Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MS. HARF: Hello. Happy Friday, everyone. Welcome to the daily briefing. I have a few items
at the top, and then we will open it up for questions.
A quick travel update: Today, Secretary Kerry is in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with President
Obama. He has accompanied President Obama to his meeting with Saudi King Abdullah. I
think - I believe it just ended. And there will be more of a readout coming from the
road.
Second item at the top: We are deeply troubled by recent fighting and violence that is endangering
the Armenian community in Kessab, Syria, and has forced many to flee. There are far too
many innocent civilians suffering as a result of the war. All civilians, as well as their
places of worship, must be protected. As we have said throughout this conflict, we deplore
continued threats against Christians and other minorities in Syria. And as you may have seen
from the readout of President Obama's conversation with Pope Francis yesterday, they discussed
among other things the plight of minorities, especially Christians, inside Syria today.
We have seen some statements by groups fighting in Kessab saying they will not target civilians
and will respect minorities and holy places. We expect those commitments to be upheld.
The United States will continue its steadfast support to those affected by violence in Syria
and throughout the region, including Syrian Armenians. We have long had concerns about
the threat posed by violent extremists, and this latest threat to the Armenian community
in Syria only underscores this further.
One final note at the top: I want to welcome some visitors in the back two rows. We are
pleased to welcome a group of international journalists who are in the U.S. on Alfred
Friendly Press Partners Fellowships. These journalists are from Pakistan, Ukraine, Tunisia,
Egypt, and Kenya. They will be working in host newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal,
The Washington Post, and The New York Times for the next six months, so some of your colleagues
in here. This program offers professional journalists from developing countries and
emerging markets an opportunity to develop their journalism skills while working full
time at U.S. host news organizations. So welcome. We're very happy to have you. Feel free to
jump in with questions if you want. You'll see nobody else is shy about doing so.
With that, Laura, kick us off on Friday.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'd like to start in Kabul, please. There were reports of an attack
on a house where Americans lived with the California-based NGO Roots of Peace.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Wondering if you have an update. There were some reports that Americans may
have been held hostage.
MS. HARF: Yes. So the reports do continue to come in, but they have indicated that Afghan
security forces have neutralized the remaining attackers, obviously played a crucial role
in evacuating civilians from the guest house. We condemn this attack on Roots of Peace,
the organization you mentioned, an organization that only seeks to help Afghans improve their
lives and their livelihoods. Roots of Peace has been a valued partner for Afghanistan
with the support of USAID.
All chief of mission personnel are accounted for at this time. We can confirm that there
were two U.S. citizens in the guest house, but they are now safe. We also note the Taliban's
claim of responsibility. Again, the Taliban's actions demonstrate the growing distance between
them and the Afghan people and at a time when Afghans are engaged in an inclusive dialogue
about the future of their country in the run-up to the election. The Taliban continue to offer
nothing but an agenda of violence and fear like we saw today.
QUESTION: So the two U.S. citizens - were they ever abducted, or were they just kind
of trapped inside the house and then they were gotten out safely?
MS. HARF: I think those details are still emerging. Let me see if I can get you some
more on that. We do know that they're safe now.
QUESTION: Okay. And the chief of mission personnel were - I wasn't aware that there was any chief
of mission personnel involved in --
MS. HARF: They were not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: But it is often a question we get any time there's an attack --
MS. HARF: -- or something like this, whether our chief of mission personnel are accounted
for, and they are.
QUESTION: Got it.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes. Regarding this statement that you made about the Syrian Armenians?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I was just wondering if you have anything - update about the situation, or
just - is this a past tense? Is something happened, or it's - I think it's the ongoing
- I mean --
MS. HARF: It's an ongoing issue, certainly, that we're concerned about.
QUESTION: And then how you --
MS. HARF: But there - as I noted in my statement, though, there has been some recent fighting
and an increase in violence, which is why we wanted to note it specifically today.
QUESTION: So are there - because there are some news reports from different sides regarding
this issue for - either from the Armenians or from the Turks and from the Syrians in
the same time. Are you following this story - I mean, this case? Are --
MS. HARF: Well, we are - I don't know if you're referring to a specific case - we're certainly
following the situation for Armenians inside Syria for all minorities, including Christians,
and know that violent extremists such as ISIL have targeted them, among many people, but
we're particularly concerned about these minority communities and want to make sure that their
rights are protected.
QUESTION: Beside being concerned - because let me be specific about - are you in touch
with any of the governments, including the Turkey - Turkish Government or other UN organization
to figure out exactly - because it's - some of - there is a deportation of people taking
place in the last week, which is, like, starting from last week till now. Are these - anything
is going on in that regard?
MS. HARF: I can check and see who we're talking to. Obviously, we talk to a host of countries
in the region, Turkey and others, about a wide range of issues, but I can check on that
specifically.
QUESTION: So you don't have any - your - what you have is just, like, observation of what's
going on, or you have information?
MS. HARF: Well, I think we have both, right. We've seen reports, as I said - recent fighting,
violence against the Syrian Armenian communities. We see the reports coming out of there. Obviously,
we talk - we try to get as much information from the ground as possible, as we do in all
places in Syria, but it's hard to get. But clearly, there have been some very troubling
trends lately.
QUESTION: Because according to some reports, that those people were Jabhat al-Nusrah people
- I'm not sure if you mentioned them in the statement or not.
MS. HARF: Well, I was - what I'm talking about is extremist groups like ISIL attacking innocent
civilians - in this case, the Syrian Armenian community, a minority community, as they have
with other minority communities, Christian communities, and others inside Syria. So this
is - what I'm talking about is those kinds of attacks. I know there are a lot of dynamics
broadly here in the Syrian conflict, but I was speaking to one specific dynamic.
QUESTION: There is another thing which is written about this. When you mentioned the
President and he raised the issue with the Pope or the Pope raised it with --
MS. HARF: They discussed it, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- him, the issue, maybe I'm not - to be more accurate - is - this issue is
raised with the Syrian opposition people? Because it's like sometimes they don't - according
to what I heard last week from the Ambassador Ford that, definitely, they are usually avoiding
to condemn publicly what's going on by Islamic groups or a Jihadist group in Syria.
MS. HARF: Well, let's be clear when we're talking about the opposition, to be very clear
that what - the violence I'm talking about is being perpetrated by groups like ISIL,
so not the moderate opposition, not the folks we work with repeatedly and consistently on
things inside Syria. I think that the opposition has been very clear in condemning extremism
and saying they will fight extremism inside Syria and that that's something they're committed
to, absolutely. They've said that for many, many months.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: According to reports in Turkey, the Foreign Minister Mr. Davutoglu planned
a provocative act inside Syria so Turkey has the excuse to invade Syria. Do you want to
comment on this?
MS. HARF: Are you referring to an alleged phone conversation?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: As I said yesterday, I don't have anything for you on alleged calls or conversations
that are out there among Turkish officials.
QUESTION: Yeah, but Mr. Davutoglu --
MS. HARF: It's not for me to comment.
QUESTION: But Mr. Davutoglu said that the tape is genuine.
MS. HARF: Again, not for me to comment on those allegations that are out there.
Yes, in the back.
QUESTION: A question about Venezuela?
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Roberta Jacobson yesterday made comments to the effect that the State Department
is considering or views sanctions against Venezuela as a possible tool --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- for effecting change in that country. I was hoping you could maybe clarify
where in the toolbox sanctions are from the State Department's point of view. And also,
apparently Colombia has said that the regime has agreed to the opposition's terms for talks.
I just wonder if you could get some reaction on that.
MS. HARF: A couple points. On the first, we have said - Secretary Kerry has said, and
I have said, certainly, that there are a number of policy options on the table for how we
could help foster a peaceful solution here. We have said one of them could be sanctions,
but I have nothing to predict in terms of what that might look like. What we've been
more focused on, quite frankly, is what you've heard me talk a lot about - that the importance
of getting a third-party mediator talking to both sides here to try and get some peaceful
resolution of this going forward.
And I don't know if this is what you're referring to, so follow up if it's not, but the group
of foreign ministers who went to Venezuela and I think met with both the government and
the opposition - I don't know if it was yesterday, but recently - is encouraging. We hope this
could be an effort to end the violence and promote honest dialogue that addresses the
Venezuelan people's legitimate grievances. There's still - this is just the beginning
stages of what this might look like, but hopefully this or something like this can serve as a
third-party meditator to try and get the parties to the table, try and end the violence, and
move forward here.
QUESTION: I mean, as you probably know, people like us tend to hear sanctions and we glom
on that. I was wondering if you could characterize how realistic the application of sanctions
is in this case.
MS. HARF: As I said, we've set a wide range of policies around the table. But what we
are really focused on right now is trying to identify - have the two parties identify
and agree to a third-party mediator here. So while there are many options on the table,
I think we're focused on the mediation aspect at this point.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MS. HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: I have a question (inaudible). Madam, as India goes through elections --
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- next week, through April and May - one, if U.S. is following the elections
in India. Two, Devyani, the diplomatic drama still in the minds of the many people during
this election here in India. First there was a celebration because your judge dismissed
the case, and again it was refiled again by the U.S. attorney Mr. Bharara. And again now
the Indian foreign minister said - and I hope - I think he called Secretary Kerry - that
this case is no longer only a diplomatic but it has become a political issue. So where
- what is the future of this drama? When it's going to end and what it will take to end
this drama between the two countries?
MS. HARF: Well, in our minds, the drama that I think people have been trying to keep alive
is, quite frankly, past us. First, obviously, we are paying attention to what's happening
in India. As we've said, it's up for the people of India to decide their future. We will work
with whoever the people of India think should be their next leadership.
I would note that just on the 28th, which I believe is today - yes - we've convened
the U.S.-India-East Asia Consultations to talk about a wide range of issues, including
maritime security - this was here at the State Department - maritime security, expanding
regional trade opportunities, increasing cooperation in multilateral fora. This is the sixth time
we've had this consult.
So again, we are working with the Indian Government bilaterally in a very businesslike, very close,
consultative manner on a wide range of issues. So we've, quite frankly, moved the relationship
past this incident. There's a process in place. That's not our process. And we're working
with the Indian Government on a whole host of issues.
QUESTION: But this Devyani thing is now - it is - is it a diplomatic or legal or political
issue? How it's going to end, because there's a strain between --
MS. HARF: Well, it's a legal process. There's a legal process
QUESTION: -- because there's strained relations between the two countries because of this.
MS. HARF: We would disagree that relations are strained today because of this. We know
it was a difficult incident. We know there were difficult issues. We talked about it
for many, many days and weeks in this briefing room. But quite frankly, we believe we need
to move the relationship past it. We believe the Indian Government wants to do the same
thing. And we are working together very closely, as I said, on a whole range of issues.
QUESTION: And a question on Pakistan.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: As far as talking about human rights and minorities, minorities are under attack
still in Pakistan - Christians, Hindus. Many, many shops of Hindus were burned down during
this Festival of Colors in Pakistan, and there's a fear going on among the minorities there.
What the U.S. Government is telling Pakistan? That they have to stop now because there's
a democracy, there is an election, there is a prime minister now, it's no longer dictatorship.
MS. HARF: Well, I'm not familiar with the specific incidents you're speaking to. Obviously,
broadly speaking, we support minority rights all over the world, anywhere. I'm not familiar
with those incidents or the details behind them, so I wouldn't want to comment any further.
QUESTION: And finally, Bangladesh.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Then I'm coming over here. Yeah.
QUESTION: Any updates on Bangladesh as far as violence going on still there and election
problems in the past, and if U.S. still certifies that elections or not?
MS. HARF: Well, we don't certify elections. That's not our job. I don't have any update
for you on this since we last spoke.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MS. HARF: Let's go over here. Yes.
QUESTION: So the UN Human Rights Council agreed on a resolution to extend its investigation
into human rights abuses by North Korea.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I wanted to know if you had any comments on that.
MS. HARF: Let me see what I have. I do. Just give me one second. The Human Rights Council
did a number of things today, including that, so let me just pull this up. You're asking
about North Korea specifically, right?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: Okay. Yes. So we cosponsored this year's resolution, which was led by the EU
and Japan, adopted by a vote of 30 yes, 6 no, and 11 abstentions. The text focused on
the contents of the recent report of the UN's Commission of Inquiry, condemns the DPRK for
its ongoing human rights violations. It also seeks to promote implementation of several
of the Commission of Inquiry's recommendation, including the Security Council's consideration
of a referral to the ICC and targeted sanctions against those most responsible for what the
COI described as crimes against humanity.
Finally, the resolution called for the establishment of a field-based mechanism to continue the
investigation and collection of testimony and evidence initiated by the COI, which would
lay the groundwork for a possible accountability framework in the future.
QUESTION: And one more related to both North Korea and the UN.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: The Security Council the - issued a statement regarding North Korea's recent
missile launch. I wanted to know if you had any statement regarding that as well.
MS. HARF: Yes. So this happened yesterday. The Security Council unanimously condemned
the DPRK's recent ballistic missile launches in a presidential statement, which all members
agreed constituted clear violations of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The council
also agreed to consult on an appropriate response. In the wake of yesterday's meeting, we remain
in close consultation with our P5 members and the rest of the council on the format
and content of an appropriate response that would go a little further. Nothing to preview
at this point, but obviously we'll keep having the conversation and see if there's additional
action we can take.
QUESTION: So what do you think was preventing stronger action against North Korea?
MS. HARF: I don't think anything's preventing stronger action. I think it's been 24 hours.
We're talking about what to do next, want to do it in the right way. But nothing's preventing
it. We're just figuring out the right way to do it.
Yes.
QUESTION: North Korea again? It's kind of a follow-up. So several diplomats of the North
Korean sanction committee, of the council, suggested as an option they might want to
extend the blacklist of entities that are related to the missile program. And I wondered
what you would consider about that option, whether you would agree with that.
MS. HARF: I haven't heard about that proposal. Let me check on it.
QUESTION: Okay. I have another one. I'm sorry.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Go ahead. It's okay.
QUESTION: So yesterday the Japanese minister in charge of abduction issues - Minister Furuya
- said that it's possible for Japan to gradually lift its unilateral sanctions if North Korea
shows sincere positive movement towards resolving the abductee issues.
MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And North Korea and Japan will be meeting on Sunday. So a few days ago, you
said that the United States and Japan were closely coordinating on the denuclearization
issue, and I was wondering if Japan does lift the sanctions, are you worried about the coordination
between the States and Japan?
MS. HARF: Well, I don't --
QUESTION: Do you think that this could weaken --
MS. HARF: I don't want to predict what might happen. (A), we are closely coordinated with
our ally, Japan, on all issues related to North Korea and everything else. On this,
we have continued to support Japanese efforts to resolve the abductions issue in a transparent
manner. We maintain regular contact with Japan on all of these issues, and just are not concerned
about us not being on the same page here.
QUESTION: Okay. So you don't think that this might weaken the overall denuclearization
policy?
MS. HARF: Again, I think you're getting into a lot of hypotheticals here. We don't think
there's - we don't think there's any daylight between us on these issues, and if further
things happen, I'm happy to engage on them then.
QUESTION: Okay. Thanks, Marie.
MS. HARF: Yeah. Elise and then Samir, you're next. Then we'll go back to Elliot.
QUESTION: I want to ask on the case of this Saudi diplomat that is -has been denied asylum
- this former - he applied for asylum because he is persecuted as a gay person. He was let
go by the Saudi embassy and is now fighting for asylum. His name is Ali Asseri. I was
wondering if you have any information. I mean, this Administration has made protection of
gays and lesbians around the world and their protection against persecution a priority.
So I would think that this would fit right into those goals.
MS. HARF: Well, I don't have any details on that specific case. We have, you're right,
made the protection of LGBT rights a priority all over the world. For any asylum cases,
the Department of Homeland Security would cover those. Again, I don't have any of the
details on this specific case.
QUESTION: Staying on Saudi?
MS. HARF: Yeah. We'll stay on Saudi. Yeah. Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Okay. You saw the reports out of Riyadh with the Administration considering
allowing the King of Saudi Arabia to send MANPADS to Syrian rebels, stipulating that
no decision has been made at this point. Wondering: Did the U.S. - I'm just unclear of the process
- has the U.S. required Saudi to get some kind of approval before sending other aid
to Syrian rebels? I mean, why is this the case with MANPADS specifically?
MS. HARF: Well, a few points on this. We're obviously not going to get into all of the
details of our consultations with other countries on assistance to the opposition, but suffice
to say we have worked very hard to be coordinated on the types of assistance we provide with
the Saudis. And I think you heard the Administration today speak to the fact that this coordination
has improved quite significantly. So where a place last fall maybe we had some tactical
differences, we've worked very hard in working on this trip to improve our coordination,
to ultimately be able to help the opposition gain strength, again, change the balance of
power on the ground, as we've talked about.
QUESTION: Right. So if the improve - the relationship's gotten better, that suggests that the relationship
wasn't great some time ago. And if that was the case, why would the Saudis need to feel
that they needed U.S. approval in order to do this?
MS. HARF: Well, I just - I didn't say it was bad. I said it's stronger today because we've
worked even harder to closely coordinate. And one thing we've done not just with the
Saudis, but with our partners, whether it's Turkey, the Europeans, others, have very closely
coordinated on what types of assistance we're providing, because in fact we think it should
be complementary. We think we should be providing what's most helpful to the opposition to help
change the balance on the ground, and that's what we're going to keep doing. That's what
- part of what the conversation's about today.
QUESTION: So is that all assistance, all military assistance, all weapons assistance, or just
this system?
MS. HARF: No, we have across the board on all of our assistance maintained very close
coordination with our partners on this.
QUESTION: But does that mean that Saudi in each case, whether it's small arms or - I
don't know, nods or something like that, they have asked the U.S., hey, can we send this
before they actually --
MS. HARF: I'm not going to get into the details of what that coordination looks like or how
that process works.
QUESTION: Can I follow-up?
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. And then, Samir, I promise you're next. Yes.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, I mean, there was an objection from U.S. regarding this weapon
in sending --
MS. HARF: And our position on that has not changed.
QUESTION: Not changed?
MS. HARF: Not changed. Correct. Our position on that has not changed.
QUESTION: So is the U.S. now similar to - the U.S. position similar to the Saudi position
to change the military balance on the ground in Syria?
MS. HARF: Well, we've always had the same goals with the Saudis, right? Where we've
had some tactical differences, we've had conversations and worked through them and today feel like
we are in a stronger place with our two countries closely coordinating even more what kinds
of assistance we're providing, how we can increase that assistance, what makes the most
sense and how we can change the balance of power there.
QUESTION: So can I follow up his question, because the arming --
MS. HARF: Yes, you can.
QUESTION: The arming issue is one of the main disagreements between U.S. and the countries
that are providing arms, because it's not clear yet, for me at least I'm not sure, maybe
you can clarify it. Is it pick and choose? It's like a selective regarding who is going
to be armed? I mean, because it's like all the issue of concern was for the last few
months, let's say the last six months, that the arms is reaching to the people who are
extremists.
MS. HARF: Right. Well, so part of what the conversation has been with the Saudis and
others - clearly, the Saudis want us to provide as much assistance as possible. They want
to as well. One of the questions that we've always had, and we've said this very publicly,
is that as we provide assistance, without getting into specifically what that assistance
looks like, we have to do it in a way that helps change the balance of power on the ground
and that, you're right, doesn't end up going to people like al-Nusrah or ISIL people we
consider terrorist organizations.
So we vet people. We have a process for doing this. And that's why we want to be very careful
when we provide assistance, understanding that we need to keep providing more as quickly
as possible, also understanding there needs to be a process in place so we know where
the stuff is ending up. So that's part of what the balance we're trying to strike here
is. That's part of why sometimes this takes longer than we might want. But we do think
we're getting better at it. We think we've gotten better at that process throughout the
many months we've been doing this.
QUESTION: When you say the stuff is ended up, I mean, what do you mean? Reaching to
whom?
MS. HARF: It's a technical term: "stuff." Yes, exactly. Who it reaches. Absolutely.
Yes.
QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to the inspector general report on the ambassador to Bahrain?
MS. HARF: I do. We have, obviously, received the report. The State Department values the
oversight provided by our inspector general and we take IG recommendations seriously and
rely on them to make improvements in how we operate. With regard to this specific inspection
report, Department officials are reviewing the report and its recommendations and will
respond to the inspector general formally. While we agree with some of the recommendations,
we disagree with others. I'm not going to outline those today. We'll do that in a formal
report. But we believe the report contains a number of factual inaccuracies and take
issue with several of the report's assertions.
Our ambassador in Bahrain is qualified, highly capable, and we have full confidence in his
leadership of the mission. He has served with distinction for over 35 years in some of our
most challenging missions, including in Iraq and as our ambassador in Yemen; has repeatedly
been recognized for his service and leadership, including multiple Superior Honor Awards and
the President's Distinguished Service Award.
QUESTION: But just because he - did all those wonderful things in the past doesn't mean
- doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the complaints --
MS. HARF: With his leadership now?
QUESTION: Well, with the --
MS. HARF: Well, I think it matters. Absolutely.
QUESTION: Well, it matters in the sense that he has leadership capabilities --
QUESTION: -- but that doesn't mean necessarily that what is being applied to this particular
case in Bahrain really doesn't have much bearing.
MS. HARF: I think it's an important fact to note. I also - as I said, we will respond
formally, but we do disagree with some of the recommendations. We take issue with several
of the report's assertions and believe the report contains a number of factual inaccuracies.
We will be responding formally to the IG.
QUESTION: I have a question regarding - do you have an update about the case of Qatar,
or it's --
MS. HARF: I don't have any update. On the Americans?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: I don't have any update, no.
QUESTION: Can we go to the peace process?
MS. HARF: We can.
QUESTION: We know that Jen Psaki has briefed the traveling press in Riyadh, but could you
confirm that the talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are continuing?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: And two --
MS. HARF: Easy. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: The issue of the release of Jonathan Pollard, it has been an issue, a topic of
discussions between Israelis and Americans over the last days?
MS. HARF: As I've said I think for the last few days, we're not going to get into the
specifics of any issues we discuss. You know our position on Jonathan Pollard. That's it.
QUESTION: What about - today is the deadline for the release?
MS. HARF: I don't think it's today. I think you have your dates a little wrong.
QUESTION: Well, I mean, it's like 28th of March.
MS. HARF: I think it's Saturday.
QUESTION: Tomorrow I mean. Sorry. Today is Friday. We're still waiting.
MS. HARF: I'm not going to get into the details of the discussions that are happening on the
ground. When we have more to talk about, we will.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
MS. HARF: Yes. Actually, let me go to Ali because she hasn't had one. I'm being very
diplomatic today. (Laughter.) Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Russia.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: There have been reports that in addition to the troops massing on the Ukrainians
border that the Russians are also concealing some equipment and troops. I just wanted to
know if you guys have anything to say about that, about those reports.
MS. HARF: I've seen some of those reports. I don't have independent confirmation. It
wouldn't surprise me, and we're always obviously looking out for any denial or deception that
they might be trying to do. But I don't have independent confirmation.
QUESTION: And the numbers that range within kind of the 50,000, and that includes troops
on the border as well as Russian troops within Crimea, is that still an accurate sort of
ballpark? I know that it's changing.
MS. HARF: You know what? There are a lot of ballparks out there. We said tens of thousands.
I don't want to get too specific here, obviously, but I think we're concerned about the large
number and believe they should be moved away from the border.
QUESTION: And one last question. If Russia does decide to move into Crimea, what immediate
steps are in place that the United States can --
MS. HARF: Well, we have a range of policy options. You heard the President talk yesterday
about more sanctions. There are other policy options as well. We've been working very hard
with our NATO partners on this. Obviously, we've worked with them to review ways to have
additional deployments to Eastern Europe, to reassure our allies if Russia were to take
further escalatory steps, so lots of options on the table here.
QUESTION: Reassuring your - I mean, if you know that U.S. military is not going to actually
get involved in any type of conflict with Russia, then just the presence of them might
assure allies, but it's not going to deter President Putin. Isn't that right?
MS. HARF: I think that's your analysis of it.
QUESTION: Well, are you saying that just the presence of U.S. military in the region after
the President has already said that the United States is not going to engage in a military
conflict with Russia would actually deter him in any way?
MS. HARF: I think it would be an important signal if it comes to that, yes, that we are
standing side-by-side our allies. I do.
QUESTION: But what's the signal? That they're just going to be there and watch it?
MS. HARF: Elise, you're getting 15 steps down the road here.
QUESTION: I'm not getting 15 steps ahead. There are some --
MS. HARF: If - yeah, actually, you are. Sending --
QUESTION: -- between estimates, there are like 40,000 --
MS. HARF: No, no. Let me finish, Elise. Sending U.S. troops to NATO allied countries to show
them we're standing with them is different than whether or not Russia's going to go into
Crimea or eastern Ukraine with more troops. Those are different things. That's what I'm
saying.
QUESTION: No, but what she - what Ali is asking is what can you do to deter President Putin
from doing that. And you said --
MS. HARF: She asked what we'll do if he does it, actually.
QUESTION: You said - no, I'm sorry. You said it's two different things, but you're saying
two different things, because she's asking about what you can do to stop President Putin
from going into eastern Ukraine --
MS. HARF: That's not what she asked --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MS. HARF: She asked what we would do if he did.
QUESTION: Okay, so --
MS. HARF: So I said we're looking at further sanctions, as the President said. And to prevent
further escalatory steps, we'll be sending some folks to Eastern Europe to shore up our
NATO allies.
QUESTION: Okay, so I'm asking, then: What can you do to actually deter him from doing
that besides threatening sanctions?
MS. HARF: Well, we've made it very clear that there will be further consequences if he does,
that we've already hurt his - that we've - this is tag team here. I like it. (Laughter.) No,
that we've already hurt his economy greatly by the actions already taken. There will be
further consequences that will hurt Russia even more and further isolate them, whether
it's diplomatically, economically, or militarily from the rest of the world if they do. A number
of steps are on the table right now.
QUESTION: So let me phrase the question in such a way that, I mean, when - whether you
use the word, "hurt Russia" or "isolate Russia," do you still believe - or at least factually
- that the sanctions are working or having an impact on Russia?
MS. HARF: They're having - certainly having an impact. Yes.
QUESTION: Is there going to be any kind of evaluation of how this is impacting? Because
there is a lot of doubt about that it's working or not, or it may take a long time.
MS. HARF: I don't think there's any doubt about the state of the Russian economy today.
Let's be clear about that. There's no doubt there. Sanctions do - the longer sanctions
are on, the more they hurt. So they will continue to hurt Russia, and if we put more sanctions
on, they will continue to hurt Russia. If Russia's not part of the G8 - the longer Russia
goes not being part of the G8, it will continue to hurt their economy.
All of these things, the longer they go on, will hurt Russia even more, which is why they
should take steps now. As the President has said, there's still a diplomatic door open
here. Right? Take steps now to de-escalate the situation and we'll see where we can go
from here.
QUESTION: So I will use another H-word, which is "help" - help Ukraine. I mean, what kind
of help is going on now at - not at this moment, in the last few days?
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: And then the second part of this help, when you say, "our NATO allies, we are
helping them," U.S. strictly means which countries? I mean, Poland, Baltic states, or what?
MS. HARF: Everyone in NATO. But you don't have to be in NATO to be a partner that we're
going to help. On Ukraine, you saw the IMF package yesterday that we are moving forward
with that will not only provide immediate money - or not immediate, but money as soon
as we can get it there - and also unlock United States and European money - I think around
$27 billion. Congress, hopefully very soon, will pass our own Ukraine bill that has loan
guarantees for Ukraine in it. So economically, there are a number of ways we are helping
Ukraine today. Diplomatically, you saw we led yesterday in the General Assembly to get
a resolution passed standing very strongly in support of Ukraine.
One of the big topics of conversation the Secretary will have next week in Brussels
with the NATO ministerial is specifically about, again, NATO - what you're asking about
and what Elise asked about and what we can do more in that sphere to help Ukraine.
QUESTION: Is there any - I mean, I am sure that there is - but can you have any details
about how U.S. is helping Ukraine militarily?
MS. HARF: I don't have more details on that. You mean in terms of --
QUESTION: I mean the troops or their readiness or their being equipped or --
MS. HARF: I can - I'll - I can check with my colleagues in the Defense Department to
see. They probably have a better answer than I do.
QUESTION: Just to follow quickly, is U.S. going to ask any other countries outside NATO,
like India, China, or other friends of Russia, as far as sanctions are concerned, like in
the past during Iranian crisis was - asked India to cut oil supply from Iran?
MS. HARF: Well, I don't think we're there yet. Obviously, we've been consulting very
closely with the Europeans about sanctions. We have been talking with other countries
diplomatically, though, if you remember the Security Council vote last weekend. It was
significant that China, for example, abstained and did not vote with Russia. Yesterday, only
10 other countries in the General Assembly - people like Syria and Sudan - voted with
Russia. So we are actively working on the diplomatic side to isolate Russia and that
means with countries like China and India and others. But on the oil part, we're just
not there yet.
QUESTION: So to follow up - not specifically on that, but on Ukraine and Russia --
MS. HARF: Yeah, mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- does the State Department share the analysis by some apparently in the government
or in the Administration that there will be another military incursion by Russia into
Ukraine, that this is all but certain?
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly hope it's not.
QUESTION: But do you - does your intelligence indicate that it will? I mean --
MS. HARF: Well, I would check with the intelligence community on what their assessment is. What
we have said is that there are a large number of troops massed on the border --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: -- and that President Putin and the Russian Government have some choices to
make. And we hope - we have told them specifically there is room for more conversations and room
for diplomacy. And so we hope we will - they will capitalize on that, they will realize
there will be more consequences if they don't, and they won't, in fact, go further into Ukraine.
QUESTION: But I don't think there's a lot of intelligence that some of the IC can get
at, other than satellite. And so I was wondering if maybe the State Department's Intelligence
Bureau or your CT - maybe not your CT Bureau - but your Intelligence Bureau had better
diplomacy.
MS. HARF: I'm not sure that's entirely true about the intelligence community. Not to put
on my old hat of defending the intelligence community, but I think that's actually not
entirely true. Look, right now it's clear that there are troops on the border that could
go in if they made a decision to. The question is whether or not there's been a decision
made to. I don't know the answer to that. My friends in the intelligence community might.
But what I am saying is that they should not do so, that Putin should not do so.
QUESTION: Well, while you've got your old hat on, I'm sure you saw some of the reports
today that indicated that the CIA didn't think that Russia would invade or do the massive
incursion into Crimea the last time around. And so this time now with another big advancement
of troops on the border, they are saying, apparently, that yes we do believe that there
will be a major incursion into southern and eastern Ukraine. So I'm just wondering if
that's something that you all --
MS. HARF: Yeah. Well, without getting into specifics about the intelligence assessments
- I would obviously refer to my colleagues there - I would hesitate with some of the
language you used that said they didn't think X, they didn't think Y. There's obviously
always difficulty predicting in any situation with certainty exactly when or how something
will happen. That doesn't mean people aren't looking at a range of possibilities. And when
you see a number of troops massed on a border, clearly one of the possibilities is that there
will be an incursion. So I'd check with them. I'm not going to do a full-scale defense of
their analysis, but I would caution any stories out there that say X one way about analysis.
That's just not how intel analysis actually works.
Elliot. Wait, Elliot hasn't had one yet.
QUESTION: Thanks. So today the - getting back to the UN things that they've been doing on
human rights, they had a busy day yesterday.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Human Rights Committee issued some observations on the fourth report of the United
States. Topping the list of those concerns was the U.S. interpretation that the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to those under U.S. jurisdiction
but outside U.S. territory, and the report recommends that the U.S. reevaluate this policy.
Is there any plans - are there any plans to do so?
MS. HARF: I'm sorry, I missed part of that question. You're asking about the ICCPR report?
QUESTION: It was - there was --
MS. HARF: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
QUESTION: I believe so, yes.
MS. HARF: Which part of that are you - I'm sorry, there's - I have a lot on this. Which
part are you asking about specifically?
QUESTION: So this was the UN Human Rights Committee issued some observations, concluding
observations on the fourth report of the U.S.
MS. HARF: Well, what - and I can look into the specifics. I don't know about that one
specifically. But in terms of the ICCPR process, we underwent the review of our human rights
record through this process in a public livestream forum, full engagement of civil society, and
look forward to working - continuing our collaboration and working with the UN Human Rights Committee
as we work on these issues.
So from our perspective, we thought the process was fairly transparent and open. Is there
a specific you're asking about?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: Okay, sorry.
QUESTION: So that's --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- my question is specifically on the policy of the U.S. on the extraterritorial
application of the international covenant. But the U.S. position is currently that the
covenant does not apply to those who are under U.S. jurisdiction --
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- but outside the territory of the U.S. And the committee --
MS. HARF: Okay, let me check.
QUESTION: The committee recommends reevaluation of this. It's a policy that's been in place
since the mid '90s.
MS. HARF: Okay. I'm happy to check on that specific recommendation. I'm sorry, I'm not
familiar with that one.
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, just two quick questions. One is on the U.S.-sponsored UNHRC on Sri Lanka.
Do you have any update on that?
MS. HARF: Uh-huh, I do. Give me one second. It was a U.S.-led resolution - and the Secretary
actually put out a statement on this, I hope you saw that, I think yesterday or the day
before - adopted by a vote of 23 yes, 12 no, and 12 abstentions. For the first time, this
resolution requests a comprehensive investigation to be undertaken by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights into alleged violations and abuses of human rights and
related crimes committed in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learned
and Reconciliation Commission report, which was 2002 to 2009. In addition, it requests
that OHCR monitor, assess, report on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, including any
relevant domestic processes dealing with reconciliation and accountability.
QUESTION: And what was the - do you have any comments on what role India played? They didn't
vote; they abstained?
MS. HARF: Yes, I do. Just give me one second to page back here in this book. I do.
It is disappointing to us that India abstained from voting on this resolution when they voted
yes for the last two years. We have made our disappointment known to Indian officials.
Beyond that, I'd refer you to them in terms of how they voted.
QUESTION: Well, another one on India.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: U.S. ambassador to India met Mr. Narendra Modi, Gujarat chief minister and
the BJP president - and prime ministerial candidate, and that was under a broad range
of meetings. Can you update us if she met anybody else, because now the election is
in the last - the campaign is in the last days?
MS. HARF: I wasn't aware that she had met. Let me check on those facts and make sure
we have all of our facts right and see if there's any other meetings to read out for
you. As we've said, a broad range of contacts leading up to the elections.
QUESTION: Quick one on Afghanistan. As the election nears, and the violence continuing,
including yesterday, and Talibans are really - they are threatening the elections and also
officials there, international community is really fearful. So what do you think the future
of Afghanistan as far as elections under the fear of Taliban, who are not supporting or
going to be part of it?
MS. HARF: Well, what we've said is that the Afghans themselves have made significant progress
towards holding their elections next month. Afghan security ministries, in close coordination
with the Afghan National Security Council, have continued working with the Independent
Elections Commission to prepare security for the elections. We know much more needs to
be done, but we have, quite frankly, been impressed by the progress that the IEC and
the security organizations have made.
I'd remind you of a few other data points: Voter registration continues. Candidates are
finalized. Two key electoral laws have been adopted. Elections commissioners and complaints
commissioners have been appointed. In addition, the Afghan security ministries, as I've said,
have continued working to prepare for the election.
Also recent polls show that the vast majority of Afghans see elections as compatible with
Islam, and 85 percent intend to vote; 77 percent think their votes will make a difference.
So I would say that a majority, a large majority, of Afghans reject what the Taliban is trying
to sell them, reject this kind of violence and fear and intimidation, and want to go
to the polls, and they should be allowed to do so to pick the leaders of their country
freely, without intimidation.
QUESTION: They're also saying that without the full cooperation of Pakistan, next-door
neighbor, this election or democracy in Afghanistan is not possible. So what role you think U.S.
is playing so Pakistan can cooperate or --
MS. HARF: Look, this is a conversation about Afghanistan preparing for its elections, and
that's the context we're going to talk about it in.
QUESTION: But as far as violence is concerned, continuously.
MS. HARF: I'm sorry?
QUESTION: Violence is continuously by the Talibans inside of Afghanistan.
MS. HARF: I mean, clearly we know there's a concern with cross-border violence. The
Pakistanis know that as well. We've all been working. Pakistan and all of Afghanistan's
neighbors have an interest in seeing a stable Afghanistan. So that's what we're working
towards right now.
QUESTION: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. HARF: What else? I feel like I saw another hand up. Yes, Elliot.
QUESTION: So the prime minister of Japan made some comments in a radio interview, sort of
comparing the situation in Crimea with what could possibly happen in East Asia. Chinese
foreign ministry had a very sort of harsh response to that. I was wondering if you have
any comment to make on that --
MS. HARF: I haven't seen those specific comments. Obviously, we've been very forceful in talking
about Crimea in and of itself. I wouldn't have any other further comment on those.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Thank you, guys. Everyone have a good weekend.