that make progress more likely? MS. HARF: Well, I think what we've said
is that we're going to keep talking to the opposition about the fact that our position
has not changed on the future of Assad. Our position hasn't changed that he has no legitimacy
and must go. We've made that perfectly clear privately and publicly to the opposition,
and we will continue doing so. QUESTION: I understand, but it doesn't really
-- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I mean, I understand your position hasn't changed, but --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: -- and I understand that you're
also -- you say you're a party to the agreement. But at the end of the day -- and you've
said yourself that it's going to be the Syrians' decision. And so, again, if the
regime's position has changed, in the sense that it's even less likely to negotiate
an exit to Assad after this agreement, how does that help?
MS. HARF: Well, I think what we're focused on, Elise, is working with the Russians and
the UN, for all of us to bring our parties to the table. And that's why you have a
conference, right, to work out all of these issues. And that's what we're focused
on right now. It's difficult, obviously. If it weren't, it would have happened months
ago. And I think that's why you saw Secretary Kerry talking to Foreign Minister Lavrov when
he was -- in part of his Asia trip and will be meeting with Mr. Brahimi and talking to
them throughout this process. So hopefully, we can get to a conference as soon as possible.
QUESTION: Marie, but-- MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- you and the Russians are in disagreement regarding the interpretation of Geneva 1 communique.
How can you -- or how you are pressing the Syrian opposition to attend Geneva 2 and you
are in disagreement with Moscow? MS. HARF: Well, we're continuing the discussions
with Moscow, but also with the opposition, right, and saying that they need to continue
coalescing. We need to figure out who's going to represent them at the table, specifically,
and that that's why you have a conference. You get everyone around a table who agrees
on a framework. In this case, that's the Geneva communique. And you go to the conference
to hash out what that means in practice and all those details. But let's be clear: In
order to participate in the conference, you have to fully embrace and sign on to the Geneva 1
communique. Everybody who participates must do so.
QUESTION: But you are in disagreement with the Russians regarding --
MS. HARF: I think that's a pretty broad statement. I think there's a lot in the
Geneva communique that we absolutely agree on. I think that's a very broad statement
and a bit of a mischaracterization. QUESTION: One more thing. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov has said today that there are reports that some third countries
are claiming Syrian rebels to use chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Do you have any --
MS. HARF: Wow, a lot came together in that question.
QUESTION: -- information about this? MS. HARF: I haven't seen those comments.
I'm happy to take a look and get back to you. I just haven't seen them.
Jill. QUESTION: Marie, what is the biggest factor
right now keeping the opposition from getting together and having representation at Geneva
2? MS. HARF: Well, I -- they've made a lot
of progress, to be clear, in this area, and we've talked about some of it in this room.
QUESTION: What's the biggest thing? Because it's not happening.
MS. HARF: Well, some of it's happening. It's not a zero-sum game, right? They're
getting more organized but we have to figure out who will best represent them. There's
a lot of different groups and parts of it. We've been clear who we recognize but we're
trying to work to get them to a good place in terms of participation and invitations.
QUESTION: But this reminds me -- MS. HARF: But that's actually not the trickiest
invitation question, right, if we're looking at --
QUESTION: Right. MS. HARF: -- who will come to Geneva.
QUESTION: Right, but I mean we've -- MS. HARF: There are other tricky questions.
QUESTION: We've been hearing this -- MS. HARF: We've talked about other countries
that could possibly attend. We've talked about Iran a little bit in this room and others.
QUESTION: But we've been hearing, really, the same thing for a long time, before you
even started in your job. MS. HARF: It's hard to remember that day,
though, Jill. QUESTION: This -- I know it's -- many
years ago. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But it's -- seriously, I mean, this is what's been said for so long. It
seems almost ridiculous at this point that we're trying to help them get their act
together. They are coalescing. They are -- MS. HARF: But we're --
QUESTION: Is it possible at this point that they can do that?
MS. HARF: Absolutely. Absolutely. And Robert Ford just met with folks over the weekend
in Istanbul as we said. And they have actually made quite a bit of progress. I mean, the
election of leaders, the SMC and the Syrian coalition, they actually -- I don't think
we're as far away from getting them to the table with representation as we certainly
are with some other groups. I think we've actually made some progress and are hoping
to get this all finalized as soon as possible. QUESTION: On this very point --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: I mean, on the opposition.
MS. HARF: Yeah. QUESTION: I mean, you agree that it has so
many heads. So whether it's in the field, the fighting and so on --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: -- but also politically. And now
Jarba last week made it very clear they will only meet with Assad as an enemy. They will
only meet if their conditions are met and so on. So did that complicate
Ambassador Ford's efforts? MS. HARF: I think what we've been clear
about in terms of getting to a Geneva 2 is that the precondition is everybody has to
accept Geneva 1. What that looks like, all those details right now, Said, are being worked
out with the opposition, with the Russians, with the UN, with the host of parties that
could be a part of this conference. Those details are all being worked out right now.
QUESTION: Okay. So as -- in this process, would Ambassador Ford say to Jarba that by
making these statements, you're actually complicating the road ahead toward Geneva?
MS. HARF: I'm not going to read out the conversations Ambassador is having specifically
with the opposition. He's in close contact with them all the time and his goal is what
all of our goal is: to reassure them, to tell them that our position on Assad has not changed,
that we are working as quickly as possible to get to Geneva 2 and we will do everything
in our power to continue to get everyone to the table and to support the opposition as
they fight the regime. QUESTION: Who is --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Just one more question on --
MS. HARF: Yeah. QUESTION: Who is -- when you say that we're
having discussions with a host of parties involved, who is the party that's having
the discussions with Iranians about getting them to accept Geneva 1?
MS. HARF: I don't know the answer to that question. It's not us, but I --
QUESTION: Not the United States? MS. HARF: To my knowledge, no, but let me
see if I can find out. I've -- we've also certainly said it publicly.
QUESTION: Is that something that perhaps Wendy Sherman, if she has a side meeting with Foreign
Minister Zarif, would take up? MS. HARF: I don't know, honestly.
QUESTION: Marie, latest reports coming from Damascus said that the regime forces have
made progress in the capture of two villages in the suburbs and killed more than 100 people.
And Human Rights Watch has criticized the Syrian opposition and saying, or claiming
that they committed a crime against humanity by killing more than 100 Alawite on the coast.
Do you have anything on this? MS. HARF: I do, and I saw the Human Rights
report. Obviously, we're deeply disturbed by the findings presented in it. As you noted,
it documents serious abuses committed by some opposition groups during their early August
attempt to liberate a piece of territory from regime control. We're reviewing the report
and we take its allegations seriously. I would note that according to Human Rights Watch
that at least 20 distinct armed opposition groups participated in the operation, which
lasted from August 4th through 18th. They have evidence linking five groups assessed
to be key fundraisers, organizers, planners, and executers of the attack to specific incidents
that they say amount to war crimes. These are some of the groups that we've talked
about in the past -- al-Nusrah, ISIS, some of the more extreme groups that we don't
recognize as legitimate opposition groups. Obviously, this violence against civilians
is completely unacceptable no matter who perpetrates it, and we would condemn this and any other
attacks on civilians. QUESTION: And what about the progress that
the regime is making in Damascus? MS. HARF: I've seen some of those reports.
I think every day we see different reports about what's happening on the ground. We
would note that the situation, the lines of control, or sort of the overall situation
in terms of territories controlled hasn't changed demonstrably, but every day we see
sort of this back-and-forth going on on the ground.
Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Just a follow-up on latest questions:
Same report also put some blame on Turkey for this jihadist -- or fighters for that
operation. Do you have any information or confirmation on that?
MS. HARF: I don't. QUESTION: You were ask here a couple days
ago about situation in the south and east suburbs of Guta and how they are encircled
by the Assad regime and how they have been starving for months.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Do you think they have any kind
of communication channel or have you communicated with the Assad regime on those civilians that
under the -- MS. HARF: Well, we certainly don't -- as
I said a few days ago -- don't work with the Assad regime to get humanitarian -- directly
to get humanitarian assistance into places that need it. We will work with other parties
that do work with the regime because our goal is to get as much access in as possible, and
we've certainly publicly called on the regime to allow humanitarian access in. As you said,
this is a terrible humanitarian situation. Every day it gets worse. Winter is coming
all too soon and it will only get worse then. So we'll keep working with our partners
to see if we can get some more humanitarian access in, but quite frankly, the humanitarian
situation is very dire today. QUESTION: And about upcoming winter you just
mentioned, do you have any specific strategy to handle the situation that expected to be
much worse than last year in terms of refugees or --
MS. HARF: I can see if we have any updates. Obviously, it's an issue we remain quite
heavily engaged on. I'll see if there's anything we have in terms of the next few
months in strategy-wise. QUESTION: Can we move to Iran?
QUESTION: I just have one more on Syria. MS. HARF: One more, and then we'll move
to Iran, Arshad. QUESTION: They think the human rights report
kind of indicates that the lines of war are kind of blurred --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: -- over there, with the different
rebel groups and which ones are Western-backed. But there's also another thing that seems
to be going on, and it was recently reported that the Syrian regime actually bombed the
rebels in an area where they had some chemical weapons based, and they wanted to take control
of that. Are there going to be other sites that are -- chemical weapons sites that are
held by the rebels or in rebel territory, that we're going to see this again? Because
it seems like we're at cross purposes here. MS. HARF: I can try and find out.
QUESTION: Okay. MS. HARF: I don't know the answer to that.
I can try and find out. Yeah. Iran.
QUESTION: Just one on Iran. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: In New York, you had made clear, and I think Under Secretary Sherman may have
said in her testimony the other day, that you would welcome an Iranian proposal in advance
of the talks. MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And I think on Wednesday you said that you had not received one yet. Have you
received one to date? MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no.
QUESTION: Okay. Can you check and let us know? MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Because it's important to know whether you got one or not.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. I don't believe we did, but I will triple-check for you.
QUESTION: Thank you. QUESTION: Are you getting conflicting Israeli
statements on the situation in Iran? On the one hand, you have the Prime Minister warning
that danger is imminent, it's almost there. And on the other hand, there are Israelis
in this town, officials that are saying basically that the sanctions are working and the United
States is basically conducting the proper policy. Are you getting conflicting messages?
MS. HARF: No. I think we obviously talk to the Israelis all the time about the Iranian
nuclear threats. QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: We both agree that words aren't enough; we need to see actions. We both agree
that they can't be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that we're going to
continue working diplomatically with the P-5+1 to see if we can resolve this peacefully.
We also both agree that the sanctions are the reason that the Iranians indeed may be
using more conciliatory tones today. But what we're all focused on is seeing what they
come with substantively. QUESTION: Okay. So you agree that the Iranian
nuclear threat is imminent, and at the same time --
MS. HARF: I didn't say that. QUESTION: Okay. Well, that's what the Prime
Minister said. MS. HARF: I didn't say that. Look, we and
the Israelis both agree that this is the highest national security priority not just for the
United States but for Israel as well, and for the region, not just Israel, and that
that's why the President's been clear that we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear
weapon, that all options remain on the table to do so. But I think it's also important
to be clear here, heading into next week when we'll be in Geneva, that we have an obligation
to try diplomacy, to try and resolve this peacefully, in part -- in large part because
the alternative has a lot of incredibly grave consequences that would go along with it.
There's a reason for everybody's sake that a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian
nuclear crisis would be preferable. All options, of course, remain on the table, but the -- some
of those options obviously have incredibly serious consequences, and we have an obligation
to attempt to resolve it before we get there. And that's an important point to keep in
mind as we go into next week. Anything else? Yes.
QUESTION: Can I go to Libya? MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: I just wondered if -- yesterday you said you were trying to get some more
details about what happened with the abduction of the Libyan Prime Minister.
MS. HARF: I don't have anything new on that. QUESTION: Well, he's come out today and
said he believes it was a coup attempt. MS. HARF: I saw some of those comments. I
just -- I don't have any more details on that for you. If we do, we can share them.
Yes, Said? QUESTION: Are you alarmed enough to send in
-- dispatch, like, troops or maybe a task force onto the shores of Libya at the present
time? Seeing that the government obviously cannot even provide its own safety.
MS. HARF: Well, the answer is no. But I think what we're focused on is helping, working
with our partners in Libya, to build their capability -- their security capability,
their counterterrorism capability. And we're focused on building that bilaterally and helping
them build up their own capacity. QUESTION: Yeah, but they're sliding towards
chaos. I mean, today there was a bombing of the Swedish Embassy or Consulate and so on.
So it's happening every day. Why not let's aid the Libyans in basically providing better
security -- MS. HARF: Well, we are assisting them in helping
to shore up their stability and their security, just not in the way that you mentioned. And
of course we would condemn the attack on the Swedish facility in Benghazi today. And that's
exactly why we believe it's so important to continue working with the government to
help them improve their own internal security. QUESTION: How are you shoring up their capabilities?
MS. HARF: Well, we've -- there have been a number of different things we've done
in terms of assistance and advice and sort of the broad range of bilateral ways we work
together on counterterrorism and security. If I have more specifics, I'm happy to get
those for you. I just don't have them in front of me.
QUESTION: There's a report -- sorry, can I change the topic again?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: North Korea this time.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: There's a report out that Kenneth
Bae's mother has gone to visit him. MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: I wondered if you're aware of that and how that came about, and --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: -- what your general comment on
that is. MS. HARF: So, we are aware. We remain, of
course, in close contact with Mr. Bae's family. We remain gravely concerned about
his health, and continue to urge the DPRK authorities to grant him special amnesty and
immediate release on humanitarian grounds. Let's see -- the U.S. Government did not
arrange Mrs. Bae's private trip. We helped her coordinate her trip with the Embassy of
Sweden in Pyongyang, which is our protecting power there. The Embassy of Sweden regularly
seeks consular access to him, and they've met with him eight times since his detention,
most recently just on October 11th. QUESTION: Today.
MS. HARF: Today. Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Can we go to the issue of (inaudible)
-- QUESTION: Can we just stay on this for a minute?
MS. HARF: Yep. Mm-hmm. QUESTION: So, I understand you didn't arrange
the trip -- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- but you are in touch with the Swedes in terms of the consular access, so
how did this recent visit with Mr. Bae go? MS. HARF: So, basically all we did was helped
her coordinate her trip with the Embassy there --
QUESTION: I'm not even asking about her. I'm just asking --
MS. HARF: Oh. QUESTION: You said that there was a consular
visit. MS. HARF: Oh, the consular visit. Excuse me,
I thought you were asking about the trip. QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have a readout of that?
MS. HARF: I don't. I don't. If we have one, I'm happy to share. I just don't
have it. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I just want to go back to Libya for a second.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: Now, there are a group of defense
lawyers in this country that are saying that you are violating the right -- the human
rights and the legal rights of Abu Anas al-Libi by holding him at sea, and nobody knows where
and so on, and that the proper thing to do really is to bring him to American soil where
he can be tried properly and tried properly. MS. HARF: Well --
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on that? MS. HARF: We've been clear that under both
U.S. and international law, he's being held lawfully by the United States military. I
don't have an update on what his eventual disposition will be, but that's certainly
our position and I don't have any other further comment in terms of that report.
QUESTION: Then how can the veracity of this claim, that he's being held lawfully, be
made? MS. HARF: Well, I can walk through again the
legal justification for it, if you'd like. QUESTION: I'm saying though, how could you
convince an inquiring world that, in fact, he's being held lawfully?
MS. HARF: Well, because under both international law and under United States law, we are acting
in accordance with both. Those outline the legal justification both for the operation
to capture him, and also the legal justification for his detention right now and the humane
treatment that he is receiving as well. QUESTION: Have you -- I'm sorry if you
asked this and I missed it, Said, but have you yet arranged consular access?
MS. HARF: I don't have any update for you on consular access.
QUESTION: And has the ICRC yet been allowed to see him?
MS. HARF: I don't have any update for you on that either.
QUESTION: And do you concede the point that your assertions that he's been treated humanely
would be buttressed if there were independent observers like the ICRC who are able to talk
to him and confirm that? MS. HARF: Well, I think we've said that
when it's appropriate we'll comply with our obligations to the ICRC and also with
consular access. But I think we've been very clear, the rules governing his detention
and interrogation right now, and those have been spelled out since the beginning of the
Administration, and have been very crystal clear.
QUESTION: But -- QUESTION: There is -- the reason I keep asking
this, though, and I've raised it three or four days in a row is that -- and this is
not at all a commentary on the current Administration in any way, but you're up there speaking
for the United States of America. MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: And in at least two highly public instances in the last decade, right -- one,
the waterboarding and so on -- MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- which has been well-detailed, and two, Abu Ghraib -- the United States Government
has not humanely treated prisoners in its custody. And so when you have somebody like
Mr. al-Libi, whatever may be his alleged crimes --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: -- in the indictment against him
and so on, and you hold him incommunicado and you assert that he's being treated humanely,
but you do not allow either his representatives of his government or of the international
community in the form of the ICRC to visit him, it is understandable why people might
be skeptical about the assertion of humane treatment.
MS. HARF: Well, I appreciate the question, Arshad, and I do know why it's important.
And I think -- I know I keep going back to the Executive Order but there's a reason
I do so. Because in one of the first acts this President did when he came into office,
to underscore how important it was to him, was on his second full day in office signing
that Executive Order that said we're not going to do things like we have been doing
them, that we're the United States of America -- we operate under certain principles, values,
and that going forward, this will be the rules governing how we can detain and interrogate
people. And he very plainly laid that out. When we talk about the Army field manual,
when we talk about humane treatment, we try to lay it out as specifically as we can, and
he made that point very clearly, that this is how it's going to operate in this administration,
and that's exactly how it's operating right now. I take the point. And as much evidence
and insight into that as we can provide, we're happy to. But right now, suffice to say, we're
operating under the very clear guidance that this president out when he very -- at the
beginning came into office. QUESTION: But why not provide an external,
respected, international body whose very job is to inspect and check such things, including
for American soldiers, for example, access? It would be a way to show that what you say
is true. So why not -- what is the underlying reason why it has not --
MS. HARF: Well, I'm not saying we're not going to.
QUESTION: No. But it hasn't happened so far. And so there's a question in my mind,
and I think it's a reasonable question: Why not do that?
MS. HARF: Well, there's a lot of factors that play into this, in terms of our obligations
to both the ICRC and our consular obligations. I just don't have anything further for you
on exactly what the timing is or what's underpinning that, but as we have more to
share on this, I'm happy to do so. QUESTION: But you're kind of almost asking
-- when you say that this Administration is operating under what the President said
-- you're asking the international community to just take your word for it.
MS. HARF: No, I'm asking the international community to say that -- to know that when
we're a nation of laws and when we lay those out very clearly in an executive order what's
governing -- very clearly and publicly in an Executive Order talking about detention
and interrogation, which let's be clear, in the previous administration we didn't
talk about publicly -- right? -- when these were first put into place, that that should
be a sign that business is going to be done differently now. And that's why we very
publicly came out and said this is what we're going to be operating under.
QUESTION: Are you aware of -- or have you or has the Libyan Government been in contact
with his family to make sure that they are safe and not subject to any kind of threat
-- MS. HARF: I would check in with the Libyan
Government on that. I just don't know. And I --
QUESTION: But you (inaudible). MS. HARF: -- guys, I need to -- we need to
move on just because I have a little bit of a scheduled today. So let's get to some
necessary stuff. Sorry. QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: I know it's -- QUESTION: I mean, this -- today is the end
of the second week of the shutdown of the government.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. QUESTION: And as much as we -- it was published
today, it was less than 1 percent of State Department workforce of 70,000 people are
furloughed, and more are expected in the -- if it's prolonged.
MS. HARF: If we continue, we'll have to do additional furloughs. Yes.
QUESTION: Yes. And do you think that -- because at the beginning of the week you blamed somehow
the Congress that they are not cooperating -- do you think --
MS. HARF: Well, Congress has the ability to end the shutdown, yes.
QUESTION: Yes. I'm not arguing about this. MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you think that this is affecting your role in the -- what you are doing in
the diplomacy and in the international arena or not?
MS. HARF: Well, I think just because I'm -- we have only a limited amount of time
today -- I've spoken to this repeatedly since the shutdown started. Whether we talk
about the image we're portraying to other countries that we don't have our own house
in order here, whether the President couldn't go attend some important summits and get some
important business done. We've talked about how some of the financing might not be available.
We've talked about some programs that aren't able to go forward. We've talked about it
a lot in this room, but I would say again what I said the other day, that we're strongest
abroad when we're strong at home. And right now, we're not portraying the right image,
and that's why we believe the shutdown needs to end.
Yes, Jill. QUESTION: I have a specific question about
that. Is public diplomacy considered essential? In other words, are they continuing to get
their funds? And are they doing anything to assess what the international image of the
United States or how it is doing or being affected by the shutdown?
MS. HARF: Well, I know folks are taking a look at that question. I don't know if there's
an official way we're looking at that. I know -- but a lot of folks in my office and
others are looking at that question. We're not doing essential versus nonessential. Right
now, we're operating -- except for a few offices thankfully -- on funds that we still
have. So we're not doing essential versus nonessential. We're not using those terms
or making those decisions here at the State Department yet.
QUESTION: When you say looking at it, you mean their polling, or what?
MS. HARF: Oh, no. I wouldn't say polling -- but obviously, monitoring. I've read
some headlines over the last few weeks. Clearly, it's important how the U.S. is seen around
the world, and quite frankly the headlines about the shutdown are pretty negative across
the board. Absolutely. Yes, and I do need -- Said, I need to --
QUESTION: Really very quickly -- MS. HARF: Okay. Sorry.
QUESTION: We can probably do it next week. MS. HARF: I know. I usually stay up here for
hours if I could. QUESTION: Okay. I just wanted to ask you a
very quick question about Ambassador Indyk expanding his team. Could you share with us
anything about expanding the team to include maybe twice as many people in it and why?
MS. HARF: I don't have any staffing announcements to make.
QUESTION: Could you take this and we'll talk about it on Monday?
MS. HARF: We don't have a briefing on Monday; it's a holiday.
QUESTION: Okay. Tuesday. All right. MS. HARF: It's Columbus Day. I can take
the -- if I have anything to share with you on staffing, I'm happy to. Yeah, two more
and then -- QUESTION: Yeah, quickly may I turn a pivot
to Asia? Is there any meeting or visit to China being delayed or affected because of
the shutdown? MS. HARF: Not by the Secretary or by anyone
else. QUESTION: And then Secretary Kerry, when he
met with the Philippine Foreign Minister, mentioned that he's going back to Asia Pacific
in month. Can you give us some idea what is that about?
MS. HARF: Yes. I know that he said that. We don't have any specifics on his future travel.
He said he's looking forward to going back to the region soon.
Yes, Ali. QUESTION: Really quick, there have been reports
that the second-in-command of the Pakistani Taliban has been captured, Latif Mehsud. Just
wondering if you have anything on that. MS. HARF: I do. Thank you for the question.
I can confirm that U.S. forces did capture TTP terrorist leader Latif Mehsud in a military
operation. I don't have further details to share about the operation for you at this
time. Mehsud is a senior commander in TTP and served as a trusted confidant of the group's
leader, Hakimullah Mehsud. TTP claimed responsibility, as folks probably know, for the attempted
bombing of Times Square in 2010 and has vowed to attack the U.S. homeland again. TTP is
also responsible for attacking our diplomats in Pakistan and attacks that have killed countless
Pakistani civilians. QUESTION: Was he captured on Pakistani soil
or on -- in -- on Afghan soil? MS. HARF: I do not have further details about
the operation at this point, because I just got this right before I came out.
QUESTION: Okay. And do you know the date on which he was captured? Was it today?
MS. HARF: I do not know that answer. QUESTION: Marie, on Egypt, just a question.
MS. HARF: Last question. QUESTION: Yeah. There are calls in the Egyptian
press for the government to cut or to refuse the American aids to Egypt. Do you have -- or
do you expect such a reaction from the government? MS. HARF: As I said, Secretary Hagel had a
very good conversation with General al-Sisi when they discussed the outcome of our policy
review. We both agreed that we have -- that it's important for the two countries to
continue working together. That's why we're continuing our relationship and that's what
we're focused on right now, working with them to do just that.
QUESTION: Any phone call from Secretary Kerry to anybody, no?
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. QUESTION: Thank you.