Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. Happy --
QUESTION: Happy belated birthday.
MS. PSAKI: Thank you. Thank you very much. Twenty-two. It's glorious. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: And you will be 22 for the next --
MS. PSAKI: I will be.
QUESTION: What, 10, 15 years?
MS. PSAKI: At least, at least. Well, I have nothing at the top, so Matt, let's go to what's
on your mind.
QUESTION: Let's see. I have a lot --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- but nothing is really worth starting with, so let's just start with the Secretary's
trip.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: Both - excluding the middle stop in Moldova, at the beginning, how much of
the NAC do you expect is going to be concentrated on Afghanistan and then talking about the
BSA? Will there be any Afghan officials there to talk with? And then - well, that'll be
that one question for --
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Well, we'll clearly, as we typically do, be doing a briefing en route
about the trip and about our visit to the NATO Ministerial tomorrow, where we will venture
to have more specific details about who will be attending. Obviously, Afghanistan and the
ongoing presence there post-2014 of the United States and of NATO will certainly be a big
topic of discussion. But I will let our briefers outline more specifics en route to Brussels.
QUESTION: All right. Well, I was going to ask about the Middle East but - as well, the
stop in Israel and the PA. But if you're just - are you going to give me the same answer,
wait for the briefing on the plane?
MS. PSAKI: I likely will, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, then never mind.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: And then quickly on Afghanistan --
MS. PSAKI: Sure, Lesley.
QUESTION: Is - what further is happening as far as trying to resolve this issue with Afghanistan?
MS. PSAKI: Well --
QUESTION: As far as - is it true that --
MS. PSAKI: The BSA.
QUESTION: The - exactly.
MS. PSAKI: The signing, I assume.
QUESTION: Is it true that Special Envoy Dobbins has gone - is on his way to Afghanistan?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any announcements at this point on travel for him or anyone
else. Obviously, our team on the ground, Ambassador Cunningham and others, have been in close
contact. At this point, we've made our position clear, and so have the Afghan people. Signing
the BSA soon is the path forward, as we've said many times, to sustaining a partnership
between the United States and Afghanistan to support Afghans in achieving lasting peace,
security, and development. That's the message that we're conveying at every level. And as
we've said before but important to reiterate here, given it's a week later now: We - deferring
the signature of the agreement until after next year's election is not viable. It would
not provide Afghans with the certainty that they deserve regarding their future in the
critical months leading to the elections, nor would it provide the United States and
NATO allies the clarity necessary for a potential post-2014 military presence.
So we're continuing to convey that. Our team on the ground is certainly hard at work. I
don't have any travel announcements. If that changes, we'll certainly let all of you know.
QUESTION: Has Secretary spoken to President Karzai in the last couple of days on BSA?
MS. PSAKI: He has not spoken with him in the last couple of days.
QUESTION: And the Pentagon today said that this is not the end of it; after BSA is signed,
the U.S. and Afghanistan have to negotiate and sign their agreement called SOFA, and
that would be done by the State Department. Has any process started on SOFA, signing of
SOFA with Afghanistan?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to look more specifically at what they said. Maybe you're referring
to the NATO SOFA that they may have to negotiate and sign, I believe, as a step? But for our
purposes, there's the signing; it goes through parliament, then it would have to be signed
again. Obviously, as you all are very familiar with, this doesn't outline a specific number
for a troop presence, so there would be a great deal of planning in regards to that
that DOD would certainly be very engaged with. But in terms of that, I'd have to look at
specifically what they said. I'm not familiar with that --
QUESTION: Is December 21st the redline, the deadline for signing of BSA, after which you
will begin preparing for all troops pull out from Afghanistan post 2014.
MS. PSAKI: I am not going to get into new redlines or deadlines today, I will say. But
on the trip question, well, as you all know, a decision hasn't been made. You would know
if it had been. It's not our preference, but no troops is certainly a potential outcome
for Afghanistan if there is no BSA. So that is, again, not our preference, but natural
that planning would have to take place for all different options.
QUESTION: Have you tried to understand why President Karzai is doing what he's doing
or conducting himself the way he has? Do you have a clearer picture than we do, for instance?
MS. PSAKI: I don't know that I have any further insight than you do. Obviously, the Secretary
spoke with him last week, as you all well know. We continue to press our case for why
this should be signed as quickly as possible, but I don't have any analysis of particular
actions or comments in Afghanistan.
QUESTION: So you think that he's perhaps more concerned about his personal safety post the
elections?
MS. PSAKI: I will let you, Said, do your own analysis. I don't have any other analysis
on it.
Do we have any more on Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Just the trip?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: For those of us who are interested in Moldova --
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: -- could you just tell us why stop in Moldova? What's the importance? We see
the winery, et cetera.
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Moldova is a country that has taken a number of important reform steps
in recent years. They have - they're taking steps to help grow their economy, and wine
is obviously a significant export. But they have a number of exports they also work with.
And given the steps they've taken, the Secretary felt it would be an important opportunity
to pay a visit. You'd have to check my history and facts here, but I believe he may be, if
not the first, one of the first Secretaries to pay a bilateral visit to Moldova.
QUESTION: And also it comes, obviously, right after Ukraine decided not to sign the agreement
with the EU.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Moldova did. So you could read into this that the Secretary wants to buck them
up or give them something, a sign of support.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we had planned this trip - this trip was in the works before that decision
was made. But certainly, they have put a number of reforms in place and they're working hard
on their economy and the - if - the Secretary felt it was important to highlight that.
QUESTION: Following on that --
QUESTION: Okay. Can I go over just to Afghanistan for one very briefly?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Okay, and then we'll go to Anne.
QUESTION: I was gone last week so I'm - most of last week, so what - did the Secretary
speak with Karzai before or after Ambassador Rice was there?
MS. PSAKI: Let's see. He spoke with Karzai - President Karzai - I'd have to look back.
I believe it was prior to her visit. Let me double check that for you to make sure.
QUESTION: So the last senior official to speak with Karzai, as far as you know, was Ambassador
Rice.
MS. PSAKI: I believe that's correct, yes.
QUESTION: Just following on the Moldova for Ukraine substitution, in saying that Secretary
Kerry would not, as had been widely expected, attend the OSCE - when you said that, I don't
know, about 10 days ago or so --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- we were just at the very beginning of this whole episode.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And at that point you said it was scheduling issues that had - it would force
his cancellation. Are you sticking with that? Is that still the case? Or might there be
some policy implications to his decision not to go to the OSCE?
MS. PSAKI: I am sticking with that. I'm just looking at Lesley here in my - corner of my
eye. I am sticking with that. I don't have any new guidance for you on that front. Assistant
Secretary Nuland is still planning to attend and travel there after joining us for the
first part of the visit.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is it --
QUESTION: Can you tell us the - oh, sorry.
QUESTION: Sorry. Just on this charade - charade, for Lesley - of scheduling reasons, is it
not the case that not doing - not going on this trip - not going to Kyiv is a sign of
displeasure?
MS. PSAKI: I will let you do your own reporting, Matt. I don't have any more analysis or comments
on it from here.
QUESTION: But there was --
QUESTION: And one more quick one on Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Obviously, we're seeing the demonstrations, violent crackdown.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: What's the response from the State Department?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we're of course, naturally, closely monitoring the ongoing demonstrations,
not only in Kyiv but in cities around Ukraine. As you know, since the demonstrations began
on November 21st, there have been an increasing number of violent incidents, including against
journalists. We stress there is no room, and we continue to stress there is no room for
violence in a country that aspires to a democratic future. We continue to call on all sides to
maintain calm, and on Ukrainian authorities to ensure that members of the public and the
press are able to safely and peacefully exercise their rights of speech and assembly.
As I mentioned a little bit before, we still have - Assistant Secretary Nuland is still
planning to travel there. The Ukrainian foreign ministry announced that the ministerial is
proceeding as planned.
QUESTION: But there was -
QUESTION: Are you sure that Ukraine is a country that aspires to a democratic future?
MS. PSAKI: Any country that may aspire, certainly, these are important values to follow through
on.
QUESTION: Right. But are you still convinced that Ukraine aspires to a westward-looking,
democratic future?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we will see, Matt. Time will tell. Actions speak louder than words.
QUESTION: Do you - does this --
QUESTION: Do you still stand by the comments made by Ambassador Nuland in her speech to
the Atlantic Council a couple of weeks ago and also comments from this podium that it
is your belief that Ukraine should be following the path towards joining some kind of association
agreement with the EU?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Our view has not changed on that. Obviously, there have been a lot
of events that have happened since then, but --
QUESTION: And do you believe that the demonstrations on the streets are actually - that's what
they want? I mean, it seems to be that they're demonstrating because they're angry that the
government hasn't taken this path that's been laid out for them.
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the comments of the demonstrators, of which there have
been many. I don't want to speak on their behalf, but our position hasn't changed on
what steps they could take. Obviously, it's up to Ukraine to take those steps.
QUESTION: So - but, I mean, the United States is - if you don't want to give your backing
to them - at least sympathetic to what the demonstrators are asking for.
MS. PSAKI: Again, the demonstrators are saying a range of things, so I don't - beyond what
we've stated publicly many times, I don't have any other further public statements on
our position, which has been stated by Assistant Secretary Nuland and by other officials in
the past several weeks.
QUESTION: Given the estimates of some 300,000 people who were demonstrating across the country
on Sunday, and given that they all seem, to a person, to be saying that the government
is ignoring their wish to be more closely aligned with Europe, isn't it a bit disingenuous
for this building to suggest that they need to show any restraint? They're not the ones
who are bludgeoning people with battering rams and turning rubber bullets on the police.
It seems they're taking the brunt of everything that's been happening.
MS. PSAKI: I don't think I took sides. I think I said that it's important for all sides to
maintain calm, that there's no place for violence in a country that aspires to a democratic
future. So I don't - I would disagree with the premise of your claims.
QUESTION: What does this building think of the prime minister's - call for his security
forces to show restraint and seemingly to be missing in action when on Sunday there
was more violence heaped upon the demonstrators, particularly in Kyiv?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think I just expressed what our view is of violence against demonstrators,
so that's what our view is.
QUESTION: Can I - has the Secretary spoken to somebody in Ukraine, his counterpart?
MS. PSAKI: He has not in the last several days. I can check if there's been any other
calls I'm not aware of.
QUESTION: Because one of the big issues for Ukraine is tearing itself away from Russia
and looking towards Western Europe for economic support. And one of the big things is that
the president of Ukraine is heading to China to look for that. And if - I was wondering
if the U.S. had offered them kind of - some kind of assurance or reassurance economically
that they could be better off by signing these deals and with the support - and the U.S.
would support any kind of reform through the International Monetary Fund.
MS. PSAKI: Well, aside from public statements we've made, which, as Jo referenced, is - that
our belief is that European integration is the surest course to economic growth and strengthening
Ukraine's democracy. That's still our belief. That's been consistently our belief. But beyond
that, I'm not aware of any other discussions. Obviously, there's a lot of - that's going
on with the EU and with Russia, and beyond that we have made our position clear.
QUESTION: And what is the building's position on the detention of Yulia Tymoshenko?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we have consistently spoken about this in the past and expressed our concern
about her detention. I know this was also a component that was potentially being worked
through as an element of Ukraine getting into the EU. So we've consistently expressed concern,
encouraged them to take steps forward. Obviously, there hasn't been progress on that on the
ground.
QUESTION: I'm sorry, what did you say was the surest way to economic growth?
MS. PSAKI: I said European integration is the surest course to economic growth and strengthening
QUESTION: Did you give the same advice to the Greeks?
(Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: Matt. Behave.
Do we have any more on Ukraine or Afghanistan, since we touched on that too?
QUESTION: Still on Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: The Russians have proposed that the EU, Ukraine, and Russia get together to
discuss some of these problems. Would the United States be in favor of that, some kind
of a trilateral discussion to discuss the economic situation and political differences?
MS. PSAKI: It wouldn't involve the United States, so I don't have a particular position.
I'm happy to talk to our team and see if we have a view on that.
Ukraine or Afghanistan? Okay, should we move on to Syria? Let's go to Margaret.
QUESTION: Thank you. Jen, the OPCW said over the past few days that the U.S. has stepped
up, that they're going to give operational support, offering up financing. Can you give
us some more detail on that?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, I don't know if it will be satisfying, but let me try. (Laughter.)
Well, as you know, the United States is committed to supporting the international community's
efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons in the safest, most efficient and effective
means possible. We have offered and are currently outfitting a U.S. vessel with field-deployable
hydrolysis system technology to support the OPCW's efforts. We are in close contact with
the OPCW and our international partners and remain confident that we can meet the milestones
for destruction set out by the OPCW. Of course, the OPCW remains - and the UN - remain the
lead coordinators on reaching out to countries and coordinating steps forward and any timeline,
et cetera.
QUESTION: But on the financing, what is it exactly that we're offering? Is that a chunk
of change? Is that financing and loans, or --
MS. PSAKI: Well, we've offered - we've offered in the - prior to this, we have offered - we
have given 6 million to the OPCW and the UN Trust Fund, both in financial contributions
and in kind, so I think we gave some materials as well. But this, of course, would be a DOD
vessel. So I would point you to them on the specific costs. This, at this point, is an
offer. So I think that's still being worked through.
QUESTION: So - but beyond the vessel, the OPCW says the cost is going to be between
35 to 40 million euros for the private contractors who would actually be --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- be doing the disposal themselves. So is any of that money coming through the
State Department, or is the State Department topped out at $6 million?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we've said we'd be open to exploring additional ways to provide assistance.
I don't have any announcements today of additional assistance we're planning to provide, but
that certainly is something we're in discussions with the OPCW about.
QUESTION: So we can understand correctly, it is a commercial vessel, correct, that they
are trying --
MS. PSAKI: It is a --
QUESTION: -- (inaudible) --
MS. PSAKI: -- U.S. Government vessel, not a commercial vessel.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: But there is a part of this - and this may be what you're asking about - which
QUESTION: So what - so DOD is outfitting its own boat, which will be staffed with DOD personnel
who will do this?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check on the specifics of that. I think some of it may still be work
- be going through the process of being worked out, Matt, because they've offered - but obviously,
how it would be staffed and the materials and the money - I mean, all of those are pieces
that are still being discussed.
QUESTION: Do you actually have a timeline and the location for where this would happen?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have a location. That's still being discussed. The timeline, as you
know, is - the next deadline is - not deadline, it's a target - is December 31st. And that
is to get all of the chemical weapons out. But in terms of when the next step would be,
I don't have a timeline of that.
Anne.
QUESTION: I realize part of this is kind of DOD-flavored, but you might know the answer.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: So is it proper to call this a warship, or is it a military-owned, but not non-warship
ship?
(Laughter.)
MS. PSAKI: That is a very specific ship question. I would hesitate to answer incorrectly. I'd
have to check on specifically how we categorize it. I don't believe it is a warship, but let
me see if we can get more specification on how we - what we call it exactly.
QUESTION: Okay. And on the policy side, I mean, is there any disappointment here that
after casting about to - for a friend here, it ends up being the U.S. having to essentially
do this on its own?
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't categorize it that way. I mean, certainly this is a priority for the
U.S., as it is for the international community, to destroy and eliminate the chemical weapons.
The OPCW is still talking to countries. There are countries that have made public comments
about their willingness to help, so we'll see how that all shakes out. And certainly,
we'd welcome the support or contribution of other countries.
QUESTION: Well, I'd imagine from your perspective, it should be a shared priority among many
nations who would also share the same goal of the ultimate destruction, right? I mean,
everybody was waving a flag when that - when the thing was signed.
MS. PSAKI: Certainly, and there are countries, as you know, throughout that have been open
to contributing that couldn't for a variety of reasons, whether it's regulations or capacity
or resources. But they're still talking to countries about contributing and being a part
of this, and certainly we're hopeful of that as well.
QUESTION: So if the question is: "Are you surprised that you've been left holding the
bag on this, once again," --
MS. PSAKI: We're not holding the bag yet, Matt.
QUESTION: -- the answer would be no, you're not surprised. You expected your friends in
Europe to wimp out.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we made clear we were open to contributing from the beginning, Matt.
There are other countries that have expressed an openness to contributing in some capacity.
They're all going to make their decisions about what that will - what will - that will
entail, and we'll let the OPCW decide how all of it will work together.
QUESTION: What about Russia, who you made this deal with and has been instrumental,
as you say, in helping move this towards a resolution? Why can't Russia contribute in
a significant way like you can?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not familiar with what they have contributed or what they've committed
to contribute or what they have not. Obviously, there are financial ways - there are a number
of ways to contribute. We certainly welcome any country's contribution. There are different
ways that each country can do that.
QUESTION: Are you in touch with the Russians specifically about making an - a contribution?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure. I'd have to check on that and see if it's a discussion that's
been a part of the regular discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov.
QUESTION: Jen, still on Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Mike Rogers, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, warned that
there are many jihadis that are Americans and Europeans and Westerners and so on, that
they go back and forth and so on. Are you concerned about these jihadis being trained
in Syria and now they come back to the United States and perhaps organize terrorist acts?
MS. PSAKI: I haven't seen his comments specifically. I know - I believe he may have been on a Sunday
show yesterday. I haven't read them fully. We've - we're naturally concerned, as you
know, about extremists whether they're going in and certainly and if they're coming out.
I talked a little bit, I think it was a week or two ago, about ways that we coordinate
with our international partners in the region to kind of track this and efforts we undertake
to make sure we're watching, but of course we're concerned. I don't have any other specifics
for you.
QUESTION: Are you pressing your partners in this case, like the Saudis and the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries, that have been supplying arms and money in the past for these extremist
groups - are you pressing them not to do so?
MS. PSAKI: We have consistently, and all the countries, as you know, have agreed repeatedly
to contribute assistance through the SMC.
QUESTION: Finally, yesterday there was a report in the Telegraph, The London Telegraph, that
says basically the Free Syrian Army now is becoming a group of warlords and accumulating
money and gangs and so on and have no interest, really, in reaching a settlement. Is that
your assessment, or are you still working very closely with General Idris?
MS. PSAKI: We are still working very closely with General Idris, we're still working towards
a Geneva conference in January, and we still believe there's no military solution, as you
know.
More on Syria?
QUESTION: Still on Syria.
MS. PSAKI: Or - go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: Still on Syria, the Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif did an interview with Al Jazeera
this morning. And when it came to Geneva II, he said that while Iran is, quote: not begging
to attend the talks in January, it would attend if invited. My first question: Would the U.S.
be willing to invite Iran to take part in these talks? And if so, what does the U.S.
believe that Iran could bring to this situation to try to end the civil war?
MS. PSAKI: Well, no decisions have been made about participation yet. There's another trilateral
meeting on December 20th coming up that we'll be participating in with the UN and the Russians.
Our position hasn't changed on Iran's participation or whether we believe they should be invited.
They have not endorsed the Geneva communique. That's a condition we feel is necessary, but
obviously this will continue to be discussed at the next trilateral meeting.
QUESTION: But given the - that the UN is now estimating that upwards of 120-25,000 people
may have been killed in the civil war to date --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- is there some sort of leverage that Tehran could bring to the table to try
to induce the Assad regime to, if nothing else, stop the killing and try to at least
put in some sort of ceasefire?
MS. PSAKI: Well, this goes back to the premise that attendees should be endorsing the Geneva
communique, because that is what the purpose and the goal of the conference is. So, I don't
have any speculation on what leverage they may or may not have, but the conversations
we have had with them in recent weeks have been about their nuclear program and moving
towards a first-step agreement on that. They've not been focused on Syria. And our position
on whether or not they should attend the Geneva conference in January hasn't changed.
QUESTION: But you do feel that if they do endorse Geneva I, there's a great deal of
value for Iran's participation --
MS. PSAKI: Well, we'd have to --
MS. PSAKI: We'd have to evaluate it, Said. I don't want to get ahead of --
QUESTION: But it's a very ally of the regime. It supports other elements that help the regime
in its fight, like Hezbollah so on.
MS. PSAKI: If that is a step they take, we can have a robust discussion in here about
it.
QUESTION: Jen, are there any contacts currently between the United States Government and the
Syrian regime? I mean, I know Secretary Kerry spoke months and months ago --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- to Foreign Minister Muallem. Is there anything going on at the moment?
MS. PSAKI: And we have for some time, as you know, have had different channels, but I don't
have anything specific for you. I can check if there have been any recent contacts on
any level.
QUESTION: So there were reports over the weekend that some European countries are quietly beginning
to --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- reopen diplomatic conversations or channels with the Syrian regime because,
I think, the fear is that this is just so blocked at the moment that they're --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- it's not going anywhere.
MS. PSAKI: Well, let me see if there have been any contacts at any level of the regime.
We've - they have happened in the past, as you mentioned, so I will see if there's more
to report on that.
QUESTION: Can I go back to the Iranians and taking part in Geneva? I mean, I think over
the last week or so, when there's been, like, various bouts of violence in Syria, that the
Iranian Government has said that there needs to be a political solution to the situation
in Syria. So don't you think that Iran is making more positive comments? I mean, I don't
think the Russians have gone far beyond saying that there needs to be a political solution.
They haven't said anything about President Assad leaving (inaudible).
MS. PSAKI: Well, the whole premise - I mean the whole goal is to create a transitional
governing body. That's the goal of a Geneva conference. So, certainly, they haven't embraced
that as the focus of the Geneva communique, and --
QUESTION: Well, even though the Russians have agreed to a political transition, your definition
of a transition is far different from the - than the Russians' definition of a transition.
So if the Iranians were to say, like, okay, we accept a political transition, I mean,
does that really mean that they --
MS. PSAKI: It's not just about a political transition. It's about embracing the Geneva
communique, which they have not done. If they do that, we will evaluate whether or not we'd
support their - an invitation to them to attend the conference.
QUESTION: Zarif also told us that his country is not interested in aggravating any sectarian
tensions between Shiite and Sunni, between Alawite and other major Islamic communities;
that they're trying to, in their efforts, promote more harmony, more peace. Does that
add any - does that change the complexion at all, particularly in Syria?
MS. PSAKI: I don't want to speak too specifically to an interview I haven't yet seen yet, and
neither has anyone on our team. Broadly speaking, obviously we took a significant step forward
with the first-step agreement on their nuclear program, but there are remaining concerns
that we have, as you all are familiar with, whether it's their involvement in support
of the regime in Syria or humanitarian issues, and so that has not changed that. I can take
a closer look once we see the transcript of the interview and see if we have more comments
on Foreign Minister Zarif's comments.
QUESTION: You're saying your team does not watch Al Jazeera?
MS. PSAKI: Well, that is not true; we do. However, I believe there's only been a very
short clip that has played of this interview that I'm sure will get lots of attention once
it all plays.
QUESTION: Beyond the interview, he's freely reaching out. He visited Kuwait. He's reaching
out to the other Gulf countries. He wants to visit Saudi Arabia. I mean, there is an
effort underway to alleviate their fears and actually encourage them towards participating
in Geneva II to make it a success. You must have some sort of a reading of this effort.
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any particular reading of it for you, Said. Our position, I think,
has been pretty clear on whether or not they attend the Geneva conference.
QUESTION: I have another really quick logistics thing. On the December 20th meeting, that's
Wendy Sherman and that - it's the same iteration?
MS. PSAKI: It is that level. Exactly, yes. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is that new or was that announced last week or something --
MS. PSAKI: I believe we talked about it last week as being the next meeting.
QUESTION: On China - (inaudible).
QUESTION: Please, Jen, can we stay on Iran, please?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let's stay on Iran and then we can go to China.
QUESTION: On the 6th of February in this room, I had a very brief exchange with your predecessor,
Victoria Nuland --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- about Iran. And with your indulgence, I will read it in its entirety for the purpose
of the record and so you can respond to it.
"Rosen: There have been reports that intermittently, and outside of the formal P5+1 mechanisms,
the Obama Administration, or members of it, have conducted direct secret bilateral talks
with Iran. Is that true or false?"
"Nuland: We have made clear, as the Vice President did at Munich, that in the context of the
larger P5+1 framework, we would be prepared to talk to Iran bilaterally. But with regard
to the kind of thing that you're talking about on a government-to-government level, no."
That's the entirety of the exchange.
As we now know, senior state department officials had, in fact, been conducting direct, secret
bilateral talks with senior officials of the Iranian Government in Oman, perhaps dating
back to 2011 by that point.
So the question today is a simple one: When the briefer was asked about those talks and
flatly denied them from the podium, that was untrue, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I mean, James, I - that - you're talking about a February briefing, so 10 months
ago. I don't think we've outlined or confirmed contacts or specifics beyond a March meeting.
I'm not going to confirm others beyond that at this point. So I don't know that I have
any more for you.
QUESTION: Do you stand by the accuracy of what Ms. Nuland told me, that there had been
no government-to-government contacts, no secret direct bilateral talks with Iran as of the
date of that briefing, February 6th? Do you stand by the accuracy of that?
MS. PSAKI: James, I have no new information for you today on the timing of when there
were any discussions with any Iranian officials.
QUESTION: Let me try it one last way, Jen --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- and I appreciate your indulgence.
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret
negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?
MS. PSAKI: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to
progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out
a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel
that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we've answered questions on it, we've confirmed
details. We're happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component
leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.
QUESTION: Since you, standing at that podium last week, did confirm that there were such
talks, at least as far back as March of this year, I don't see what would prohibit you
from addressing directly this question: Were there secret direct bilateral talks between
the United States and Iranian officials in 2011?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything more for you today. We've long had ways to speak with
the Iranians through a range of channels, some of which you talked - you mentioned,
but I don't have any other specifics for you today.
QUESTION: One more on Iran?
QUESTION: The Los Angeles Times and Politico have reported that those talks were held as
far back as 2011. Were those reports inaccurate?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not sure which reports you're talking about. Are you talking about visits
that the Secretary and others made to Oman, or are you talking about other reports?
QUESTION: I'm talking about U.S. officials meeting directly and secretly with Iranian
officials in Oman as far back as 2011. The Los Angeles Times and Politico have reported
those meetings. Were those reports inaccurate?
MS. PSAKI: I have nothing more for you on it, James, today.
QUESTION: One more on Iran?
MS. PSAKI: On Iran? Let's just finish Iran and then we can go to China. Go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: One of - one more on Iran. Foreign Minister Zarif said, directly contradicting
the Obama Administration's contention that sanctions worked, he told our interviewer
that when the sanctions were first imposed, Iran had 200 working centrifuges. Today, they
have more than 19,000. What is this building's reaction to his comment that sanctions did
not work and did not bring Iran to the negotiating table?
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I would like to look more closely at the context of the comments.
But, just as reminder, President Rouhani and others have talked about how the impact - how
growing the economy and putting an end - doing - bringing an end to the sanctions is something
that was a priority for them in order to help the economy and the Iranian people. There's
no question, if you look just at the facts of the impact of oil revenues, the impact
on their economic growth writ large that there was a huge impact of - that there - the sanctions
had an enormous impact, and that that was a driving factor in bringing the Iranians
back to the negotiating table.
In terms of progress made on their efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, whether through
centrifuges or at their various facilities, that to me sounds like a separate question.
Obviously, there was concerns about steps they were taking and progress they were making,
which was why it was so important to come to an acceptable agreement that would halt
and roll back the progress of their program.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, though --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- Secretary Kerry, when he did his round robin of interviews after the announcement
of the deal in Geneva, more than once stated that when Iran had reached out to the Bush-Cheney
Administration in 2003, Iran was only in possession of 164 centrifuges. Now, he would go on to
say, they have 19,000, and this therefore represents the best possible deal that could
be secured.
Isn't it a fact that since the Obama-Biden Administration took office, 70 percent of
Iran's centrifuges have been installed?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I'd have to look at the statistics, James, but we have not questioned the fact
that Iran has made progress on enrichment and on developing a nuclear weapon. We have
not questioned that. That's one of the reasons why we stepped up sanctions over the past
couple of years. The President and Secretary Kerry were big proponents of that. We worked
with the international community to do just that to put that necessary pressure in place.
The point I was trying to make to Roz is that - what she's asking sounds to me like two
separate questions, so that was --
QUESTION: Right. I'm pursuing the separate one part that she carved out, and that is
to say - and if this is untrue, I'd be grateful to be disabused of the notion - but the great
bulk of Iran's progress in the development of its enrichment program has taken place
under President Obama's watch, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check on the specific numbers. The --
QUESTION: You're not prepared to dispute that statement, as --
MS. PSAKI: Well, James, I think what we're focused on at this point is the fact that
we're now at a point where we are halting and rolling back the progress of their program
and we're working towards a comprehensive agreement to bring an end to it. I can't speculate
for you what would happen without - what would have happened without sanctions. I would venture
to guess --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) sanctions.
MS. PSAKI: But they were being paired together, so that's why I'm bringing it into the conversation.
QUESTION: But the context of the question was exactly: "The Obama Administration says
we showed up because our economy is falling apart. I'm here to tell you that's not the
case. We have our own reasons for coming."
MS. PSAKI: Well, we will take a close look at his comments and we'll have more to say
about them once we do.
QUESTION: Can I just go back to the Geneva meeting and --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- December 20th with Wendy Sherman?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: This is --
MS. PSAKI: It's that level - in terms of specific attendance, I'll have to just double-check
that for you.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
QUESTION: This is going to be the first of the political meetings towards the next - the
comprehensive agreement --
MS. PSAKI: Well, they also --
QUESTION: -- or this is the technical discussions?
MS. PSAKI: No, no, no.
QUESTION: No, this is Syria.
MS. PSAKI: This is - sorry, this is Syria.
QUESTION: Oh, I'm sorry.
MS. PSAKI: This is Syria.
QUESTION: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
MS. PSAKI: So this is the pre-Geneva. No, it's okay. It's confusing. Lots of Genevas.
QUESTION: Okay. But I did have an Iran question, actually.
QUESTION: But is there any new - I mean --
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- when is it that you're going to start to negotiate the comprehensive deal
with Iran?
MS. PSAKI: Well, right now, what we're focused on is the technical discussions leading up
to the start of the six-month --
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: So do you have a date for those?
MS. PSAKI: I don't yet have a date on those.
QUESTION: Or a place?
MS. PSAKI: I don't yet have a place. It's being worked through. Hopefully we'll have
an update for you all in the coming days.
QUESTION: And can I ask - I don't know if you had seen the reports that the new British
envoy to Iran is actually going to visit Tehran tomorrow. I wondered what the --
MS. PSAKI: I haven't seen that.
QUESTION: Well, I wanted a U.S. reaction to this following on to the question I asked
last week about how far along the line you are prepared to go with your new diplomatic
relations or not with Iran.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. I still don't have any prediction of any step beyond what step we've
already taken, which is being a part of the P5+1 agreement on the first step here with
Iran. Obviously, different countries are going to make their own decisions, and as with most
issues, we certainly support that.
QUESTION: Would it be helpful, though? Do you believe it's helpful that the British
envoy could be going to Tehran?
MS. PSAKI: I don't know that I have that level of analysis on it. I don't have all the details
on what the purpose of the trip is or what they hope to accomplish. And obviously, every
country will make their own decisions about diplomatic relationships.
QUESTION: Jen, one more on the --
QUESTION: East China Sea?
QUESTION: -- secret negotiations with Iran.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I apologize if you've already addressed this, but there have been reports that the
secret negotiations that the U.S. was engaging in with Iran created a feeling of resentment
among P5+1 allies such as France, and then that contributed to a rift among the P5+1
and made it difficult to reach consensus within that group. Do you have a reaction to that
or a comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: I don't want to speak to anonymous reports about what may or may not be the feelings
by other countries, but I will reiterate for you that this was - these discussions were
fed into the P5+1 process. That is the process that we ultimately all worked through to achieve
a first-step agreement here. The P5+1 members, as well as our friends in Israel, were briefed
early this fall.
As to the discussions, we have always been clear we've been open to bilateral discussions
with Iran; that there are a range of channels to do that through; that if anything got serious,
that we would certainly be briefing our important partners on that; and that's exactly what
we did in this case.
QUESTION: Jen --
QUESTION: And when did the talks begin?
MS. PSAKI: James, you're so tricky over there. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Can I ask about China?
MS. PSAKI: Let me just say one thing, though, for James. It's important here too - and then
I promise we'll go to China - it's important here also to note, though, that these really
picked up after President Rouhani's election, that in terms of the discussion of specific
pieces about how to move forward, what kind of - what an agreement could look like, that's
when it picked up. So I understand that's not answering your question, but I felt it
was important to --
QUESTION: But just on the basis of methodology and removing the specifics of Iran and who's
president or who's Secretary of State, if you were able to stand there at the podium
last week and say, "Yes, I'm confirming a certain set of talks that occurred in March,"
explain to me what is it that prohibits you from saying, yes or no, that a certain set
of talks occurred two years ago?
MS. PSAKI: If I have more details for you, James, I will - happy to share them.
QUESTION: I didn't ask you - I'm asking for your thinking about why you're not addressing
the question, not the specifics of the meetings. What is it that prohibits you from addressing
a question about meetings that are two years old?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to do a psychiatrist chair today.
Go ahead. On China?
QUESTION: What about the couch? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you, Jen. So as we know, the U.S. Government has already told U.S. carriers
to comply with China's requirements before any flights pass through the new air defense
zone established by the Chinese Government. So does that mean the U.S. Government has
recognized this new air defense zone established by the Chinese Government?
MS. PSAKI: So let me be absolutely as clear as I can be here because I know there's been
a range of reporting. It has been - some of it has been inaccurate, to no fault of - perhaps
it's our fault for not explaining it well enough. So we are not - the State Department
is not the point of contact with airlines. The FAA is the point of contact with airlines.
There has not been any information that has been put out or confirmed that I am aware
of that has conveyed what has or has not been communicated in that capacity to airlines.
There is - for safety and security of passengers, U.S. carriers operate internationally - operate
consistently as a process with the notices to airmen issued by foreign countries, as
is the case in this case. Their concerns are about the safety and security of passengers.
That is different from what the U.S. Government policy is. It is not - this is in no way indicates
U.S. Government acceptance of China's requirements in the newly declared ADIZ and has absolutely
no bearing on the firm and consistent U.S. Government position that we do not accept
the legitimacy of China's requirements.
This is a case where China announced this in an uncoordinated fashion. It's inconsistent
with standard practice. And their requirements for operating exceed internationally accepted
practice in this capacity. So I don't know how much more clear that it is, but it does
contradict a bit your question, so I wanted -
QUESTION: It looks like we received the statement or the Q&A from the State Department, so it
looks like it's from the U.S. Government. And also, you are saying --
MS. PSAKI: Well, in that statement, which I certainly was well aware of, what was conveyed
in there is that for safety and - for the safety and security of passengers, U.S. carriers
operate consistently internationally with the notices to airmen issued by foreign governments.
It did not convey that - anything specific about what had been communicated to airlines.
It did not convey that the U.S. Government supported this effort. So I'm very familiar
with the statement you're referring to, and there were a lot of - there were some assumptions
made.
QUESTION: So (inaudible) --
QUESTION: Okay. It looks like --
QUESTION: -- that the FAA did not instruct airlines to comply with the Chinese regulations?
MS. PSAKI: I would point you to the FAA for what they did or did not communicate to commercial
airlines.
QUESTION: Okay. Well, the FAA is part of the U.S. Government, is it not?
MS. PSAKI: They are. They --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. PSAKI: Certainly, they are not housed in the State Department, however. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: So - I understand that, but the State Department does have a representative
- you're familiar with the ICAO?
MS. PSAKI: I am not.
QUESTION: Okay. It's in Montreal.
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: It's a good excuse to get to Montreal --
MS. PSAKI: Good.
QUESTION: -- if you ever want to go up there.
MS. PSAKI: I will take that advice.
QUESTION: It's the International Civilian - it's the civilian airline - the UN agency
for airlines. Do you know if the United States is going to use its membership in the ICAO
to oppose this Chinese decision?
MS. PSAKI: I don't.
QUESTION: And if you don't know, could you ask?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah, I'm happy to check on that for you, Matt. Absolutely.
QUESTION: And when you say that the U.S. Government does not accept the legitimacy of the Chinese
requirements --
MS. PSAKI: Well, it doesn't accept - yeah, the Chinese requirements, right.
QUESTION: Right. That's what you said.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Doesn't that - if the FAA has been telling airlines that they have to comply
with this, or that they should comply with it, how is that not accepting - the government
accepting the legitimacy?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there's a whole field of regulations and regulatory policy that I am
certainly far from an aviation expert, as it evidenced by your Montreal question. So
I would point you to them on that.
Evidence of the fact that the U.S. Government does not accept China's requirement is by
the fact that the announcement will not change how the United States conducts military operations
in the region, which is something DOD announced last week. And that is certainly a U.S. Government
decision to make.
QUESTION: So does that mean that U.S. Government planes will not obey the - or will not follow
the Chinese requirements if they're flying through this airspace?
MS. PSAKI: Military planes?
QUESTION: Say the Secretary of State flying on an Air Force plane to Seoul or to Tokyo
will not notify the --
MS. PSAKI: I am not aware of any upcoming Seoul trip coming up.
QUESTION: Well, the Vice President is there right now, or in Tokyo, at least. Are you
saying that his plane, an Air Force plane, will not follow the requirements of the Chinese?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I am saying military planes would not, and that level of specificity I'd
certainly have to check and see where that falls in.
QUESTION: What is this episode - what impact is this episode having on U.S.-Sino relations?
MS. PSAKI: There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree, as you know.
We've made clear our concerns about not only what was announced but how this was announced,
the fact that there was no prior notice. As you also know, Vice President Biden is in
the region now on a prior planned trip. He will, of course, be meeting with key leaders
to discuss a range of issues. Certainly, this could be a topic of discussion, but there
are a number of other issues that we discuss both with China and other partners in the
region.
QUESTION: And has the pivot to Asia worked? Is this evidence of the pivot working?
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't categorize this into - I wouldn't put this in the evaluation category
of whether or not it worked. Our pivot to Asia, or rebalance to Asia, means focusing
on Asia and the important partnership we have with Asia, with countries in the region, the
economic and strategic partners. And nothing is further evidence of that than the Vice
President's trip there, the fact that, as you know, the Secretary will be going back
to Asia soon, that he was just there a couple of months ago with Secretary Hagel. So that
is evidence of our commitment to the region. And we work with them on a - countries in
the region on a broad range of issues.
QUESTION: But as we survey the last five years of this Administration, would you say that
China is less aggressive in its serial commission of human rights abuses, currency manipulation,
cyber warfare against U.S. businesses and government, territorial aggression, or is
it better than it used to be?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to do an evaluation of that. Obviously, we work with them on economic
issues, we work with them on strategic issues. There are still issues, including human rights,
including this issue we're talking about now, that we express concerns about when warranted,
and we'll continue to do that. But we know that the relationship is a vital one and one
that we need to keep plugging away at even when we disagree.
QUESTION: Jen, could I (inaudible) for a second?
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is it fair to characterize the U.S. position as being that aside from the official
policy, for the purposes of safety and avoiding some kind of unfortunate incident, that commercial
carriers should abide by the Chinese ADIZ requirements?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have - I'd point you again to the FAA on more specifics than what I just
conveyed. There are a range of regulations and policies that, of course, they oversee
or are in place, but our general position as a U.S. Government is that we don't accept
China's requirements. And obviously, the military - actions of military exercises is evidence
of that.
QUESTION: Jen, this comes from --
QUESTION: Sorry, sorry. Just a quick follow-up on that.
MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.
QUESTION: It looks like the two main U.S. airlines are complying with - are taking steps
to comply. Delta and United are the two that have flight routes through the area, which
seems to have kind of created a little bit of confusion/consternation in Japan over a
perceived rift with Japanese policy, which is to not allow U.S. commercial airliners
to file their flight plans with China. Do you have a - do you have any kind of reassurance
or any kind of response to that?
MS. PSAKI: We coordinate closely with Japan and with South Korea and all of the countries
in the region about a range of issues. And certainly on this issue, we have been in touch
with Japan and will continue to be. This is - for specific actions of individual commercial
airliners, I would point you to them or the FAA on any regulations.
QUESTION: But - so you're not - but you're not afraid for the safety or concerned about
the safety of U.S. citizens on flights that are flying through the area?
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly safety and security of citizens should be of concern to everyone.
Obviously, there are policies in place and regulations in place because of that. But
we don't oversee airline regulations. The FAA does, so I would point you to them.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Did the United States Government - the position has changed toward
this ADIZ, or not changed? What is the position to ADIZ now?
MS. PSAKI: It has not changed. We - China announced the ADIZ without prior consultations
even though the newly-announced ADIZ overlaps with parts of longstanding ADIZs of Japan,
the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, and includes territory administered by Japan. As I mentioned,
we - the fact that China's announcement has caused confusion and increased the risk of
accidents only further underscores the validity of concerns and the need for China to rescind
the procedures. It's consistently been our position and one we have communicated both
publicly and privately. I know there was some confusion over the weekend about airlines
and specifically.
QUESTION: Jen, you said that you are not still - not accepting China's new air defense zone.
But I wonder, like, Japan has its own air defense zone, and also part of it covers Taiwan.
But it looks like the U.S. doesn't say anything about it. So do you think there is sort of
a double standard? Why do you react so strongly to China's air defense zone?
MS. PSAKI: Well, one of the reasons is that they announced this without prior consultations.
It was inconsistent with longstanding procedure and process. And obviously, it overlaps with
a number of other longstanding air defense zones of some other neighboring countries.
QUESTION: Jen --
QUESTION: Jen, you do not contest the ability of China to declare such a identification
zone; it's just the manner in which they did it, or the extent?
MS. PSAKI: No. I think I have - I've just consistently said that we believe they should
rescind the procedures. I've just - I've also stated a couple of times that we don't accept
China's requirements. So I think I've made that pretty clear.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Is the first --
QUESTION: In response to the - China's declaration of its own ADIZ, the South Korean Government
is poised to expand its own ADIZ, so-called KADIZ, to the South China Sea. What is the
position of the United States? Would you encourage it or discourage it?
MS. PSAKI: I haven't seen those reports, or I don't even know if they're reports or if
there's been an announcement. I haven't seen any announcement, I guess I should say. So
let me check into that, and --
QUESTION: They say they have already started consultations with the United States.
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check into it and see if we have more to say on that.
QUESTION: Is this the first time the U.S. has called --
QUESTION: Jennifer, you talk about safety --
QUESTION: -- for the zone to be rescinded?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to check on that for you, Roz.
QUESTION: Can we change topic?
QUESTION: No.
QUESTION: You talk about safety. Are you really concerned that the Chinese may down an airliner
or something?
MS. PSAKI: I'm not predicting that, but certainly there is - they created these Air Defense
Identification Zones, they've asked for prior flight plans. So of course, the security and
safety is part of the regulatory process, and - but I don't have any predictions. It's
just the question of abiding by it.
QUESTION: Is it a real concern, downing an airliner?
MS. PSAKI: I don't think I have any more for you on that question.
QUESTION: Jen, when you're taking that question that Roz had --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- could you also check whether the United States actually is directly asking
the Chinese to rescind it?
MS. PSAKI: Happy to. Sure.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Well, at least --
QUESTION: Apart from the specific concerns about how this was announced without any prior
notice, its excessiveness, at least in terms of other regulations, and the safety risks
that you say it cause, do you have any - are there broader concerns about this area being
identified as essentially the entire East China Sea? Is the U.S. concerned that the
Chinese are looking at anything on a map that has the word "China" in it as all their own?
MS. PSAKI: Well, part of the concern is certainly that it overlaps with parts of other --
QUESTION: Right. But in terms of territorial claims --
MS. PSAKI: As well as territory administered by Japan, sure.
QUESTION: Right, right. But in terms of China's territorial claims, are you concerned that
this is the first step or could be a first step towards actually moving in some kind
of forceful way to take control of areas of territory and ocean maritime space that it
says that it owns?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't want to make a prediction of that.
QUESTION: No, but I'm asking if you were concerned --
MS. PSAKI: But --
QUESTION: -- that this is a step in that direction, apart from the specific problems with the
no prior notice and all that other - the safety concerns.
MS. PSAKI: But one of the specific problems is also that this includes area - territory
administered by Japan, it includes overlapping area with other countries in the region. So
certainly, that does touch on what your question is here. In terms of a prediction of what
it will mean in the future, I certainly wouldn't venture to make that at this point.
QUESTION: Right. Well, the Chinese say that they would be well within their rights also
to declare one of these zones over the entire - over the South China Sea. Are you concerned
about the possibility of that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, you're familiar with what our position is on that, and we've long --
QUESTION: Well, that's over the territorial disputes over the - it's a question of sovereignty
for these little atolls and bits of rock.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Would you be as opposed as you are to this if the Chinese did it for the South
China Sea, or is that a hypothetical question that you will wait to bash the Chinese over
the head for once they - if and when they do it?
MS. PSAKI: It is a hypothetical question at this stage in time.
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: One more thing. Just one more thing on that. China at the same time has announced
they sent a fighter jet against United States and Japanese aircraft last week. Did you comment
on that?
MS. PSAKI: I am not familiar with that specific report. In - where, exactly?
QUESTION: If it's true, are you concerned about these Chinese announcement?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to look at the specific report, and that may be a DOD question.
James.
QUESTION: Given that China makes this declaration --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- and we regard it as thoroughly problematic, if not illegal, and therefore
we have on our hands a dispute with the Chinese --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- which is to be adjudicated somehow in a nonviolent way, wasn't it a kind of a
provocative act for the United States to fly B-52s through that very zone in a short time
thereafter?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to DOD on that, but I would reiterate the fact that
we have made clear that this action, this announcement, is not going to change our military
exercises. And that is an example of that.
QUESTION: So other than taking - other than the Vice President, are you aware - or has
there been at this point any conversations that you're aware of in this - from this building
with the Chinese directly? It's kind of on Jill's question. And if not, do you expect
them or is this going to be left up to the Vice President when he goes to --
MS. PSAKI: Let me check. I know we have expressed concerns. I mentioned this last week, Matt,
so let me just make sure you have it.
QUESTION: Jen, the - Secretary Kerry did meet on Wednesday with a senior Chinese official?
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to --
QUESTION: On Wednesday, the vice premier.
QUESTION: Lu.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. PSAKI: I'd have to look back at that. It seems like a long time ago.
QUESTION: I know it does. And it was happening on Wednesday.
MS. PSAKI: Deputy Secretary Burns met last week with a Chinese official where this was
a topic of discussion. Also, Assistant Secretary Russel spoke with the ambassador about a week
ago, and Ambassador Locke has also been in touch, of course, on the ground. In terms
of specific contacts over the last couple of days, I'm happy to check and see what else
we can read out for all of you.
QUESTION: Are you taking this to the UN in any forum there?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any prediction of that, James, at this point in time.
QUESTION: New topic?
QUESTION: So it's strictly a bilateral or a multilateral thing, but outside the auspices
of the UN is how you're going to seek to resolve it?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have anything for you on it at this point. We're taking this
day by day. I conveyed for you what we've done and what we've communicated. But obviously,
we're taking steps day by day.
QUESTION: But is that a kind of - is that a consideration?
MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of, Elise. But obviously, we're taking this day by day.
QUESTION: Can we change --
QUESTION: New subject?
MS. PSAKI: Sure, Jill. Go ahead.
QUESTION: I'm still on China. Can you actually clarify this? China's argument is that we
institute the ADIZ that other countries have already instituted. If you're saying that
China does not have a right to do that, they can say, well, what's good for the goose is
good for the gander. And it doesn't seem like you have a legal foot to stand on. If you're
opposed to the way in which they did it or the extent of it, these can be a subject of
debate. And China has said we can get rid of our ADIZ if the Japanese get rid of theirs.
I mean, something like that could happen. But somehow - are you really saying that you
do not accept - you do not give China the right to declare a defense identification
zone?
MS. PSAKI: I think I've thoroughly outlined what our concerns are, so I'm not sure I have
much more to add to your question.
QUESTION: Just on another topic, Jen - sorry.
MS. PSAKI: Well, we were going to go to Jill next, and then I'm happy to go to you.
QUESTION: North Korea?
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: Merrill Newman.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: You've seen probably, or read at least, his so-called confession. Do you have
any comments about that, any reaction? And what is the latest on his status?
MS. PSAKI: Well, the latest is - and let me do this first and then I'll do the second
part. On November 30th, North Korea permitted the Embassy of Sweden, our protecting power,
to consular access to Merrill Newman. It - and given his advanced age and health conditions,
we continue to urge North Korea to release him so he may return home and reunite with
his family.
We, of course, have seen the Korean Central News Agency report regarding Mr. Newman's
detention. According to the report, he apologized for the misunderstanding that led him - led
to his detention. We don't have any other further information regarding the reason for
his detention. But again, given his age and health, we continue to call for North Korea
to release him as quickly as possible.
QUESTION: Do you believe that the North Korean - that that apology was - that he wrote and
that was released by the North Koreans - do you believe that he wrote that of his own
volition and that he - and do you have reason to believe that all of those things in that
apology are true?
MS. PSAKI: We just don't have any other further analysis. We've seen the same reports all
of you have seen, of course, about his interview and the publication of that, but I don't have
any other further analysis on it.
QUESTION: Are you aware if that - the subject of his quote, unquote "confession" came up
in the meeting with the Swedes?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything more on it, but I'm happy to check and see if there's
more detail we can outline for all of you.
QUESTION: Did the Swedes as for and did Mr. Newman sign a PAW?
MS. PSAKI: A Privacy Act waiver?
QUESTION: Correct.
MS. PSAKI: Yes, he did. That is why I am able to talk about him now.
QUESTION: Okay. So then if - since he has signed the waiver, would you take it back
to your - whoever it is that liaises with the Swedes on this --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I assume it's EAP, but I guess it could also be EUR - and find out if Mr. Newman,
in his discussions with the Swedes, talked at all about or said that he had freely made
this alleged confession and when it was that he recorded this or when it --
MS. PSAKI: I am happy to take that and see if there's more we can share.
Go ahead, Lesley.
QUESTION: Also, did the Swedes report back in what condition he is in? Has he been tortured?
Anything today? And how long did they meet with him, and was it in a jail? Was it in
a --
QUESTION: Guest house.
QUESTION: -- government - a guest house?
QUESTION: A jailhouse guest house.
MS. PSAKI: A guest house. I don't have many specifics on that. I'm happy to also check
with Matt's questions and to see if there's more we can share on that as well.
QUESTION: But didn't it include a --
QUESTION: But they did say - the Swedes did say that he --
QUESTION: -- physical examination of him?
QUESTION: The Swedes did, I think, say that he was --
MS. PSAKI: I believe they've spoken publicly about it.
QUESTION: -- that he was treated - that's he's being treated (inaudible), right?
MS. PSAKI: Right. I've seen those comments as well. So I don't have any other specifics
on it, but if there's more we share beyond what they've said publicly, I'm happy --
QUESTION: Including whether or not there was a physical examination of him during this
consular access?
QUESTION: I just want to get back to his confession. I mean, it is kind of written in language
that kind of fits the narrative that North Korea has been saying, and I'm just wondering
if you think that he wrote this. Are you - I mean, there's often times that you would say,
like, oh this person seemed under duress --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- or something like that. So I mean, I'm just - about this particular confession,
do you have any reason to believe that he did not confess to all of those things?
MS. PSAKI: I don't - I certainly understand why you're asking. I don't have any particular
analysis on it at this stage. I will see if this is something that our team is looking
into, and if there's more we can say about it specifically.
QUESTION: And what is this building doing to secure his release beyond calling for his
release from imprisonment? I mean, Ambassador King had tried months ago to go --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- for the other American under detention, Kenneth Bae. What's actually being
done to get them out?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our Swedish protecting power just visited with him two days ago, and obviously
that's an important component of reaching out to citizens who are detained in North
Korea. We certainly do continue to call for his release. I don't have any other predictions
or announcements on travel or visits of other officials at this point to tell you about.
QUESTION: But beyond those consular visits, I mean, is there any outreach to the Chinese
specially on behalf of Mr. Newman?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have more I can outline for all of you, but I can check and see if
there is any more to tell.
QUESTION: Have they been helpful the past with Kenneth Bae or with others? The Chinese
(inaudible)?
MS. PSAKI: They have been helpful, but there's not more specifics I can outline.
QUESTION: Through the Swedes are elsewhere, has North Korea communicated any demands or
requests of the United States that have to do with Newman or - as a prelude to his possible
release?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any more specifics on the contact with the Swedes and kind of
what the discussion entailed beyond confirming --
QUESTION: Well, any - in any forum, have they asked for anything from the United States?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any details on it. I am happy to check if there's any more to
share with all of you.
QUESTION: But you guys are in touch with the North Koreans directly, just to confirm?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we - as you know, we've long had a channel, but we've been working in this
case through our Swedish protective - protecting power.
QUESTION: But you have been in touch with the North Koreans specifically on his matter?
MS. PSAKI: On this specific case, not that I'm aware of, but I'm happy to check if there's
anything more on that.
QUESTION: Are you in touch with Mr. Newman's family?
MS. PSAKI: We are. We have been. Let me see if I have the detail of when we last spoke
with him - with his family. I don't have that detail for you. I'm happy to put that in the
pocket of things I'm going to check on.
QUESTION: And have they asked for you to help facilitate any kind of visit by them to North
Korea, given that this gentleman's actually - I mean, he's quite elderly --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- so you would imagine that if - there would be concern enough to try and
travel to visit him.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. I'm not aware of a request that they've made about that specifically,
but we can see.
QUESTION: So all the attention, really, is on this Mr. Newman. But as we've said, Kenneth
Bae has been held for quite a long time.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. You're right.
QUESTION: So in your efforts working with the Swedes or working to try and get the release,
I mean, are you emphasizing because of Mr. Newman's age and health that you need to get
him out right away, or are they part of a package that you think that they --
MS. PSAKI: I mean, we'd certainly like to see them both released as quickly as possible.
In terms of that level of detail, I just don't have that.
QUESTION: These American citizens being held against their will in a rogue state, they're
hostages, right?
MS. PSAKI: I mean, they're being held by the governments. The governments have confirmed
that, so I don't know that I need to categorize it further, James.
QUESTION: You don't regard them as hostages?
MS. PSAKI: Do we have another topic?
QUESTION: Yes. Could I move onto the --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.) (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- the Secretary's trip.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Okay. The portion to the West Bank and to Israel.
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yes. If you have more to share with us - today or yesterday, President Abbas,
the president of the Palestinian Authority, was so impressed with the Geneva success,
could be resolved. Would you look kindly at this suggestion?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I haven't seen those comments from him specifically. I know this has been
an idea floated out there. Our focus remains on the direct negotiations between the Israelis
and the Palestinians. We're a facilitator in that effort. There are certainly a number
of countries who have a great investment and great interest in the success - in a successful
outcome here, including the Arab League, including many other countries that want to contribute
to growing the Palestinian economy. But that's our focus, not on planning yet another conference.
QUESTION: And a Palestinian member of the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Ahmed Tibi, claims that
the 20,000 housing that the Israelis announced and they put on hold were actually not put
on hold, that there is - construction is ongoing. Do you have any information on that?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything new on that. I'd have to look into that for you.
Scott?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MS. PSAKI: Oh.
QUESTION: Can we stay on stay on that?
MS. PSAKI: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just on this idea of not necessarily a Geneva-type conference for the peace process,
but just the idea of internationalizing the process, would the United States - would the
Administration object to an internationalization of the peace process?
MS. PSAKI: Well, it's hard to know exactly what that means. Obviously, as you all are
well aware, there's direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians now. That's
what our focus is on, so certainly that's not a path we're pursuing.
QUESTION: Well, I think that the point that - right, it's not a path that you're pursuing
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- but the point that people who are suggesting that this might be a way to
go, the point that they make is that the United States has been the sole and unique arbiter,
mediator, facilitator, whatever you want to call it, of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
going back decades.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: And you haven't gotten anything out of it. There's been no success. It's been
one failure after another. Is it perhaps not time to try something new, is the argument
that these people would make.
MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, obviously, many people are going to make different arguments about
how it should proceed. We're less than halfway through the nine-month timeline here. There
are a number of countries that are engaged and invested, including, of course, the Arab
League, who, as you know, are in very close contact with the Palestinians and engaged
in this effort. There are many who are engaged with the Israelis in this effort. So our focus
remains on the direct negotiations, and I don't think we're at this point speculating
on a different alternative forum.
QUESTION: Well, let me - okay. Well, let me put it this way: Is it still the position
of the Administration that the United States has unique leverage and influence with both
sides that makes it the only logical or capable, competent, credible mediator for peace between
Israel and the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: I don't know that we've ever stated it exactly like that. We're playing a facilitator
role which both sides are comfortable with. There are other countries engaged with this
effort and certainly in touch with the Israelis and the Palestinians. I expect that will continue.
But in the meantime, we'll continue to play the facilitator role as long as it's productive.
QUESTION: Do you believe, does the Administration believe that the United States still has leverage
and influence with Israel or the Palestinians? I mean, you say, in reference to other questions
about, say, Mr. Newman or Mr. Bae in North Korea --
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: -- that the Chinese have influence with the North Koreans and you would like
But do you still think that the United States - does the Administration believe that it
has influence and leverage with either Israel or the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we have a close relationship with both. And obviously, we're at this point
because both sides decided to come to the table. I don't think it's about leverage.
There's - it's in the interest of both sides to come to an agreement on the final status
issues, and that's what they're working to do at this point.
QUESTION: Jen, could I just ask - there was an agreement --
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: -- reached last week between the EU and Israel which will allow Israel to actually
touch some funding for scientific research. There have been some problems because the
QUESTION: -- settlement areas in the West Bank. Is there an - I mean, does the American
- do America - does America believe that this is a good agreement for the EU and Israel,
and see if we have any particular view on the agreement last week.
QUESTION: And is - what is the message that Secretary Kerry's going to be bringing with
him when he visits Israel later on this week?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think he'll be talking to both sides about the importance of staying
firm with the timeline and working through the tough and difficult issues that they're
doing at the negotiating table, and reiterating the importance of coming to a peaceful end
to the final negotiations. And of course, when he's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu,
they'll certainly be discussing the recent P5+1 agreement with Iran and having an ongoing
dialogue about that as well.
QUESTION: And have there been any meetings, direct talks between the Israelis and Palestinians,
since the resignation of the Palestinian team?
MS. PSAKI: I don't have any updates on meetings at this point. I'll see if there's any more
we want to provide to all of you in terms of specific meetings and timing of that.
QUESTION: But I mean, since the last time the Secretary's been there, there's been another
announcement of new settlement construction.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: There's been the resignation of the Palestinian - it ust seems that without
him actually physically there holding their hand for hours at a time, that they're not
able to sustain it on their own.
MS. PSAKI: Well, they've had many meetings when he has not been there. So obviously,
we didn't expect this to be easy. We certainly are aware of some bumps in the road of late,
but both sides have also reaffirmed their commitment to seeing this through.
QUESTION: Would you really call those bumps in the road, though? I mean, particularly
on the - actually, on either side, whether it's the Israelis continuing to announce settlement
construction or the Palestinians' full negotiatiang team just giving up, it just doesn't seem
MS. PSAKI: Well, when the negotiating - and that's a good example. The negotiating team
- President Abbas reaffirmed his own commitment to seeing this through --
QUESTION: But it just --
MS. PSAKI: -- whether it was them or whether it was other officials in their place. So
they're continuing to move forward.
QUESTION: It just doesn't seem like they have the - while they may have the desire and the
dream that there'll be a peace deal. The motivation to actually do the hard work day in and day
out doesn't seem to be there. And so it does seem as if Secretary Kerry is the one holding
this together personally, and isn't there, like, a limit to how much he can do?
MS. PSAKI: Sure. That's why he has a team to help work through it every day.
QUESTION: Well, I meant more the parties themselves.
MS. PSAKI: You're right, but there also is a long timeframe we still have left. One of
the reasons committing to the nine-month timeframe was so important is because we knew there
would be challenging periods throughout the process. But both sides remain committed to
that, and so we'll continue to work through it.
QUESTION: But it doesn't sound like - unless you could disabuse us of the notion, it doesn't
sound like since Secretary Kerry's last trip in early November that there have actually
been any direct talks.
MS. PSAKI: I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. We just have always said we wouldn't confirm
every meeting.
QUESTION: Sure.
MS. PSAKI: So let me see if I can confirm any meetings since that point for all of you.
QUESTION: Jen, could you tell us if Ambassador Indyk is there now? Is he there? Is he in
the region? Is he - Ambassador Indyk, where --
MS. PSAKI: He's here. I saw him this morning.
QUESTION: He's here. Okay.
MS. PSAKI: Okay. Let's just do one or two more here.
Scott.
QUESTION: What is the U.S. view of what's going on in Thailand right now?
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly deeply regret the loss of life in Bangkok due to politically
motivated violence. We condemn violence as a means to achieve political objectives and
urge all sides to exercise restraint and respect the rule of law. We are concerned about the
Peaceful protest and freedom of expression are important aspects of democracy, of course.
of resolving political differences. We firmly believe all parties should work together to
resolve differences through peaceful dialogue in ways that strengthen democracy and rule
opposition leaders to also encourage restraint and peaceful dialogue. You may have also seen
that the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok issued a security message for U.S. citizens in Thailand
days, including at government facilities, in and outside of central Bangkok, and is
advising them to avoid areas of demonstration and to exercise caution.
said that he would accept nothing short of her resignation. Is that a responsible position
MS. PSAKI: We just continue to encourage all parties to work together to resolve their
differences. We, of course, have seen his comments, but I don't think we're going to
weigh in further at this point, aside from encouraging restraint on the ground.
QUESTION: Would you weigh in on the general amnesty bill that the ruling party failed
MS. PSAKI: I know - I don't know if I've spoken to that in the past, Scott. I'd have to - I
don't have anything for you on it at this particular moment, but I'm happy to follow
Okay, let's do two more here. In the back, you've been very patient.
the U.S. response to the Australian Government's rejection of the U.S. company Archer Daniels
MS. PSAKI: Well, we are disappointed by the Government of Australia's decision to reject
Archer Daniels Midland's proposed acquisition of GrainCorp. We do not - we do note that
current share in GrainCorp. The United States is the largest foreign investor - foreign
direct investor in Australia, with 132 billion in investment projects to date, and we look
QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.
legal, or religious information on Australian citizens as offered by Australian intelligence
MS. PSAKI: I don't have anything further or anything for you on a range of reports. I'm
certainly not going to comment on any of them. As you know, we're undergoing our own review
QUESTION: Jen, back to ADM for a second.
QUESTION: Did - was this issue, this proposed sale, bid by ADM raised at the AUSMIN ministerial
MS. PSAKI: It's a good question, Matt. I'd have to check. It wasn't one raised while
QUESTION: And if it was, did - was - were you given any indication that this is the
MS. PSAKI: I will check and see if it was even raised.
QUESTION: Do you have a reaction to the draft constitution in Egypt today?
QUESTION: Can I throw a Bahrain question at the end of that?
Well, we continue to track the constitutional process with interest, and we'll examine the
will occur tomorrow. The Egyptian people, of course, will decide the fate of the draft
constitution in a referendum. We will continue to support a transition process that leads
and civilian government based on the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, accountability,
and an open and competitive economy. So we will see when it is transferred, and we will
QUESTION: Yeah. Do you have any view on the government --
the prohibition of religious parties in Egypt?
Obviously, there are steps in there we may be complimentary of and others we may not
QUESTION: Does the decision of the - not to release this human rights campaigner when
he was eligible to be released? It was yesterday or today.
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. You can get it - if you just want to make it a TQ, that's fine.
MS. PSAKI: Yeah, that's fine. I believe I have something on it for you. Let's see. We
continue to encourage Bahrain to take the necessary steps to promote reconciliation
views in a peaceful manner. We have seen reports that the head of the Bahrain Center for Human
Rights Nabeel Rajab - is that who you're talking about - okay --
18 months of his two-year prison sentence and is scheduled to be released in May of
next year. We remain deeply concerned about the three-year prison sentence for leading
of freedom of expression and assembly, just as we urge all elements of Bahraini society
to engage in peaceful expressions of political opinion.
MS. PSAKI: Well, I believe we are concerned about his - we were concerned about his three-year
prison sentence, I believe. Let me check and see, but I believe that's what we're implying
QUESTION: I mean, this is not the first. I mean, there have been several other opposition
activists and so forth that have been detained. I mean, does this cast doubt on your encouraging
MS. PSAKI: Well, we certainly are encouraging them to take some step - to take necessary
steps to promote reconciliation. And obviously, each time that there is a case like this,
or about the overall relationship, but each time there has been an incident, we have certainly
QUESTION: Well, but each time - you say each time that there's been an incident. I mean,
there's a pattern of incidents. I mean, does that say something about their actual commitment
MS. PSAKI: Well, I don't have any more analysis on it for you.
QUESTION: Thank you.